Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :

Mr. Speaker, a regretful occurrence, whereby the courteous words uttered by the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last Thursday were met by something akin to

an impertinence on the part of the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) precludes me from congratulating him on his attainment to high offices lest I should be willing to take the risk of being the subject of a similar sharpness.

Mr. BUREAU:

Hear, hear.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

I am happy,

however, to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address for the most interesting speeches they have delivered. Indeed, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) upon the lofty remarks he made regarding unity and harmony in . this country. The hon. gentleman evidently felt that it was the least he was bound to say, since the Prime Minister, who declares on every platform that he has a new love for Quebec and the French speaking people, had seen fit to deviate this year from the usual custom of having the reply to the Address seconded in the French language. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that time will not permit me to answer the funeral oration that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) has delivered on the already cold body of the Government, but I should like to correct a remark made by my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Harrison) regarding the pensions of the Grand Trunk employees. My hon. friend, if I understood him aright, tried to cast an aspersion on the sincerity of the hon. the leader of the Opposition regarding those employees. My hon. friend is to-day much more deeply concerned about the welfare of the Grand Trunk employees than he was when the Grand Trunk legislation was passed and when the hon. the leader of the Opposition presented a motion with regard to the Grand Trunk bill in the following terms:

That this Bill be not now read a third1 time but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by adding the following section:

Any right or interest of any employee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company existing in the pensions fund prior to the strike of the Company's employees which occurred in July, 1910, is hereby declared not to have been affected by such strike or any circumstance or condition arising out of or in connection therewith.

This motion was presented to the House on Friday, April 23, 1920. In looking over the list of members who voted I fail to see the name of the hon. member for Nipissing. If I remember well, instead of voting for the employees of the Grand Trunk on that

occasion, he did the aeroplane act and flew out of the room.

The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, sins by omission. True it contains a somewhat clumsy attempt on the part of the adviser to His Excellency to draw into this debate the question of the tariff, which should be discussed when the Budget speech is brought down. But it is so clear a repetition of the campaign of the Prime Minister last fall in an dffort to becloud the real issue before the people- that is, whether or not this Government has the right to remain in office-it is so clear an attempt to prevent discussion on most momentous questions that I was not surprised to see in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the tariff. The word is: "Shut off all discussion on perilous questions, and becloud the issue as was done in 1911 and in 1917." But, as we say in French, the hon. Prime Minister "a eompte sans ses hotes."

The amendment to the Address calls for a dissolution of the House. I should only be repeating arguments that have already been brought before the House by previous speakers were I to read articles which were written or cite speeches which were made during the election of 1917 to prove that at that time there was only one issue before the people, the question of the conduct of the war, that all other important questions were put aside for the moment, and that whenever we tried to discuss them with the electors in our different constituencies, this same answer came every time: "This is not the time to discuss these questions. This is a war election, and when the war is over the Government will resign and go to the country and we will then discuss all these important questions in the interests of the people.' I may be permitted however, Mr. Speaker, to quote a brief extract from an article published in that now famous paper known as "Knots and Lashings," supervised by the Government, in its issue of December 15, 1917. I read:

There is one and only one election issue to * be considered: shall we send reinforcements

to the Front? If we shall aid our comrades, vote Union. If we shall desert our comrades, vote another way. The coming election is unique in two respects. It is being fought upon one issue, and one only.-that of compulsory service by the selective draft system. There are no other issues, because no other issue is big enough to intrude itself or be forced upon the consideration of men who are called upon to determine whether Canada is to hold her share of the line or drop out.

Sir, this was published in that most famous paper, which gave precise instructions to the men as to how they could perjure themselves and at the same time escape, through the good offices of a benevolent commissioner, the gaol penalty.

I will also deal, after referring to the omissions in the Speech from the Throne, with the-what shall I call it?-"please come-to-my-rescue" attitude of the Government towards Quebec, and I shall apply lightly-oh, very lightly, Mr. Speaker-the sterilized tweezers to the abscess which last Thursday came to a head in this House, burst, spurted out, and splashed the high ethics of parliamentary decency and the victim himself.

What are the issues which are not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne but which are of momentous interest to the House and to the country, and on which the Government never had any mandate to decide policies? First, there is the railway problem. Then there is the question of the government-owned merchant marine. Then there is the Imperial Conference which is to be held in London next June. There is also the question of loans to bankrupt countries. These are momentous questions, which every one will admit were not discussed during the elections of 1917 and on which the Government has policies which were not determined, were not even presented or discussed with the people at that time. The Government has inaugurated most definite and novel policies on most of these questions, for the determination of which they have no mandate; nevertheless there is not a line about these matters in the speech from the Throne.

Take the railway policy for example. No one will deny that the railway question in this country is a most important one. No one will deny that prior to 1917, when the Canadian Northern Railway deal was being put'thro ugh, and in 1919, when the Grand Trunk deal was put through, the policy of the Canadian people with regard to railways was private ownership. Can any hon. gentleman say that this question was discussed before the electorate? Can any hon. geptleman say that this Government went before the people in 1917, with the statement that they had decided to change from the time-immemorial Canadian Railway policy of private ownership to nationalization? Simply to ask the question is to get the answer that the Government had no mandate to determine such a policy.

