Annual Report of Department of Immigration and Colonization.-Hon. Mr. Calder.

Consideration of the motion of Mr. Hume Cronyn for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King thereto, resumed from Tuesday, March 2. Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet), (translation): Mr. Speaker, being called upon, for the first time, to say a few words within these new parliamentary precincts, I feel it an urgent duty and a pleasant obligation to express myself in that beautiful French language which radiates among all nations for its limpidity and which owes it to its clearness to have been chosen as the universal language of diplomacy. If, in the course of our deliberations, we happen to use the English language now and then, I pray our friends who represent the majority to believe that we do so only out of courtesy towards them and because we want our remarks to be understood by everybody. But, for the present circumstance, since we are officially inaugurating this new temple of legislation, it is proper, nay, it is necessary that every member from the Province of Quebec should express himself in his own native tongue, showing clearly, thereby, that the most efficient means of turning a right to account is to exercise the same, especially under such solemn and serious circumstances as these. That being understood, I shall now enter upon the discussion of those matters which were laid before us. The other night, the hon. Acting Prime Minister thought it his duty to review the policy of the " tory ", unionist, imperialist government since the beginning of the war. That entitles me, it seems, to take a leaf from the book of the Acting Prime Minister and to review before this national assembly, as briefly as possible,, the policy followed during the same time by the Liberal party to which it is my privilege to belong. In one of his works, Abbe Barthelemy states that " to love one's country is to see to it that it is formidable abroad and peaceful at home ". From that quotation, that statement, it might be inferred that there are two kinds of patriotism, that the inhabitants of a country are called upon to give various tokens of their patriotic spirit according to varying circumstances, and that a distinction might be drawn between patriotism in times of peace and patriotism in times of war. During the last great war there were displayed in this country two different views of the duties imposed on us by wartime patriotism. When war broke out, we were certainly all of one mind in saying that this country was bound to help England and the Allies to ensure the triumph of their just cause. Differences of opinion arose as to whether we were legally, morally or in honour bound to do it; nevertheless, the capital fact remains that we were all agreed there was an obligation on our part, by whatever name it might be called. Starting from that principle, the rulers at that time, headed by Sir Robert Borden, thought that Canada should take

part in the world-wide war from entirely imperialistic or solely military considerations, which the opposition forces based their claim upon a truly liberal notion, upon an idea which was Canadian rather than imperialistic. These were the principles underlying the first view, that is the exclusively militarist view: The interests of the empire were to supersede those of Canada; we had to give up our last man and our last dollar and, if necessary, to lay aside our constitutional law, to rule the country through unusual Orders in Council and even to so break the Constitution as to put upon our statute books a law called the compulsory military *service Act, which is unfair, nefarious and unconstitutional. We opposed the passing of that legislation because we thought - and we still think so-the fundamental laws of this country did not allow the .Government to sanction such a principle. We opposed it because we hold - and we still hold - that Canada should only take past in the war according to her resources, and that an exclusively militarist patriotism was a dangerous error,, that is should be subjected to and guided by the purest economic patriotism. We begged the Government to protect oui economic interests, to spend cautiously, to increase production, to do all those things in order to avoid a financial cataclysm, to prevent the Allies from starving to death. Aud we thought that by the most energetic use of our resources so as to procure food and munitions to the Allies, we would be discharging a large part of our obligations as a self-governing colony of the British empire. Blinded by their extreme imperialism, their wild militarism,, the Government replied to every remark we made to them when there was a question of rebuilding our economic framework, of reducing the expenditure, of taking measures in order to prevent a rise in the cost of living, of obeying the Constitution and respecting the franchise and the constitutional rights of every citizen of this country - to every one of those remarks the Government replied: " The war must be won ", and they would not take the preventive measures we suggested so as to avoid the financial, economic, moral and political cataclysm which now overwhelms our country. They not only turned a deaf ear to our representation, but they thought fit to insult, to despise and to slander us. During the elections of 1917, which were won through numerous fraudulent practices made possible by the Military Voters Act, through the disfranchisement of a