OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA THIRD SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Volume I; Pages 1-992	Volume II; Pages 993-2011


[Stage Direction]
J. DE LABROQUERIE TACHfi

[Stage Direction]
: .. : *>' - , [DOT] -
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

. „r *-
* JL. , >
xp!


[Stage Direction]
First Minister, Secretary of State for External
Affairs	Rt.	Hon.	Sir	Robert	Laird Borden,	F.G.,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Trade and Commerce	Rt.	Hon.	Sir	George	Eulas Foster,	P.C.,

[Stage Direction]
Minister without Portfolio	*Hon. Francis Cochrane.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General	Hon. Charles Joseph Doherty, K.C., D.C.L.,
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Railways and Canals	Hon. John Dowsley Reid, M.D.
Minister of Overseas Military Forces from Canada
in the United Kingdom	Hon. Sir Albert Edward Kemp, K.C.M.G.
Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment....Hon. Sir James Lougheed, K.C.M.G., K.C.
Secretary of State and Minister of Mines	Hon. Martin Burrell.
Postmaster General	Hon. Pierre Edouard Blondin.
Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General
of Indian Affairs	Hon. Arthur Meighen, K.C., B.A.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Minister of the
Naval Service	Hon. Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne.
Minister of Public Works	Hon. Arthur Lewis Sifton.
Minister of Immigration and Colonization	Hon. James Alexander Calder.
President of the Privy Council and Minister of
Health	:	Hon. Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C.
Minister of Militia and Defence	Major-General Hon. Sydney Chilton Mewburn.
Minister without Portfolio	Hon. Alexander Kenneth Maclean, K.C.
Minister of Labour	Hon. Gideon Decker Robertson.
Minister of Finance	Hon. Sir Henry Lurnley Drayton, K.C.
Minister of Agriculture	Hon. Simon Fraser Tolmie, V.S.
Solicitor General	Hon. Hugh Guthrie, K.C.
Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of
Militia and Defence	Lieut-Colonel Hugh Clark.
Parliamentary Secretary for External Affairs...F. H. Keefer, K.C.
Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment	Vacant.
Deceased, September 22.
[Stage Direction]
Speaker	Hon. Edgar N. Rhodes, K.C., B.A., LL.B.
Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. .George H. Boivin, K.C., B.A.
Clerk of the House		
Serjeant at Arms...	
Editor of Debates		
Associate Editor of Debates..'.	
Official Reporters of Debates :-
English : George Simpson, Robert C. Dunbar, F. W. S. Galbraith, Earl C. Young,
H. E. Oliver, W. H. Dickson, Frederick Berryman, T. S. Hubbard. French : J. 0. Marceau, Marcel Gabard.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES :
Messieurs : Ballantyne, Burnham, Chabot, Devlin, Elkin, Foster (Sir George), Kay, Lemieux, McKenzie, McLeod, Marcil (Bonaventure), Munson and Richardson.
Chairman : R. L. Richardson,

[Stage Direction]
Third Session-Thirteenth Parliament.
Allan, George William-Winnipeg, S. Riding. Ames, Sir Herbert Brown, Kt.-St. Antoine. Anderson, Robert King-Halton.
Andrews, George William-Winnipeg Centre. Archambault, Joseph-Chambly and Vercheres. Argue, Ira Eugene-Swift Current.
Armstrong, John A. MacDonald-York, N. Riding.
Armstrong, Joseph Emmanuel-Lambton, E. Riding.
Arthurs, James-Parry Sound.
Baldwin, Willis Keith-Stanstead.
Ballantyne, Hon. Charles Colquhoun-St. Law-rence-St. George.
Ball, Robert James-Grey, Southeast Riding. Beland, Hon. Henri Severin-Beauce.
Best, John-Duller in.
Blair, William John-Battle River.
Blake, Matthew Robert-Winnipeg, N. Riding. Boivin,'George Henry'-Shefford.
Bolton, Ferris-Lisgar.
Bonnell, Saul-Kootenay, E. Riding.
Borden, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Laird, G.C.M.G.- King's (N.S.).
Bourassa, Joseph Boutin-Levis.
Bowman, James-Huron, N. Riding.
Boyce, George-Carleton.
B oyer , Gustave-V audreuil-Soulanges.
Boys, William Alves-Simcoe, S. Riding.
Brien, John Webley