I remember attempting- to discuss this question of the Canadian Northern with a Liberal of my riding who expressed his regret that, for the first time in his life, he had to give a vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier: He said to me, "I am against this Government on practically every measure that they have brought into the House; I do not accept their policy; I blame them for many things; I blame them, for instance, in connection with the question of nationalization of railways. But," he said, "there is only one question, the question of conscription"-and I wish you, Sir, to consider this remark-"and do you think that men like Mr. Carvell, Mr. Maclean and Mr. Guthrie who in Parliament have been bitterly opposed to nationalization of railways, would have entered the Union Government if this question could have been settled by the Union Government? "No," he told me, "these men entered the Union Government for the purpose of winning the war because they thought conscription was the best policy; but they are going to resign as soon as the war is over, because we have the promise from the Government that the Union Government was formed only during the time of the war; they will go to the people; they will discuss all these questions, and I shall be very happy to join again the ranks of the Liberal party."

Practically every country in the world has tried the policy of nationalization of railways and has discarded it. It would be tedious to the House if I were to read articles coming from different countries showing the utter failure of nationalization of railways; but may I be permitted to read just a few lines from the annual report of the president of our greatest financial institution, the Bank of Montreal? I quote the words of Sir Vincent Meredith:

Canada to-day has a very larg-e national railway system which is being operated at a heavy loss, thereby increasing the load on an already heavily taxburdened country. Sooner or later some means must be found to relieve this situation. Some confidently believe that by proper public administration of the lines, deficits can be cut down. My own view is that the proper solution will be found if the Government at the earliest feasible time, divests itself of ownership and operation of the roads and places them under corporate control upon terms fair to the country and upon. conditions that will ensure the service for which the construction of the lines was undertaken.

Then there is the question of the Government-owned merchant marine. Can the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr.

Ballantyne) state to the House that in 1917 when he ran in St. Lawrence, he discussed the question of a government-owned merchant marine with his electors? Can he say that he was elected on a policy of a government-owned merchant marine? I know that he cannot and he will admit that it was an entirely new departure from the usual and time-immemorial policy of the Canadian Government. Private ownership of merchant marine was the ordinary policy, and this is a new and novel policy. Has the Government then any mandate to go on and spend, as they did last year, $70,000,000 and to give contracts without tenders? Can any hon. member say that the Government has a mandate for such a policy? I will cite the opinion of the same gentleman, Sir Vincent Meredith, in the same annual report of the 7th December, 1920, regarding this policy:

In the same connection, and speaking for myself alone, it would apepar desirable that no more national expenditure should1 be made for the building of ships. While a programme of shipbuilding during the war was commendable, subsequent developments dictate a modified' policy. In June, 1914, the world tonnage totalled 49,000,000 tons; in June, 1920, it had risen to 57,300,000 tons, and. in addition, at the end of September this year there were 7,565,000 tons under construction. Tonnage at present exceeds requirements' and in expectation of rate reduction and shrinkage in earnings, construction abroad has already been arrested, and empty tonnage is now laid up in many ports. There is no ground for the belief that this condition will quickly pass. The United States recently failed to secure bids for standard ships; Japan has .cancelled orders for 1,000,000 tons in her own shipyards, and Norway is cancelling orders in Great Britain. These factors constitute, in my opinion, a danger signal that Canada might well heed and stop all further new construction.

Still, we read in the press that not later than a month or two months ago new Government ships were launched.

I come to another question which, in my opinion, is of paramount interest and of which also not a word was said in the speech from the Throne. There is to be held in London next June an Imperial Conference to which all the Prime Ministers of the Dominions have been invited and at which the internal as well as the external policy of the Empire is going to be discussed and decided. In the speech from the Throne at the opening of the British Parliament, His Majesty the King hoped that the conference would be "of the utmost value in bringing about coordination both in the external and the internal policy of the Empire." In a recent speech before the English-speaking

union, Mr. Winston Churchill, the new minister for the colonies, referring to that conference, stated "that an effective policy regarding ' Ireland, Egypt, and India will be discussed."

Why, Sir, not later than the 16th of February, this present month, the Prime Minister of England in his opening speech in Parliament, spoke of the intended conference and about the Dominions taking a share in the defence of the Empire. He also announced a far-reaching change in Imperial relations. Only last summer, a distinguished visitor from Great Britain inquired of some newspaper men whether in the case of a rebellion in India, Canada would be ready to send troops, What is the policy of the Government on these matters? What is that far-reaching change that is foreshadowed in Imperial relations? Is it possible that when His Majesty the King deems it important enough to be referred to in the speech from the Throne, when the Prime Minister of England thinks it important enough to mention in his opening speech in Parliament, and when a high official coming to this country from England speaks of this conference, and the possibility of Canada sending troops to India, that the Prime Minister of this country thinks it so negligible a matter as not to interest the people of Canada.