large number of British citizens by that unfair, or rather infernal law named the War-time Elections Act, a campaign of prejudices was especially directed against the inhabitants of the province of Quebec. We were being branded as deserters, cowards, slackers, because we advocated as a minimum of satisfaction, a referendum on conscription. The present situation through which Canada is passing, the financial unrest with which the country is seething, the labour disturbances we witness with tearful eyes, the radical change which has taken place in the feelings of our population, as a result of the anti-Canadian policy carried out by the torydmperialist-un'ionist Parliament, warrant, to my mind, the decided stand we have taken from the very outbreak of the war, and which we have maintained during the prosecution of the war. How the times have changed? In 1917, we were cowards and traitors. To-day, the Province of Quebec is the best balanced of the provinces of Canada; it is the pivotal province from different viewpoints, such as the maintenant of social order and peace, labour and production. We are being flattered, complimented; in short we are the best fellows in the world. In this connection, let me quote an extract from an editorial that appeared in the columns of The Farmers' Sun on February 11, 1920. This is the headline of this article: Quebec then and now. It is funny to hear the big interests making love to Quebec. No Bolshevism there. No Demagogues preaching sedition. No labour agitation. A contented, hardworking, thrifty people. A safe and sane province, where you may invest your money at seven per oent, in privately owned concerns, unmolested by Government ownership. The finest province of Canada, and a glorious example to the turbulent West, with its organized farmers and labour men. It is for the French Canadian to laugh, perhaps rather bitterly. Only two years ago they were being denounced as slackers and traitors. The whole province was boiling with sedition. The sturdy men of Ontario ought to go down to Quebec and clear the French Canadians out. They were priest-ridden. They were anti-British. "Shall Quebec rule?" was the war cry. And now these fire-eaters are down on their marrow-hones, offering incense to Quebec. Why? Have the French Canadians changed their character? We have seen no evidence of it. The secret is that their votes are wanted for high protection and the big interests. "Come back" cries the agonized father, "and all will be forgiven." No; even that does not quite describe it. "'Come foaick and we will beg your forgiveness for all the hard things we said in 1917. Instead of albuse we will give you flattery. Instead of charging you with sedition we (will give you a certificate of character as 'bulwarks of defence against Bolshevism. Only stand by the sacred tariff and the big interests and the big profits, and we will exalt Quebec above Ontario as the premier province of Canada." As we say, if is for Quebec to laugh. But what opinion must French Canadians hold of those who have passed from violent abuse to flattery based upon selfishness? In this editorial, sir, there is to be found a certain amount of truth, but not the whole truth. Allow me to supply the deficiencies. The French-Canadians were not the only ones who were insulted, branded as disloyal men, traitors, deserters, during the prosecution of the great war. I remember that the farmers of the English-speaking provinces who were opposed to conscription, or at least to its being enforced in their midst, as energetically as we Liberals of Quebec, were opposed to it, were also branded by these gentlemen of the Unionist party as a band of traitors, disloyal citizens, slackers and deserters. It is no doubt within your recollection, Sir, that, during the elections of 1917, as stated by the ' Farmers' Sun" that the elections in the English-speaking provinces were carried on and (fought on the back of the province of Quebec and of the French-Canadians. As the farmers of the English-speaking provinces felt reluctant to conscription and were by no means favourable to it, an election dodge was resorted to and that famous order in council was passed, supplemented by the decision of Judge Duff in the case of Rowntree, to the effect that farmers should not be called to the colours, but on the contrary, should be exempted; because, as they said, national interest, the interest of the empire required an increase of production and farmers only could produce food for the Allies. Then, after dispelling the fear experienced by the farmers of the Englishspeaking provinces of being conscripted, they were told: "No popery! no French domination! no Quebec rule! and the election was carried. Six months later, the same national interest under which the farmers in general were exempted, required of the Government, as stated by the Prime Minister, Mr. Borden, that the exemptions be cancelled in the case of young men from twenty to twenty-three years old and that the sons of farmers be conscripted. This was the occasion of a general protest voiced by the farmers of the English provinces, and we witnessed in Ottawa that monstrous delegation of Ontario farmers at the head of which was the new member from North Ontario (Robert H. Halbert) as chairman of the Ontario United Farmers, and the new Minister of Agriculture in the Ontario government, Mr. Manning Doherty. They came here to ask the government to fulfil their promise, to exempt the farmers' sons. You know how