Essex, S. Riding.
Bristol, Edmund-Toronto Centre.
Brouillard, Joseph Ovtde-Drummond and Artha-baska.
Buchanan, William Asbury-Lethbridge. ' Bureau, Jacques-Three Rivers and St. Maurice. Burnham, John Hampden-Peterborough, W. Riding.
Burrell, Hon. Martin-Yale.
Butts, Robert H.-Cape Breton South and Richmond.
Cahill, Frank S.-Pontiac.
Calder, Hon. James Alexander-Moosejaw.	.
* Caldwell, Thomas Wakem-Victoria and Carleton.
Campbell, J. A.-Nelson.
Cannon, Lucien-Dorchester.
Cardin, Pierre Joseph Arthur-Richelieu. Casgrain, Pierre Francois-Charlevoix-Mpnt-morency.
Casselman, Orren D.-Dundas.
Chabot, John Leo-Ottawa.
Chaplin, James Deyv-Lincoln.
Charlton, William Andrew-Norfolk.
Charters, Samuel-Peel.
Chisholm, Alexander W.-Inverness.
Clark, Hugh-Bruce, N. Riding.
Clark, Michael-Red Deer.
Clarke, William A.-Wellington, N. Riding. Clements. Herbert Sylvester-Comox-Alberni. fCocHRANE, Hon. Francis-Tiiniskaming. CockShutt, William Foster-Brantford. '	'
Cooper, Richard Clive-Vancouver, S. Riding. Copp, Arthur Bliss-Westmorland.
Cowan, Walter Davy-Regina.
Crerar, Hon. Thomas Alexander-Marquette. Cronyn, Hume-London.
Crothers, Hon. Thomas Wilson-Elgin, W. Riding. Croyve, Sa npord Johnston-Burrard.
Cruise, Robert-Dauphin.
Currie, John Alister-Simcoe, N. Riding.
d'ANJOu, Joseph Emile Stanislas Emmanuel-
Rimouski.
Davidson, Avard Longley-Digby and Annapolis. Davis, Fred Langdon-Neepawa.
Dechene, Aime Miville-Montmagny.
Delisle, Michel Simeon-Portneuf.
Demers, Marie Joseph-St. Johns and Iberville. Denis, Jean J.-Joliette.
Desaulniers, Arthur L.-Champlain.
* By-election. Introduced November 8 (p. 1940). t Deceased, September 22,

[Stage Direction]
Deslauriers, Hermas-St. Mary.
Devlin, Emmanuel B,-Wright.
Doherty, Hon. Charles Joseph-St. Ann. Douglas, James McCrie-Strathcona.
Douglas, John C.-Cape Breton South and Richmond.
*Drayton, Hon. Sir Henry-Kingston.
Duff, William-Lunenburg.
DuTremblai', Pamphile Real-Laurier-Outre-mont.
Edwards, John Wesley-Frontenac.
Elkin, Stanley Edward-St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert.
Ethier, Joseph Arthur Calixte-Laval-Two Mountains.
Euler, William D.-Waterloo, N. Riding.
Fafard, J. Fernand-L'lslet.
Fielding, Hon. W'illiam Stevens-Shelburne and Queen's.
Finley,. Albert Ernest-Souris.
Fontaine, Joseph Eloi- Hull.
Fortier, Hyacinthe Adelard-Labelle.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir George.Eulas, G.C.M.G.- Toronto, N. Riding.
Foster, Thomas-York, E. Riding.
Fournier, C. A.-Bellechasse.
Fraser, Evan E-Welland.
Fripp, Alfred ERNEST^Ottawa.
Fulton, Frederick John-Cariboo.
Gauthier, Louis Joseph-St. Hyacinthe-Rouville Gauvreau, Charles Arthur-Temiscouata. Gervais, Theodore-Berthier.
Gladu, Joseph Ernest Oscar-Yamaska.
Glass, Samuel Francis-Middlesex, E. Riding, t Gould, Oliver Robert-Assiniboia.
Green, Robert Francis-Kootenay, W. Riding. Grlesbach, William Antrobus-Edmonton, W. Riding.
Guthrie, Hon. Hugh-Wellington, S. Riding.
Halladay, Howard H,