What is the mandate that was given to the members of the Government on this question? We would like to know the policy of our delegates. We have had very commendable delegates, it is true, men of talent who have done honour to Canada, but they went to these conferences in Europe without telling the representatives of the people in Parliament w;hat would be their policy, and without even asking the members of Parliament to determine a policy upon which they would stand. We had a very significant example of this state of affairs only recently when the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), before the League of Nations, proposed as an amendment to the League of Nations exactly what the Opposition proposed in the House, and which was voted down by the Government supporters. Then, Sir, I ask is it not fair to dissolve the House and formulate a policy on this most important question and let the people decide whether or not this policy is incompatible with Canadian interests.

I may be asked where I stand on this matter. I will be very frank and brief. I want the delegates not to deviate from the principle that under all circumstances no

matter that they may be, Canada's interests shall be first and foremost at all times.

Sir, through the will of Providence, we descendants of France became British subjects. Nature itself forbids us to deny the blood which flows in our veins. We have preserved for our old motherland a filial love, a deep affection that will only die with the race itself. It is the same love which I find amongst my English-speaking compatriots for the country of their origin. As I said before, through circumstances we became British subjects, and as such we enjoy important privileges and liberties. It is our duty and our interest to have for Great Britain a loyal and devoted respect, but although we have that respect and that loyalty nobody can reasonably expect from us towards Great Britain and the Empire the same love born of the ties of kinship that is embedded in the hearts of our English-speaking compatriots; although we piously preserve for old France a deep affection, although we have a great respect and loyalty and devotion for England, there is another country which we love more, nay, a hundred times more than England or France, a country which deserves to occupy first place in the hearts of every true Canadian. It is my only country; it is the country in whose sacred soil seven generations of my ancestors are sleeping their last slumber; it is that vast half continent bordered by three oceans, broad enough for every race and every creed, sprinkled with silver lakes and rivers, containing in its bossom inexhaustible wealth, covered by verdant mountains and golden prairies, and draping itself in winter with a vast ermine cloak. I love that country more than France or England, and you, Mr. Speaker, like me, must notice a deep feeling grip hold of your throat when its blessed name flows from your lips-it is le Canada, mon pays, mes amours.

Sir, there is another question on which this Government has no mandate, a question which was never discussed during the elections of 1917. It is the question of the Purchasing Commission. Sir, in olden days ministers were courageous enough to take the responsibility of the management of their departments, but now, purchasing has been turned over to an irresponsible commission. It was created during the war, I understand, and probably was very useful during the war, but, of course, this policy was not discussed in the election of 1917. Was it ever approved by the people?

Was it even approved by the members of this House? If I remember well, the Bill, as my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Be-land) stated the other day, was introduced in the House in 1919, and it was killed, the hon. member who made the most aggressive attack on the Bill being a supporter of the Government, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart). It was reintroduced by another minister last year, but in face of impending disaster the sponge was thrown into the ring, and the Bill died a peaceful death. But the new Prime Minister, who claims to be a democratic Prime Minister, willing to submit to the will of the people and of the members of Parliament, if I am not mistaken, passed an order-in-council reviving the Commission, in utter disregard of the will of the people and the members of Parliament. Surely, the Government will not contend that they have a mandate to follow this new policy of shifting the responsibility for purchasing from the shoulders of the ministers of the different departments on to the shoulders of an irresponsible commission.

I could enumerate many other things of which there was no discussion in 1917 and for which the Government has no mandate. But let me come immediately to a matter in regard to which everyone will admit without the slightest hesitation that the Government has not even the semblance of a mandate. I refer to the love-making to Quebec. Anyone familiar with the appeals that were made in 1917 at the last general election will readily admit that not only was the Government not given a mandate to make love to Quebec, but that, on the contrary, those who voted for the Government gave them a specific mandate to ostracise Quebec; and now they are changing their policy and, I must say, are proving wholly false to their trust when they court Quebec.

Why, Sir, the rallying cry of 1917 was this: "Shall Quebec rule? Down with

Quebec!" and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and even in the trenches in France and at social teas in London, wherever a large vote was gathered, this was the slogan: "A vote for Laurier and for the Liberal party is a vote for Quebec and domination by Quebec," Impartial history will one day record that that same slanderous slogan had as much effect upon the electors as the other slogan with which it was coupled, namely, of winning the war. The Government has no mandate, I say, to make love to Quebec.