they were received. They were politely turned away by the Unionist government of the day under the leadership of Mr. Borden, with among its members the honourable member for Marquette (Mr. T. A. Crerar), then Minister of Agriculture. Moreover, the order in council contained a proviso by which it was to be submitted to the House of Commons for its ratification. Three votes were taken on that question at the session of 1918. A motion was made by my honourable friend for Proven-cher (Mr. J. P. Molloy) to the effect that the said order in council cancelling the exemptions should not apply to the farmers. What was the result? All the Tory-Unionist-Imperialist members voted against that motion, and among the Tory-Unionist representatives was the hon. member for Marquette, the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. T. A. Crerar), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. T. MacNutt), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson), and all the so called upholders of the interests of the agricultural class in this House and in the country at large. I am, Sir, a steady reader of the "Farmers' Sun" since its foundation and, previously, I used to read the "Weekly Sun" which has been succeeded by the "Farmers' Sun". Following that rebuff, the new member for North Ontario, accompanied by Mr. Burnaby and Mr. Manning Doherty, travelled all over the province of Ontario, saying that the Unionist government who had among their members the honourable member for Marquette, who had among their supporters the honourable members for Red Deer, Saltcoats and Qu'Appelle and all the other unionists who are to-day the so called farmers, were treacherous to the farmers, etc., because they had cancelled the exemptions for the young men of 20 to 23 years old and had refused to exempt the farmers. Either the honourable member for North Ontario was a humbug when he came here at the head of the farmers' delegation and was holding meetings to protest; either he is a humbug to-day in accepting as his leader the honourable member for Marquette who was the then Minister of Agri-

culture, and in accepting also to sit as a member of the same party with all those old unionist members who do not agree with him upon such a vital matter as the Military Service Act. It can be asserted that if there ever were oppressors of the agricultural class, the Unionist government should be mentioned, as also the honourable member for Marquette, then Minister of Agriculture, as also the honourable members for Red Deer, Saltcoats and Qu'Appelle. But, Sir, all of those Unionist members, now farmers, including the honourable member for Marquette, have insulted us in 1917 the same as the others; they have insulted Quebec in 1917, just as the others did and to-day they are also dancing attendance on us. The big interests mentioned by the "Farmers' Sun" are not the only ones doing so. Those so-called defenders of the agricultural class of the Western provinces who joined the big interests in 1917 to heap insults on us are now paying their court to us, and why? Because they are anxious that we, belonging of the Liberal party should join hands with them on a question of economies, on a question of free trade. The insults of 1917 did not move us; neither are we moved by the present time fawning, wherever it comes from. Yesterday afternoon the honourable member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) answering the honourable member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) who had suggested a provincial conference in order to try the settlement of the racial difficulties, said: "Quebec is not ready to discuss just now; it is biding its time." Then the honourable member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), in his peculiar bombastic manner, asked the representative for St. Hyacinthe if his statement was a threat, and the honourable member for St. Hyacinthe answered, very truly indeed, that it was nothing but a declaration of principle. We do not see our way, Sir, to discuss with people who want conference without stating the why and the wherefore of such conference. Is the honourable member for Parkdale going to come, as suggested by the "Farmers' Sun," and beg the pardon of the member for St. Hyacinthe for having called his countrymen traitors and disloyal? Is the honourable member for Peterborough going to beg the pardon of the electors and the members of the province of Quebec, in that conference, for having said that the citizens, of the province of Quebec were slackers? Would perchance the honourable member for Red Deer, if he were at this conference, come and beg pardon for having voted for the cancelling of the exemption of the young men of twenty to twenty three years of age? Would perchance the honourable member for Marquette, a minister in the Unionist government, come to this conference and beg our pardon, of us of the province of Quebec, and also perhaps that of the Ontario farmers for having as a minister, refused to exempt the farmers' sons, when six months before, as a member of the' Government, he had passed an order in council exempting them? This proposal of a conference has no ground to stand on. There is no need for discussion at this time. The position we have taken, we took before the country and we will continue to hold it until the Government, who cling to . power like grim death, shall give us an opportunity of going back to the electors, as is asked by the leader of the Opposition