Bow River.
Harold, John-Brant.
Harrison, Charles Robert-Nipissing.
Hartt, Thomas A.-Charlotte.
Hay, Thomas-Selkirk.
Henders, Richard Coe-Macdonald.
Hepburn, William Bernard Rickart-Prince Edward.
Hocken, Horatio Clarence-Toronto, W. Riding. Hughes, Hon. Sir Sam, K.C.B.-Victoria.
Hunt, Aylmer Byron-Compton.
Jacobs, Samuel William-George Etienne Cartier. Johnston, J. Fred-Last Mountain.
Kay, William Frederic-Missisquoi.
Keefer, Francis Henry-PortArthurandKenora. Kemp, Hon. Sir Edward, K.C.M.G.-Toronto East.
§ Kennedy, John Wilfrid-Glengarry and Stormont.
Kennedy, William Costello-Essex, N. Riding.
** King, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie-Prince (P.E.I') Knox, Andrew-Prince Albert.
Lafortune, David Arthur-Jacques Cartier. Lalor, Francis Ramsey

Haldimand.
Lanctot, Roch-Laprairie and Napierville.
Lang, Norman-Humboldt, ft Lapointe, Ernest-Quebec, East.
Lapointe, Louis Audet-St. James.
Lavigueur, Henri E.-Quebec County.
Leduc, J. Alfred-Westmount-St. Henry Leger, Auguste Theophile-Kent (N.B.) Lemieux, Hon. Rodolphe-Maisonneuve, Gaspe. Lesage, Joseph Edmond-Hochelaga.
Loggie, William Stewart-Northumberland (N.B) Long, Charles Edwin-North Battieford.
Mackie, Henry Arthur-Edmonton, E. Riding. Mackie, Herbert J.-Renfrew, N. Riding. Maclean, Hon. A. K.-Halifax.
Maclean, William Findlay-York, S. Riding. MacNutt, Thomas-Saltcoats.
McCoig, Archibald Blake-Kent, (Ont.)
McCrea, Francis N.-Sherbrooke.
McCurdy, Fleming Blanchard-Colchester. McGibbon, Peter

Muskoka.
McGibbon, Peter Robt.-Argenteuil.
McGregor, Alexander-Pictou.
McIntosh, John Charles-Nanaimo.
McIsaac, James-Kings, (P.E.I.)
McKenzie, Daniel D.-Cape Breton North and Victoria.
McLean, Hugh Havelock-Royal.
McLeod, Harry Fulton-York-Sunbury.	.
McMaster, Andrew Ross-Brome.
McQuarrie, William Garland-New Westminster, Maharg, John A.-Maple Creek.
Manion, Robert James-Ft. William and Rainy River.
Marcil, Hon. Charles-Bonaventure.-Marcile, Joseph Edmond-Bagot.
Marshall, David-Elgin, E. Riding. -Martin, Peter Francis-Halifax.
Mayrand , Hormisdas-Maskinonge.
Meighen, Hon. Arthur-Portage la Prairie. Merner, Jonathan Joseph-Huron, S. Riding. [DOT]Mewburn, Hon. Sydney Chilton-Hamilton, E. Riding.
Michaud, Pius-Restigouche and Madawaska. Middlebko, William Sora-Grey, N. Riding. Molloy, John Patrick-Provencher.
Morphy, H. B.-Perth, N. Riding.
* By-election. Introduced October 21 (p. 1176). t By-election.
§ By-election. Introduced November 6 (p. 1812).
** By-election. Introduced October 23 (p. 1276).
ft Represented Kamouraska until October 14 (p. 994). Took seat for Quebec East Nov, 5 (p. 1748).