But it may be interesting to note and to speak for a while about the sudden affection, this newly-born love for my old province. In 1917 Quebec was a'hindrance to Confederation: it was the contaminated black sheep of the family of this Dominion, which every other child was admonished and warned to shun; it was the backward, the ignorant, the outcast, the prejudiced, the priest-ridden province: I do not dare repeat the insults that were hurled at Quebec at that time, because if I did so I should be unparliamentary. Anyone who dared at that time to have intercourse with the Province of Quebec was banned from loyal and decent society. Quebec had to be isolated. But now, Sir, what do we see? The same papers that published these insults-I might say the same political stars who uttered these insults, and all these newspapers and public men that united in villifying her, cannot flow find eulogies enough to extol Quebec's sane morals and institutions, and her sane love for law and order; and they even go so far as to concede that Quebec will be the last refuge of civilization in America, praying that she do not remain isolated from the rest of Canada.

What has happened? Has Qiflebec changed? Is she not the same province, the same law-abiding province, the same in heart and mentality, the same in her institutions as well as in her modus vivendi? No, Sir, Quebec has not changed: She is the same Quebec of 1917, of 1867, of 1840, of 1759, and of 1642. She has the same habits, the same institutions, the same religious love for law and order, the same respect for her devoted clergy. And she goes along topping the other provinces in agriculture, in industry, in social advancement, in increase in population, in absence of unrest, following the destiny God has laid down for her, and undisturbed by the social unrest around her. And as Quebec believes in the principle that insults and compliments are alike always exaggerated, she is not any more over-joyed now by the incense of flattery of which she is the recipient, than she whs over-awed or overexcited by the mud that was slung at her in 1917.

Then, Mr. Speaker, you will probably ask me, if Quebec has not changed, whether the Government has changed. No, Sir. It is the same Tory administration with the same policy, and with the same friends, many of them still living, and with the same slanderers as in 1917. The bottom

of their hearts, or what they have in the place where their hearts should be, is still the same. Well, how is the situation to be explained if the Government has not changed and if Quebec is the same as she always was? Sir, the circumstances have changed. A new party has arisen in the country. That new party is not very friendly to the Government, and in order to retain power an alliance must be made with Quebec. So the orders have been given-tactical orders, I must say-to the slanderer and the fire-brand not to put any more coal on the fire, to close the dampers, to open the doors of the furnace and cover the fire with ashes for a while. But, Mr. Speaker, you can believe me, the fire is not altogether out, and if the government found it necessary to stir it again in order to win an election, there is not an hon. member who would say that they would hesitate for a moment to open the dampers, to shut the doors again, to shake the furnace anew and to feed the fire with more coal. But, Sir, my province's motto is "Je me souviens"-I remember. Quebec will forgive; her religion obliges her to do so; but Quebec will not easily forget. On the contrary, she will remember. She will remember those who have slandered and insulted her as well as she will remember the stalwart English-speaking Liberals of the other provinces who stood by her in her hour of trial.

Some people say that we are isolated. From whom are we isolated? We are isolated from the Government. It surprised me the other day on reading an address from the Prime Minister to see that he had deplored the isolation of Quebec. If the Prime Minister were now in his seat I would simply ask him this: If he is in earnest in his desire to stop the isolation of Quebec, let him dissolve the House and bring on a general election. He would then find out that it is not Quebec but the Government that is isolated. Why, Sir, if we were to respond to the appeal of the Government, if we were to make an alliance with them, we would be isolated for the rest of our lives; we would be isolated as soon as the next election took place. The journals and public men of my province do not admit that we are isolated but in this connection it may be of interest to read an extract from an editorial published in the Toronto Globe of 11th September, 1920. The caption is "Office is not the true bond," and it goes on to say:

It is the Government that is isolated' from Canada. It has lost touch, not only with

Quebec, but with the greater part of Canada. The temporary isolation of Quebec, due to causes which need not here be considered, is coming to an end and may almost be said to have disappeared. There is no fear of permanent isolation. Prench-Canaddans can very well afford to wait.

The young French-Canadian when he goes to school reads a little book. It is a very interesting little book and very easy for a young mind to read, but at the same time very literary. The work has already been cited in this House this session. I refer to the Fables of Lafontaine. That work contains more philosophy than other books written by the great philosophers of all time. There are two fables in it which are particularly interesting. There is first the fable of the goat and the fox, and then there is the fable of the wolf and the stork. If I might give a resume in a few words, of the fable of the goat and the fox it is this: A goat and a fox were travelling in /company. They had walked for quite a while and had developed a very strong thirst. Of course they were not in Ontario. When they came to a well they looked down into it and found that it was very deep. Nevertheless they were so thirsty they went down the well and after having satisfied their thirst they looked up and noticed its height. The fox saw that he could not reach the top without assistance, so turning to the goat he said, "You are a pretty big fellow, and with your front legs you can probably reach the top of the well. Why don't you put your front legs on the top of the well? Then I will run up your back, and when I am at the top I will pull you up;" and the goat believed him. The fox ran up the back of the goat and when he Was up of course he could not pull the goat out but he made a speech. He made a speech to the goat on isolation. He said he was very, very sorry that the poor goat had got isolated at the bottom of the well and he spoke about the virtue of patience and resignation. Well, Sir, Quebec will not be the goat that will enable the foxy Prime Minister to run up its back to get out of the well he is in now.