in his motion of amendement. The honourable member for St. Hyacinthe did not make an appeal for retallia-tion. He expressed our feelings, the unanimous sentiment of the whole province of Quebec. For our high-mindedness, our self respect revolt at the sight of such fawning from people of the West and Ontario. Such interested flattery is indulged in with the object of dividing us in order that they may better control and persecute us. We have always been tolerant. In the province of Quebec, justice is done to whom justice is due; we do not do to others what we do not want others to do to us. Our tolerance is not one of opportunism, as that of the jingoes, the tories, unionists and imperialists of Ontario, nor that of the so-called defenders of the agricultural class in the country. Our tolerance is not a matter of opportunism, it is immutable. It has its roots in our liberalism; it has been taught to us by that great patriot Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, as every one acknowledges today, spent his life preaching the union of the races, concord and harmony between them; and not preaching the amalgamation or assimilation of them. If his appeals have not been heard; if today we are threatened with social warfare, with a war of races, with a war of religions, a war of classes, the responsibility is on the heads not only of the Unionist government, but of the members for Marquette, for Red Deer, for Saltcoats, for Qu'Appelle, on all the Unionist members and on all the self-called defenders of the agricultural class,- excepting the four newly elected of this year-who have united to break the given word, to forswear their most solemn engage- ments towards the farmers of the country, to kindle the fire of passions and prejudices against a race, against a province which has always done its duty towards the Dominion, and which gives to-day to the other provinces of Canada the example of work, of moderation, of tolerance, as is admitted by all the newspapers supporting the Unionist government and the so-called Farmers' party. In 1918, in the month of November, the armistice was signed, and in the course of the first session of 1919 was brought down the Covenant of the League of Nations. In this document It is said that the principal object in view in the formation of the League of Nations was to prevent future wars, and to that effect to reduce armaments. It was, no doubt, in order to reduce armaments and decrease military expenditure, that the Government caused to be presented during the same session, a Bill the object of which was to double the peace time military force of Canada and to raise it from 5,000 to 10,000 men. It meant a considerable increase of the military effectives, and of the military expenditure. The Opposition fought that Bill. We claimed that the war had been a war against war, and that if the Allies in their triumph had adopted the principle of the League of Nations, it was to the end of reducing armaments and military expenditures. A vote was taken. The whole Opposition voted against the increase of out forces and of our military expenditures; but again, the member for Marquette, the member for Red Deer and the other so-called defenders of the interests of the agricultural class in the country, either voted for such increase or abstained from voting. The Peace Treaty was signed in June 1919 and the Government, probably in their desire to maintain their majority, called a special session of Parliament for the purpose of ratifying the Treaty. Then what happened? There were differences of opinion upon the future obligations of this country, as regards the interpretation of article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. W. S. Fielding) in accord with the Liberal views, introduced an amendment providing for a reservation-an essential one, in my opinion - to the motion for which we were asked to vote in connection with the ratification of the Treaty. The reservation was asking that the Canadian Parliament be the only one to determine what should be our future obligations and whether we should take part in any future war and to what extent. The Liberal Opposition gave a solid vote in favour of that reservation which was essential, and again on that occasion the so-called friends of the farmers, the hon. member for Marquette and others, voted to have Canada tied hand and foot through the obligations imposed by Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations, without Parliament being consulted or the people having the privilege and the right to voice their opinion through their representatives. I remember very well that during the session of 1919, we noticed the extended absence of the hon. member for Red Deer, who, a few days later,, came to the House to teach the Opposition a lesson of diligence. It shows the interest hon. gentlemen were taking in the affairs of the country and in the welfare of the great agricultural community. As regards the question of autonomy, 1 wish to put on Hansard the following resolution, dealing with the subject, which was adopted at the Liberal convention, held in August 1919. Resolved that we strongly oppose any centralization of imperial control and that no organic change in the Canadian constitution as regards the relations of Canada to the Empire, be carried out, after its adoption by Parliament, without toeing ratified by the people by means of a referendum. That is true democracy and the best means to assure peace in this country. There