[Stage Direction]
vii
Mowat, Herbert Macdonald-Parkdale.
Munson, Charles Arthur-Northumberland, (Ont.)	'
Murphy, Hon. Charles-Russell.
Myers, Edward Thomas Wohdon-Kindersley.
Nesbitt, Edward Walter-Oxford, N. Riding. Nicholson, Donald-Queen's, (P.E.I.)
Nicholson, George Brecken-Algoma, E. Riding-
Pacaud, Lucien Turcotte-Megantic.
Papineau, Louis Joseph-Beauharnois.
Pardee, Frederick Forsyth-Lambton, W. Riding.
Parent, George-Quebec, W. Riding.
Paul, William James-Lennox and Addington. Peck, Cyrus Wesley-Skeena.
Pedlow, Isaac Ellis-Renfrew, S. Riding. Pelletier, Francois Jean-Matane.
Porter, Edward Guss-Hastings, W. Riding. Power, Charles Gavan-Quebec, S. Riding. Prevost, Jules Edouard-Terrebonne.
Proulx, Edmond-Prescott.
Redman, Daniel Lee-Calgary, E. Riding.
Reid, Hon. John Dowsley-Grenville.
Reid, John Flaws-Mackenzie.
Rhodes, Hon. Edgar N.-Cumberland. Richardson, Robert Lorne-Springfield.
Robb, James Alexander-Chateauguay-Hunting-don.
Ross, Duncan Campbell-Middlesex, W. Riding. Rowell, Hon. Newton Wesley-Durham.
Savard,' Edmond-Chicoutimi-Saguenay.
Scott, Frank Stewart-Waterloo, S. Riding. Seguin, Paul Arthur-L'Assornption-Montcalm. Sexsmith, John Albert-Peterborough, E. Riding. Shaw, Hugh Murray-Macleod.
Sheard, Charles-Toronto ,S. Riding.
Sifton, Hon. Arthur Lewis-Medicine Hat. Simpson, Thomas Edward-Algoma, W. Riding. Sinclair, John Ewen-Queen's, P.E.I.
Sinclair, John H.-Antigonish and Guysborough. Smith, William-Ontario, S. Riding.
Spinney, Edgar Keith-Yarmouth and Clare. . Stacey, Frank Bainard-Fraser Valley.
Steele, Michael-Perth, S. Riding.
Stevens, Henry Herbert-Vancouver, Centre. Stewart, John A.-Lanark.
Stewart, Thomas Joseph-Hamilton, W. Riding. Sutherland, Donald-Oxford, S. Riding.
Thompson, Alfred-Yukon.
Thompson, Richard Frederick-Weyburn. Thompson, Thomas Henry-Hastings, E. Riding. Thomson, Levi-Qu'Appelle.
Tobin, Edmund William-Richmond and Wolfe. Tolmie, Hon. Simon Fraser-Victoria City. Trahan, Arthur-Nicolet.
Tremain, Hadley Brown-Hants.
Truax, Reuben E.-Bruce, S. Riding.
Tudhope, James Brockett-Simcoe, E. Riding. Turgeon, Onesiphore-Gloucester.
Tweedie, Thomas Mitchell March-Calgary, W. Riding.
Verville, Alphonse-St. Denis.
Vien, Thomas-Lotbiniere.
Wallace, Thomas George-York, W. Riding. Whidden, Howard Primrose-Brandon.
White, Hon. Sir Thomas, K.C.M.G.-Leeds. White, Willlim Henry-Victoria, Alta.
Wigmore Rupert Wilson-St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert.
Wilson, Gordon Crooks-Wentworth.
Wilson, James Robert-Saskatoon.
Wright, H. O.-Battleford.

T 53:

rj.r-Yrr\ A i
CSc'i 1. i'iM

PMC!-/ [DOT]' <*' [DOT]*	-.[DOT] *
d**' ¥ X "w A k * '* .... '*	*	S ''v -
fi S'
r T f$ A \ -v *v i / [DOT];,	,*
' *^xMOCl
T VI3 VIA A'-i irrs*. ' 'Hilir [DOT]H.OuiBHg QHIHT
[DOT]. H/£	/'/ .-: : V: : ' * [DOT] * ,)	* >1
[DOT]	>
'-P fetj.
?:ri.'jji,/ owr !/i
<-i .o'i/'f ;I a«:tiioV
XiXXX^ ;^-:U 10V
: i ht ot u:i>' . .	[DOT]: [DOT][DOT][DOT] n. vi m
r	-ei - [DOT] -;*[DOT]
* [DOT]r "i [DOT]' : 1 ' : \i.. j; rjra t'
Stkdat HiH:.;:jpojTa'A i [DOT]at '[DOT][DOT] rraatAK yvraJtnroxE t?om ;[DOT][DOT]; -xu- :;iht oT'^aTnuri
tfSgJ
/
I-/.