There is also, as I said before, another fable-the fable of the stork and the wolf. There was a wolf which was very fond of birds; he used to play havoc with flocks of birds whenever he encountered them. He was very partial to storks and one day, after having made an onslaught on a flock of storks and having eaten three or four of them, a large bone stuck in his throat and he was in danger of choking to death. At that moment he saw a big stork and said

to him, "Come to my help. Come and pick this bone out of my throat so that I shall not choke. In return for that I will pay you well, I will be good to you." The stork was a little bit suspicious at first but finally, out of charity, extracted the bone from the wolf's throat and then asked for his salary. The wolf said "Salary! You are very lucky that I did not eat you while your head was in my mouth," and the stork beeame wise. I may say to the Government and the Prime Minister that the province of Quebec is a wise stork that will keep away from the wolf that will not pick the bone out of its throat; and besides the stork is a pretty popular bird in my province.

Now, Sir, I come to the disagreeable part of my address. Last Thursday we witnessed an unprecedented spectacle in our political annals, in fact a spectacle unprecedented in the annals of British Parliamentary history. In the past, Sir, men have severed relations with their party but they have always expressed regret in doing so. When the late Hon. Mr. Blair resigned from the Laurier Administration on the question of the construction of the Transcontinental railway he expressed his regret at having to leave his former friends. Also when the hon. Mr. Patenaude resigned from the Borden Government on the question of conscription he likewise expressed regret at having to leave his former associates. When the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) left the Union Government he also parted company on a question of principle, and he expressed his regret at having to leave his former friends. What happened last Thursday? Did the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier), who then publicly left the Liberal party and his former friends, regret that he had to do so on a question of principle? He did not. To my mind, Sir, he was following orders. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, I repeat, was following orders. He was playing the third act of a four-act performance.

The first act was the preliminary conversation which the Prime Minister about his entering the Cabinet, and we had notice of it in the newspapers during the fall. The second act was the wholesale protestation of the Conservative heads of the district of Montreal, and so strong was their protestation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) hesitated. The third act was the carrying out of the orders of the Prime Minister

to the hon. gentleman-orders which unfortunately were executed publicly last Thursday. Those orders were to publicly sever his connection not only with the Federal Liberal party, but the Provincial Liberal party-with all his friends of the Liberal party-and to clear himself of two grave accusations that had been levelled against him a few years ago. The fourth act was to be his entrance into the Cabinet. Will it ever be performed? I have my doubts, Sir, because the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe and Rouville overdid the third act. [DOT]

Why, sir, who will believe for one moment that a man who had been connected with the Liberal party for over a quarter of a century, who had assisted at every caucus, who had always voted with us, who had attacked the Government violently every time occasion arose, who even last summer in his own constituency attacked the Government, and who had never protested against our policy, should come to the point like he did last Thursday and viciously attack all his former friends without exception? Who could believe that a man who six months ago in his own paper wrote a laudatory article about the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), could have made the vulgar, coarse and uncalled for attack on the hon. member as he did last Thursday?

Well, the hon. gentleman must have brought comfort to his new friends, if they thought of inviting him to their caucus, when he related to the House what purported to be a discussion in a caucus of the Liberal party between the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). An expression of apprehension passed over the face of the Prime Minister when this incident was related. May I surmise, sir, that the Prime Minister had a vision of the possibility of a future similar incident happening in his own party?

But the hon. gentleman did not last Thursday say that he accepted the views of the hon. member for Brome or the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. On the contrary he ridiculed what he described as the different attitudes of the two hon. members. But I remember well, not later than last session, my hon. friend answered the hon. member for Centre Van-5'p.m. couver (Mr. Stevens who had been attacking the Liberal party on this question. That hon. member had then said:

Now, I should like to proceed to review briefly the attitude of my hon. friends opposite as given to the House and to the country in speeches delivered by the leading critics of the Opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne and1 Queen's and the hon. member for Brome.

After stating what free trade was, the hon. member for Centre Vancouver added:

But it is quite possible that the best of principles may be carried too far.

He was referring to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Referring to the hon. member for Brome, he said that that gentleman had thus expressed himself:

That is the policy-referring to free trade -which the Liberal party aim at in the future; that is the policy which I wish to see adopted in this country.

In answering the hon. member for Centre Vancouver the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe and Rouville then said, and his words will be found at page 2606 of volume 3 of Hansard of last session:

My hon. friend has taken a great deal of pains to show to the House and to the country that there was' a contradiction between the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Any man belonging to a party and speaking in his individual name has a right to give his individual opinion; but if he belongs to a party and if he wishes to remain in that party, he must adhere to the platform of that party. The Liberal party held a convention in August of last year; they propounded their policy, and the hon. member for .Shelburne and Queen's and the hon. member for Brome, when they speak for the Liberal party, must adhere to that party's platform as propounded at that convention. But it is strange to me that my hon. friends would go to such pains to find contradictions in the policy propounded by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, when he himself declared to the House and to the country that he is going to support this Government which has no polity at all.