is talk of a future imperial Conference to be held in the course of this year or next year. The policy of the Liberal party is that none of the decisions which may be made by the Conference shall be carried out unless they are approved by Parliament and afterwards ratified by the people by means of a plebiscite. This policy which we are supporting, calls for the fullest measure of autonomy and we shall support it to the end. The speech from the Throne has much more to say about external affairs than of home or -Canada issues. Why? Because the Government who are conducting the affairs of this country are still imbued with the same imperialistic ideas as before the war. As I reminded the House a moment ago, they doubled the military forces. We opposed the measure. General * Arthur Currie,, in addressing the Canadian Mining Institute in Vancouver, claimed that if we wanted to remain within the British Empire,' we must be ready to do our share, and should the occasion arise, to send at least 6 or 7 divisions to take part in future wars,

failing which we would have to leave the Empire. That is what you would call military imperialism on land. It is an express denial of the provisions of the Covenant of the Teague of Nations to which our representatives contributed in London and which provides for the reduction of armaments and the annihilation of militarism. As far as we are concerned we are against the plan suggested by General Currie. Then there is the amazing member for Parkdale, who, in his speeches in Toronto and elsewhere, advocates compulsory military training. That was rejected in United States and we are opposed to it, because we believe it would have no good effect in Canada. This does not mean the elimination of physical training in our schools, but we do not want any military training. There is a big difference between the two. We are also threatened with imperialism on the seas, namely with a new naval policy. Admiral Lord Jellicoe came to visit this country and malicious persons say that he took our sickly Prime Minister away with him for the purpose of persuading the people of South Africa to adopt a new naval policy. However the trip was cancelled, because the people of South Africa, who are possessed of a keen sense of national pride, would not be governed either by a foreign Prime Minister-even from Canada-or by an admiral of the British Fleet. That naval policy is imperialistic in its nature; it means military imperialism both on land and on the seas, and its plans involve considerable expenditure. We oppose them for a good many reasons. It is not absurd to suggest an increase in the public expenditure at a time when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and social revolution, and when we are not in a position to meet our obligations, compelled as we are to carry on by means of loans which are renewed from year to year. This reason is sufficient in itself. Again I submit that this naval policy is an absurdity under the present circumstances and the Government would do well to abandon their project rather than playing into the hands of the English imperialists and of the profiteers who are interested in the shipbuilding industry. As to the question of economic imperialism, the House will allow me to defer my observations on that subject until the discussion of the Budget. Canada fought four years to secure peace. Do we enjoy that peace which we were long- [Mr. Tniha.n. 1 ing for? What is the policy adopted by the Government to secure and preserve a real peace which is so essential to the progress and to the mental, moral and material prosperity of our dear country? Was it based upon the eternal principles of liberty, justice and charity like any social policy ought to be? Not at all. The Governmeent, in framing their policy, were the slaves of " plutocratic barbarism" and "socialistic barbarism," which are friends and foes at the same time and, though they seem to fight against one another, agree very well to exploit the consumers and to increase the cost of living. The Government have been constantly and faithfully feeding these two kinds of barbarism. They kept in the wake of the "Profiteers" and the "rioters," to use the forceful expression of Maurras of the Action Fran5ai.se. In the first place, let us take the tax exemption on Victory bonds which was taken off only last year. That exemption was intended to benefit the big capitalists at the expense of the great labouring and agricultural masses, of those who toil and suffer. The same capitalists who exacted from the workers and farmers the sacrifice of their lives were the first to fail in their duty, as far as financial aid to the country was concerned. They were the first to beg the Government to exempt them from paying their share of the war expenses. The result of that nefarious policy is that every year there is about fifteen hundred million dollars' worth of incomes which escape taxation. The Liberal party had to fight for two years before we succeeded in having that crying injustice removed. Therefore, I was right in stating, at least as far as that is concerned, that the Government were the slaves of the profiteers of this country. At the last session, which was supposed to have been called for the sole purpose of ratifying the Peace Treaty-as intimated in the speech from the Throne-the Government introduced in the dying days of that session and quite unexpectedly, a considerable Bill for the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway. We