[Stage Direction]
Constituencies of the House of Commons
Third Session-Thirteenth Parliament.
A loom a, East-George Brecken Nicholson.	Dauphin-Robert Cruise.
Algoma, West-Thomas Edward Simpson.	Digby and Annapolis-Avard Longley Davidson.
Antigonish and Guysborough-John H. Sinclair. Argenteuil-P. Robert McGibbon.
Assiniboia-Oliver Robert Gould.
/
Bagot-Joseph Edmond Marcile.
Battleford-Henry Oswald Wright.
Battle River-William John Blair.
Beauce-Hon. Henri Severin Beland,
Beauiiarnois-Louis Joseph Papineau.
Bellechasse-C. A. Fournier.
Berthieit-Theodore Gervais.
Bonaventure-Hon. Charles Marcil.
Bow River-Howard Haden Halladay.
Brandon-Howard Primrose Whidden.
Brant-John Harold.
Brantford-William Foster Cockshutt.
Brome-Andrew Ross McMaster.
Bruce, North-Hugh Clark.
Bruce, South-Reuben E. Truax.
Burrard-Sanford Johnston Crowe.
Calgary, East-Daniel Lee Redman.
Calgary, West-Thomas Mitchell March Twecdie Cape Breton North and Victoria-Daniel D. McKenzie.
Cape Breton South and Richmond-John C.
Douglas, Robert H. Butts.
Cariboo-Frederick John Fulton.
Carleton-George Boyce.
Chambly and Vercheres-Joseph Archambault. Champlain-Arthur L. Desaulnicrs. CharlevoIx-Montmorency-Pierre Francois Casgrain.
Charlotte-Thomas A. Hartt. Chateauguay-Huntingdon-James Alexander Robb.
Chicoutimi-Saguenay-Edmond Savard. Colchester-Fleming Blanchard McCurdy. Comox-Alberni-Herbert Sylvester Clements. Compton-Aylmer Byron Hunt.
Cumberland-Hon. Edgar N. Rhodes
Dorchester-Lucien Cannon.
Drummond and Arthabaska-Joseph Ovide Brouillard.
Dufferin-John Best.
Dundas-Orren D. Casselman.
Durham-Hon. Newton Wesley RowelL
Edmonton, East-Henry Arthur Mackie. Edmonton, West-William Antrobus Griesbach. Elgin, E. Riding-David Marshall.
Elgin, W. Riding-Hon. Thomas Wilson Crothers. Essex, N. Riding-William Costello Kennedy. Essex, S. Riding-John Wesley Brien.
Fort William and Rainy River-Robert James Man ion.
Fraser Valley-Frank Bainard Stacey. Frontenac-John Wesley Edwards.
Gaspe-Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux.
George Etienne Cartier-Samuel William Jacobs. Glengarry and Stormont-John Wilfrid Kennedy Gloucester-Onesiphore Turgeon.
Grenville-Hon. John Dowsley Reid.
Grey, N. Riding-William Sora Middlebro.
Grey, Southeast Riding-Robert James Ball. Haldimand-Francis Ramsay Lalor.
Halifax-Hon. A. K. Maclean, Peter Francis Martin.
If alton-Robert King Anderson.
Hamilton, E. Riding-Hon. Sydney Chilton Mewburn.
Hamilton, W. Riding-Thomas Joseph Stewart. Hants-Hadley Brown Tremain.
Hastings, E. Riding-Thomas Henry Thompson. Hastings, W. Riding-Edward Guss Porter. Hochelaga-Joseph Edmond Lesage.
Hull-Joseph Eloi Fontaine.
Humboldt-Norman Lang.
Huron, N. Riding-James Bowman.
Huron, S. Riding-Jonathan Joseph Merner.
Inverness-Alexander W. Chisholm.
[Stage Direction]
LIST or CONSTITUENCIES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Jacques Cartier-David Arthur Lafortune. Joliette-Jean J. Denis.
*Kamouraska-Ernest Lapointe.
Kent, N.B.-Auguste T. Leger.
Kent, Ont.-Archibald Blake McCoig. Kindersley-Edward Thomas Wordon Myers. King's, N.S.

Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden, G.C.M.G.
King's, P.E.I.-James Mclsaac.
Kingston-Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Kootenay, E. Riding-Saul Bonnell.
Kootenay, W. Riding-Robert Francis Green.
Labelle-Hyacinthe Adelard Fortier.
Lambton, E. Riding-Joseph Emmanuel. Armstrong.
Lambton, W. Riding-Frederick Forsyth Pardee. Lanark-John A. Stewart.
Laprairie and Napieryille-Roch Lanct&t. L'Assomption-Montcalm.-Paul Arthur Seguin. Last Mountain-John Frederick Johnston. Laurier-Outremont-Pamphile Real DuTremblay.
Laval-Two Mountains-Joseph Arthur Calixte Ethier.
Leeds-Hon. Sir Thomas White, K.C.M.G. Lennox and Addington-William James Paul. Lethbridge-William Asbury Buchanan.
Levis-Joseph Boutin Bourassa.
Lincoln-James Dew Chaplin.
Lisgar-Ferris Bolton.
L'Islet-J. Fernand Fafard.
London-Hume Cronyn.
Lotbiniere-Thomas Vien.
Lunenburg-William Duff.
Macdonald-Richard Coe Henders.
Mackenzie-John Flaws Reid.
Macleod-Hugh Murray Shaw.
Maisonneuve-Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux.
Maple Creek-John Archibald Maharg.
Marquette-Hon. Thomas Alexander Crerar. Maskinonge-Hormidas Mayrand.
Matane-Francois Jean Pelletier.
Medicine Hat-Hon. Arthur Lewis Sifton. Megantic-Lucien Turcotte Pacaud.
Middlesex, E. Riding-Samuel Francis Glass. * Middlesex, W. Riding-Duncan Campbell Ross. Missisquoi-William Frederic Kay.
Montmagny-Aime Miville Dc'chene.
Moose jaw-Hon. James Alexander Calder. Muskoka-Peter McGibbon.
Nanaimo-John Charles McIntosh.
Neefawa-Fred Langdon Davis.
Nelson-J. A. Campbell.
New Westminster-William Garland MeQuarrie. Nicolet-Arthur Trahan.
Nipissing-Charles Robert Harrison.
Norfolk-William Andrew Charlton.
North Baitleford-Charles Edwin Long. Northumberland, N.B.-William S. Loggie. Northumberland, Ont.-Charles Arthur Munson.
Ontario, N. Riding-
Ontario, S. Riding-William Smith.
Ottawa-Alfred Ernest Fripp, .John Leo Chabot, Oxford, N. Riding-Edward Walter Nesbitt. Oxford, S. Riding-Donald Sutherland.
Parkdale-Herbert Macdonald Mowat.
Parry Sound-James Arthurs.
Peel-Samuel Charters.
Perth, N. Riding-Hugh Boulton Morphy.
Perth, S. Riding-Michael Steele.
Peterborough, E. Riding-John Albert Sexsmith. Peterborough, W. Riding-John Hampden Burnham.
Picrou-Alexander McGregor.
Pontiac-Frank S. Cahill.
Portage la Prairie-Hon. Arthur Meighen. ' Port Arthur and Kenora-Francis Henry Keefer. Portneue-Michel Simeon Delisle.
Prescott-Edmond Proulx.
Prince Albert-Andrew Knox.
Prince Edward-William Bernard Rickart Hepburn.
Prince, P.E.I.-Hon, W. L. Mackenzie King.
Provencher-John Patrick Molloy.
Qu'Appelle-Levi Thomson.
Quebec County-Henri E. Lavigueur. t Quebec, East-Ernest Lapointe.
Quebec, South-Charles Gavan Power.
Quebec, West-George Parent.
Queen's, P.E.I.-Donald Nicholson, John Ewen Sinclair.
Red Deer-Michael Clark.
Regina-Walter Davy Cowan.
Renfrew, N, Riding-Herbert John Mackie. Renfrew, S. Riding-Isaac Ellis Pedlow. Restigouche and Madawaska-Pius Michaud. Richelieu-Pierre Joseph Arthur Cardin.
Richmond and Wolfe-Edmund William Tobin. Rimouski-Joseph Emile Stanislas Emmanuel d'Anjou.
Royal-Hugh Havelock McLean.
Russell-Hon. Charles Murphy.
St. Ann-Hon, Charles Joseph Doherty.
St. Antoine-Sir Herbert Brown Ames, Kt.
St. Denis-Alphonse Verville.
St. Hyacinthe-Rouville-Louis Joseph Gauthier. St. James-Louis Audet Lapointe.
St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert'-Stanley Edward Elkin, Rupert Wilson Wigmore.
St. Johns and Iberville-Marie Joseph Demers.
St. Lawrence-St. George-Hon. Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne.
St. Mary