As I have to go rapidly over a few extracts, I will not make any comments, but will leave the House to judge the difference between the statements made by my hon. friend on Thursday and the statements he made in the House last session.

My hon. friend says that he is for protection, and that the protection issue is the lofty reason why he severs his connection with the Liberal party. He does not want a reduction of the tariff. But in the same volume, at page 2610, we find a speech of the hon. member and in it occurs a remarkable utterance regarding the tariff. He who is now for protection and who does not want any reduction in the tariff said on that occasion:

I would say to the Government: Stop the

profiteers and you will strike at the root of the high cost of living; there is no other way. You cannot instantly delate your currency because lit would mean ruin to the country; but strike at the very root of the evil and you will cure the unrest which that evil engenders. I say again: Reduce the

tariff and you will help to reduce the cost of living.

The policy followed by this Administration has had the result of creating an unrest which continues to grow every day and every week, and this policy is proved by its results to be wrong. Change it; reduce the tariff and you will reduce the cost of living.

The hon. gentleman stated last Thursday that we were not consistent. Let us see how consistent he himself is. Last year he voted for an amendment similar to the one which is now before the House, against which he declared himself last Thursday. Not only did he vote for that amendment; he spoke in favour of it. Every hon. gentleman will remember that that was the occasion on which he said that the hour of Quebec had struck. Now, what did the hon. member say? I find his words at page 65 of Hansard, Volume I, of last session The hon. member said with regard to the amendment: f

Whatever the Government may say or do, nobody believes that they represent the people or that they were elected1 through a franchise which represented public opinion. Nobody believes it. They may say we have a sound and well balanced Government. But they are alone to say so andi I think they do not even believe what they say.

Then he goes on:

In the public interest, gentlemen-

The hon. member evidently thought he was on the hustings.

In the public interest, gentlemen, do not hesitate to sink your personal ambitions to make up your mind to renounce the sweets of office, go to the country apeal to the people, and should the people through means I .do not wish to qualify here, wish to give you another lease of power,, you shall at least have public confidence behind you, you shall at least have the support of public opinion. Beware you do not tarry and wait till class feeling has reached such a pitch that you can no longer stem the' tide. And that is why I cannot understand the position taken by the Government in refusing to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member said the other day that the natural alliance for the province of Quebec was an alliance with Ontario. He said, as reported on page 86 of Unrevised Hansard of this year:

I have claimed' all along that the natural ally of Quebec is Ontario. Since 1912, after the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, in the ranks

of ray own party I have advocated that theory and' preached1 it as a gospel.

This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that such a doctrine from the hon. member has reached my ears. But I did hear my hon. friend preach a doctrine with regard to an alliance with Ontario. Let us see what he said in 1918, as reported on page 1434 of Hansard, Volume 2, of that year, about an alliance with Ontario:

I said in ray opening remarks that it was necessary to the welfare of the country that trade should not be disturbed and that peace and harmony should be restored. Some people contend-

The following words are very significant, Mr. Speaker.

Some people contend that 'this country is threatened with a yellow menace which -S coming from the Asiatic continent. I believe that there is a yellow menace, but it is no. coming from Asia; it is coming from Ontario It springs from Orange lodges and it sows hatred' in order to reap votes at the polls.

Mr. DUFF:

Who said that?

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville. He also said in his speech the other day that he believed in the minority making an alliance with majorities when they cannot win them to their cause. Sir, I believe that a minority should fight for a principle, even if its fights without hope of succees. But contrary to the opinion of my hon. friend, I believe not only that we have appealed to the majority, but that our appeal has been successful. Let the Government dissolve the House, and my hon. friend will find out whether or not I am right.

The hon. member also said in his speech that no one from the district of Montreal is proud of his leader, the hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). I may say that I for one am proud of him-

Hear, hear.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

-and if I can judge from the applause which greets my remarks, there are other hon. members from the district of Montreal who are proud of him. I am not only proud of him; I am proud of his patriotism, proud of his services to the country, proud of the honour which he has brought to the name of the province of Quebec.

I wish now, Sir, to correct an historical error which occurs in the hon. member's speech. With his usual modesty, the hon. member compared himself to Lafontaine and Cartier-Lafontaine in 1840 and Cartier in 1849. The hon. member, as reported on page 92 of Unrevised Hansard, speak-

ing of the Act of Union and the unrest that the Act had created in Upper and Lower Canada at the time, said:

Then Louis Hypolyte Lafontaine came into the public arena.

He appealed to the majority in the country and appealed to his own people, and the Union Act was passed.

Why, Sir, I was under the impression- and every man wfco knows the history of Canada can support my contention-that Lafontaine fought bitterly against the Act of Union, that a Tory Government at that time headed by Draper and aided by Lord Sydenham, did what this Government did in 1917-disfranchised numbers of the people. They even went so far as to go to the county of Terrebonne, where Lafontaine was running, with loaded revolvers to prevent the electors from registering their votes.