opposed that Bill very strongly, for the following reasons which we gave out at the time: The Bill is to benefit the English investors, i.e., the capitalists, at the expense of the Canadian ratepayers, and will cost this country hundreds of millions. According to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, we are assuming obligations which amounted to $707,929,817 in 1918, besides what we shall have to pay for the common and preferential stock of the company. It increases our debt which is already well above our means, specially if the present Government continues to support the profiteers, regardless of our national resources, which, I am glad to say, are inexhaustible. That policy will also result in the increasing of our annual deficits, notwithstanding the fact that every year, when the time comes to discuss the Budget, we hear hon. members on the opposite side of the House and the members of the Government say: " Where shall we take the money, where will it come from?" And these hon. gentlemen, who are always .at a loss how to make both ends meet, that expenses and income may balance each other, are in a great hurry to saddle the .country with a new undertaking which is bound, from the Government's own admission, to pile up yearly deficits. Another ground on which we opposed that policy is that it was a further step towards nationalization of public services or State ownership, a socialist principle of German origin which 'has resulted in destroying .competency, responsibilities and any sense of personal interest in administration and in encouraging extravagance. To quote Sir Herbert Samuel, in .any public undertaking socialized or nationalized, cither the charges are fixed at a rate exceeding the cost price, and then it is an invisible tax, which is levied on every consumer, and at the same time the most burdensome tax, inasmuch as it is borne by ways of communication, by systems of freight and passenger transportation, or else they fall below the cost price, and in that case they are an invisible subsidy. This outright nationalization of public services has proved a dismal failure in the United States, and no later than March 1 last, after a Bill had been passed by Congress and Senate, the railway companies were handed over fo their private owners, while all State control came to an end. The State ownership principle is strongly opposed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd .George, at least as far as the nationalization of mines is concerned, and that great patriot, Mr. Asquith, .at his recent election at Paisley, the issue of which contest was a signal victory for him, emphatically condemned State ownership and more particularly the nationalization of coal mines. Even in France, where are to be found [DOT]State-operated railway companies and other railways operated by private companies, a recent experience shows that the ratio of losses on operating expenditures as compared with earnings, was higher with State-owned companies than with those under private ownership. This goes to show that when a public interest railway is operated by the State, there is waste and- extravagance and inefficiency. Nowadays in France, Socialists, .who are the outstanding exponents of State ownership, are becoming somewhat lukewarm in advocating this system, and Mr. Millerand, the new Prime Minister of France, who is a Socialist leader, made, on January 22, 1920, before the House of Representatives, the following statement: The condition of its budgets now forbids the State, regardless of our doctrinal pred'ilictions, exclusively to assume outlay on larger public works indlispensable to the development of national wealth. The development of such works is to be secured through a formula which renders the (State, controller and part benefit-sharer, a partner witih the interested' collectivities and private initiative, which to larger extent than ever must .be fostered and' encouraged. What follows from such a statement, Sir? Thait even in countries with an advanced school of thought, the conclusion reached, from experience, is that it is better to encourage private initiative than to nationalize .public services, the more so at a time when currency is depreciated and public (finances are so crippled and strained almost to the breaking point. Were I allowed to put on record my own (views in this connection, I should suggest that the Government accept as a basis of its policy in railway matters the principles eet .forth in a work entitled: "L'Avenir de la France"-The Future of France: Legislators, says the author, should, not aim [DOT]at framing a programme squaring with political formulas, but should, endeavour to obtain maximum yields ; the .State should visualize commercial results. The operating earnings and [DOT]their consequences so far *as the increase of collective well-being and national wealth is concerned, ought to warrant the State in controlling private initiative. Therefore, we do not coincide in the views held by certain political men who want the .State forcibly to proceed to the repurchase of railway companies. Quite the contrary, an extension of charters is the system which seems to 'be required, against a rental paid by the companies to the State, under the obligation for the former to improve their systems, their operating methods, and possibly by .imposing benefit-sharing for the future. Such is the principle which, in my opinion, should be adopted. Another fact which shows the trend of opinion among members of Union Government towards socialism is the principle acted on in the classification of the Civil Service: same work, same salary. It is a socialist doctrine which ignores the fact that

qualification for work and co-ordination being quite different in men, the earning power is of necessity different in each individual. Moreover, that method tends to abolish initiative, to encourage routine work and to create an injustice toward those who are better qualified and who, on account of their ability, are producing the most. In fact, the work becomes purely material instead of intellectual. Instead of following the principles as set out in the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty, instead of treating men as human beings and of proportioning their reward to the efforts produced by their intelligence, which is the first and main factor of all our actions, they regard them as mere machines by giving them, a uniform status. They say: " For the same kind of work you shall receive the same amount of remuneration, regardless of your qualifications, technical knowledge or special studies." That is the socialist principle which has been introduced in the legislation of this country by the present Government. We are complaining of the people deserting the land. They say the farms are idle, that agriculture has divorced from modern life and that the young people are leaving the country to go and live in the cities where they .become intoxicated with various poisons. There undoubtedly exists a social plague, a moral disease which nobody can deny; it is evidenced by the census figures. What did the Government do to remedy that situation? All they did during the war was f to enlist the farmers and their sons, with the support of the hon. members for Marquette and Red Deer, and to let the munition workers earn large wages in their manufactures. That is what happened. The Government saw to it that the farmers sacrificed their lives, being supported in that policy by the members for Marquette and Red Deer and all the so-called defenders of the agricultural class, but they did not exact the same sacrifice from the workingmen. They said to the farmers: "You shall go to the trenches and earn $1.10 a day," and to the workingmen: "Go to the cities, enjoy all the advantages and earn remarkably big wages, much bigger than you ever earned before." That is one of the principal causes of the desertion of the land, namely the adoption by the Government of a shameful and unjust policy for two different classes of the community. They made city life one of comfort, and they intend to make it still more comfortable. How will they do it? The hon. President of the Privy Council went to Washington, where he fought with indomitable energy in favour of the adoption of the principle of the eight-hour day. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that there is a universal law which is as old as the world itself and which provides for the increasing of national wealth, the intensification of production and the reduction of the burden of national indebtedness. We shall have the very opposite result if we adopt the principle of the eight-hour day, and there will be a much greater discrimination against the agricultural workers. No wonder the latter are going to the cities. ' Mr. Speaker, if, as unanimously proclaimed, we are enjoying in the province of Quebec to-day greater prosperity than the other provinces, if we have peace, order and harmony, it is because our people have been used by the teachings of the school and the church, to practise the great and eternal laws of work and sacrifice. It is because the people on our farms are not afraid to work effectively to reap from the fertile soil of the province of Quebec its maximum of production. It is because the workers in our cities do not hesitate to follow the teachings of the most competent religious authorities which command them to respect the rights of their fellow-citizens and to fulfil their civic duties properly. That may be considered as a somewhat doctrinal and religious argument; but, no matter, I agree with those who assert that you must not worship God at home and then forswear Him in public. I contend that a man in public life who is thoughtful of his responsibilities, must adopt the same course in Parliament, on the hustings and in private life, always and everywhere. We are suffering from another social disease: Luxury. To-day, nobody wants to work; they all wish to enjoy the pleasures of life, and they are all anxious to become rich. The president of Queen's University of Kingston, in an address which he delivered recently, said that the people of Canada were sinking into materialism and that you could hear of nothing else but money, and money all the time. If we want to carry out this work of social and Christian regeneration of our country, we must discard that materialism. There appeared in the columns of a Quebec newspaper, on February 16, of this year a striking article, under this heading: There will be improvement all round when . . in these times of stress when the shrewdest minds are despairing of the future of the country, good sense is here to set our minds at rest, on condition that we do its bidding. And do you know what good sense would tell us, were it questioned as to how the alarming situation of the present times could be remedied? Good sense would tell us that things in general will improve : When there