Mr. GAUTHIER:

I do not know how I was reported, but any scholar must know that what -I meant was, according to history, that Lafontaine came to have the Act of Union of Upper and Lower Canada accepted by the province of Ontario as in the province of Quebec. That is what I meant.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

Of course, we have -to accept my hon. friend's statement. But let me read again what my hon. friend said as reported on page 92 of Hansard:

Then Louis Hypolyte Lafontaine came into the public arena. He appealed to the majority in th.e country and appealed to his own people, and the Union Act was passed.

Nobody will infer from those remarks that Lafontaine came in only after the Act had been passed. Lafontaine, in a most famous speech which he made at the time,. said:

Another question of no less importance is the Act of Union of the two provinces. It is an act of injustice and despotism because it was imposed on us without our consent; because it deprives Lower Canada of her legitimate representation, because it deprives us of the use of our language in the legislative proceedings, notwithstanding the treaties and the word of the Governor,' because it forces us to pay without our consent a debt which we have not contracted, because it allows the executive to take possession illegally, under the name of the Civil List, without the vote of the representatives of the people of an enormous part of the revenues of the country.

My hon. friend may have been badly reported, but I hope when I repeat the words, reported in Hansard, of what he said about Cartier, he will not find again the same excuse. As regards Cartier, my hon. friend said:

Then in 1849, when the annexation memorandum was signed, and when the Parliament Buildings in Montreal were burned, when this country was on the verge of disruption, Cartier arose and appealed to the majority and to my people and they united together and peace was restored once more.

Cartier became a minister of the Crown only in 1855 and had nothing to do with the restoration of peace in 1849-peace which had been destroyed, together with the Parliament Buildings, by the loyal Tories of the time, who also assailed the representative of the Crown, His Excellency the Governor General, Lord Elgin.

I am very sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is not in his seat, as it might be very encouraging to him to listen again to some remarks made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville regarding the Government. Speaking on conscription on the 21st June, 1917, as reported in Hansard, volume 3, page 2553, the hon. member said:

In order that everybody should be satisfied, the Solicitor General this afternoon, in his most suave manner, assured the people of Quebec not to worry, because the Bill would bear more lightly upon Quebec than upon the other

provinces We resent the insult

whether direct or indirect I will

not allow any hon. gentleman to cast a slur upon us. I am not a minister of the Crown in this Government, thank Heaven!

This reminds me, Sir, of the other day when the hon. gentleman threw up his hands and said: "God save the Liberal party!"

Mr. TRAHAN:

Who was the Solicitor General at that time?

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

The right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Meighen). There is something I might say that is even more edifying, and we find it in Hansard of 1917, volume 6, page 5824. I might tell the House that the discussion was on the Wartime Elections Act which had been introduced by the Solicitor General, now the Prime Minister, and this is what the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville said about this Act:

It has been said that the franchise legislation laid before this Parliament would be worthy of the German Kaiser. I think it is doing an injustice to the Kaiser, to compare him to this Government Now, what do we see in this House? The most iniquitous measures, the most unjust and the most outrageous to the liberty of the citizens, are introduced into Parliament, and in what way? 'As the sponsor for such a Bill-

And the hon. member was referring to the then Solicitor General, now the Prime Minister.

-they pick out the man with the softest, the mellowest voice, a real eunuch's voice, might I say to express its full justness and sweetness.

This epithet attached to the quality of the voice of the Prime Minister might be the interesting subject of further conferences between the two hon. gentlemen. I will not speak of the grotesque and sacrilegious comparison the hon. gentleman has made between himself and St. John the Baptist, nor of the whole hour he took in trying to repulse accusations made against him a few years ago; but I will leave to his meditation words that he has spoken himself regarding the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), and that can be found at pages 76 and 77 of Volume 1 of Hansard of the session of 1919. I will leave the hon. gentleman to meditate over these words in an endeavour to find out if they do not apply to another member of this House apart from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The hon. member said:

The hon. minister also told us that "he was still a Liberal and that nobody could put him out." . . [DOT] The hon. gentleman announces that he is still a Liberal, that he was a Liberal when he entered the Cabinet, and that he will remain one. I shall not enter into any discussion with him on tl\at point. I shall not discuss his motives for leaving the party, it is no business of mine. But speaking for myself, I tell the hon. gentleman I do not regret his exit from our ranks. When the fruit becomes too ripe, Mr. Speaker, it falls from the tree which has given it life and which has brought it to maturity. The tree still continues to grow and to give its own life to other fruit, but the fruit, which has fallen to the ground is destined for destruction.

I will simply add-and that will be my last word-that my advice to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville is: Discuss these words with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, and ponder upon them seriously, because "birds of a feather flock together."

Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto) :

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to

give a silent vote on this issue as is often my custom and I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I make a few remarks. I have endeavoured to follow, the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) who has just taken his seat, and have tried to fix my attention on the little family quarrel there has been among hon. gentlemen opposite. Personally, I am not particularly concerned in that. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) claims to be the John the Baptist of

i

Quebec. Whether he is or not it is not for me to say, but certainly his colleagues seem to pay some regard to that claim. Personally, I cannot see on what ground the claim is made, but we do know that John the Baptist lost his head, and further we know why he lost it. It was demanded by a danseuse of questionable virtue, as the price of King Herod's pleasure. I do not know who represents that maiden who demanded the head, or who represents Herod, in the case before us. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat had some questions to ask regarding the policy of the Government, and one which appeared to my mind to be important was as to what the policy of this Government would be at the Imperial Council. Has my hon. friend forgotten that this party has embodied the national policy of the old Conservative party? It is the same policy for which the Conservative governments in the motherland and in all the Dominions have ever stood. It is the Imperial policy. I want to read a clearer and better explanation than I could give of the Imperial complexion of that policy. I was tempted to give this quotation as I listened to the question which was put by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, and which, if I remember correctly, was this: "What will be the policy of this Government at the Imperial Council?" Then he went on to say "I stand for Canadian interests first, foremost and at all times." Well, I venture to say there is no Imperial or national policy in that. There is not a Canadian in this House but who stands for the same thing according to his light. There is not a Canadian who has ever attained a place in this House who would presume to stand in Canada for anything else. I want to read to the House a statement made by Lord Beaconsfield in Manchester in the month of April, 1872, when this question was under discussion. Yes, that is some time ago. This great Conservative fraught with all the knowledge of the past, and almost prescient of the future, gave utterance to this statement which I will read in the hope that the hon. member fdr Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) may profit thereby. This is Lord Beaconsfield's statement, not mine:

It you look to the history of this country since the advent of Liberalism forty years ago, you will find there has been no effort so continuous, so subtle, supported by so much energy and carried on with so much ability and acumen, as the attempts of Liberalism to affect the disintegration of the Empire of England and of all its efforts, this is the one which has been

the nearest to success; statesmen of the highest character, writers of the most distinguished ability, the most organized and efficient means have been employed in this endeavour. it Iras been proved by all of us that we have lost money by our colonies; it has been shown with precise and mathematical demonstration that there never was a jewel in the crown of England that was so truely costly as the possession of India. How often has it been suggested that we should at once emancipate ourselves from this incubus? Well, that result was nearly [DOT] accomplished when those subtle views were adopted by the country under the plausible plea of granting self government to the colonies. Not that I for one object to self' government but self government in my opinion when it was conceded, ought to have been conceded! as part of the great policy- of Imperial consolidation. It ought to have been accompanied with an Imperial tariff. It ought further to have -been -accompanied by some representative council in the metropolis which would have -brought the colony into constant and continuous relations with the home government. All this, however, was -omitted because those who advised -that policy (and I believe their convictions were sincere) looked upon the colonies of England, looked even upon our connection with India, as a -burden on this country, viewing the financial, aspect by those moral and political considerations which make nations great and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from the animals. Well, what has been the result of this attempt during the reign of Liberalism for the disintegration of the Empire. It has entirely failed but how has it failed'; through the -sympathies of the colonies with the mother country. They have decided that .the Empire shall not be destroyed and in my opinion no minister in this country will do his duty who neglects 'any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our -Colonial Empire and of responding to those distinct sympathies which may -become the source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land.

Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):

May I ask the hon. member whether these views, expressed so eloquently by Lord Beaeons-field, are the views which he thinks his party stands for to-day?

Mr. SHEARD:

Those were the views

of Lord Beaconsfield, the leader of the old Conservative party in England in 1872 and I say that those views prepared the public mind for an Imperial Council, and a union of the colonies through colonial representation in England. That is going to be effected, I understand, in the coming year. The colonies will meet to discuss their fiscal and other relations with the Empire.

Mr. BUREAU:

There are no colonies

now. We are sister nations.

Mr. SHEARD:

Yes, we have got a group of nations, and all the better if we have, if we are going to work in harmony together. The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they are out of step with the great

national ideals and aspirations; they are out of step with Canada, and want to claim that it is the fault of the Government. They isolated themselves; no one on this side of the House, no one representing any constituency on this side, has ever isolated Quebec. Quebec took her stand on the issue of conscription. The then leader of the Liberal party had a policy and he had the courage to announce that policy; all honour to him. He said that he opposed conscription because he did not believe in the principle of coercion; that the people of the province of Quebec would not submit to coercion. That, as I understand it, was the issue; it was a proper issue for him to take. No one found fault with him for taking that issue, but we did not agree with him, and as a consequence he put the province of Quebec where it is; as a result of his policy it was isolated. It was not the Prime Minister; it was not the Government; it was Quebec's own determination.

Mr. BUREAU:

Do not cry over our isolation; cry over your own.

Mr. SHEARD:

I am not advising you as to what you are to do, nor am I inviting you.

Mr. BUREAU:

I hope not.