will be more alarm clocks in our homes than jewellery; When there will be more flannel petticoats than silken skirts ; When there will be found at home more slippers than fancy shoes; When there will be more smock frocks or over-alls than fancy dresses; When there will he more aprons and fewer decolletes; When there will be fewer people in shops and more tillers of the soil on the farms ; When less time will be devoted to moving pictures and theatres and a little more to work at home; When " more cows " will be kept on the farm, and there will he fewer pianos in our homes, as remarked one day by Dr. Grignon, an agricultural lecturer ; When there will be a larger number of producers than of consumers; When people will learn how to bend their energies toward their task, and will entertain a lesser dread of labour; When people will devote more attention to making deposits in savings banks, instead of squandering their money on trifles. When people will be able and willing to make sacrifices and deprive themselves, instead of indulging in extravagant expenditures; When they will realize that idleness is the mother of poverty, and work the parent of wealth; When they will pause to ponder that this racing towards the abyss has but one issue, at the end of the trail, that is the abyss itself; When people will set about acting on the principles of Christianity, and a little less over the principles of paganism. When classes will have a clearer notion of solidarity and social duty. Mr. Speaker, weie those suggestions lived up to, I am convinced that many difficulties we have to grapple with to-day would be bridged over and settled; I have not the least doubt that this seething unrest would soon be on the wane; that every one would faithfully discharge his every day duties and work not only in his own interest, but also in the general interest of the country. The hon. member for Parkdale told us yesterday, with his wonted flow of words: " I was astounded, when I joined the Unionist party, to meet there so many radicals; it is remarkable how many men with extreme ideas are to be found in that party." May I be allowed to refer for a moment to the etymological definition given by a French journalist of the word radical. Radical, says he, is derived from the word " radis " (radish) which means red outwardly, white internally and it is always found near the butter plate. The hon. gentleman is an enthusiast, a proud man, easily stirred up, who is flushed with joy to-day at being a member of the Unionist party and at being indebted for his election to the insults and slanderous attacks levelled at a sane and honest population. But it is white in the interior that is to say, a whited sepulchre, when he comes down and hypocritically suggests as he did yesterday, that we enter into conferences, without telling us what we are to confer about. Moreover his supreme ambition is to remain as near the butter plate as possible, to support the Government to prevent elections being held, as he is aware that the Government would be defeated, and that is why he feels himself at home and so comfortable in the Unionist party. . We do not want to have anything to do with that radicalism I have just referred to. We spurn those empyric methods, because we abhor materialism. On this side of the House, we are content with subscribing to and acting upon the principles of that pure liberalism we are wedded to, namely, science, honesty, charity, toleration, elevation of thought, justice and faith in the destinies of Canada. We put into practice those eternal laws, love of work and of sacrifice; we are proud and happy to proclaim that we, members of this House, from the province of Quebec, belong to a re-ligous people, and we are not afraid to affirm that a business policy, willing or unwilling, rests upon a religious principle, and not on the worship of the God-state of ancient Rome or of Germany. Fault is found with us for submitting this amendment to the House and contending that the time is opportune for an election. " Why, you are not in earnest, you know that you have no chance of being returned, and that you shall be beaten at the polls." Let the right hon. Prime Minister allow me to tell him that this is no answer. The question is not whether the Liberal party will be defeated at the next elections, but whether democratic principles and responsible Government are to be upheld or to win the day. Clemenceau during the war, used to say, just like this Government: " Je fais la guerre "-" I am waging war." When a successor to that gentleman was to be elected, the French parliamentarians said: " This will be a peace government and the man who presided over the course of the war may not be qualified to direct the peace government." And they elected another man, M. Deschanel, as president of

the republic. It is the same as regards our country. We say: We have had a war government, but peace has come, war conditions have ceased to exist for a year. We should have a peace government now and it is for the people to choose the members of the government which will have to administer the public business in time of peace. They say: "Why, you will be defeated." And what of it. It is not success that matters, but our duty. We do not seek for honour nor profits; we stand up, not for private interests but for public interest and we aim to build in Canada a nation where greatness shall be based on justice and kindness, on work and social peace, on liberty and sacrifice.