Hermas Deslauriers.
Saltcoats-Thomas MacNutt.
Saskatoon-James Robert Wilson.
Selkirk-Thomas Hay.
Shefford-George Henry Boivin.
Until October 14 {pp, 994, 1748).
f From November 5 (pp. 994, 1748).

[Stage Direction]
Shelburne and Queen's-Hon. William Stevens Fielding.
Sherbrooke-Francis N. McCrea.
Suicoe, E. Riding-James Brocket,t Tudhope. Simcoe, N. Riding-John Allister Currie.
Suicoe, S. Riding-William Alves Boys.
Skeena-Cyrus Wesley Peck.
Souris-Albert Ernest Finley.
Springfield-Robert Lome Richardson.
Stanstead-Willis Keith Baldwin.
Strathcona-James McCrie Douglas.
Swift Current-Ira Eugene Argue.
Temiscouata-Charles Arthur Gauvreau. Terrebonne-Jules-Edouard Prevost.
Three Rivers and St. Maurice-Jacques Bureau. * Timiskaming-Hon. Francis Cochrane.
Toronto, Centre-Edmund Bristol.
Toronto, East-Hon. Sir Edward Kemp, K.C.M.G.
Toronto, North- Rt. Hon. Sir George Eulas Foster, G.C.M.G.
Toronto, South-Charles Sheard.
Toronto, West-Horatio Clarenco Hocken.
Vancouver, Centre-Henry Herbert Stevens. Vancouver, South-Richard Clive Cooper. Vaudreuil-Soulanges-Gustave Boyer.
Victoria, Alta.-William Henry White.
Victoria, Ont.-Hon. Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B.
Victoria and Carleton, N.B.-Thomas Wakem Caldwell.
Victoria City, B.C.-Hon. Simon Fraser Tolmie.
Waterloo, N. Riding-William D. Euler. Waterloo, S. Riding-Frank Stewart Scott. Welland-Evan E. Fraser.
Wellington, N. Riding-William Aurelius Clarke. Wellington, S. Riding-Hon. Hugh Guthrie. Wentworth-Gordon Crooks Wilson. Westmorland-Arthur Bliss Copp.
Westmount-St. Henry-Joseph Alfred Leduc. Weyburn-Richard Frederick Thompson. Winnipeg, Centre-George William Andrews. Winnipeg, North-Matthew Robert Blake. Winnipeg, South-George William Allan.
Wright-Emmanuel B. Devlin.
Yale-Hon. Martin Burrell.
Yamaska-Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu.
Yarmouth and Clare-Edgar Keith Spinney. York, E. Riding-Thomas Foster.
York, N. Riding-John Alexander Macdonald Armstrong.	.
York, S. Riding-William Findlay Maclean.
York, W. Riding-Thomas George Wallace. York-Sunbury-Harry Fulton McLeod.
Yukon-Alfred Thompson.
Deceased, September 22.
C^Y X A D A.
Spouse of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
- ______________\_________________
Monday, September 1, 1919.
The Parliament which had been prorogued from time to time to the 1st day of September. 1919. met this day at Ottawa for the despatch of business.
The House met' at Three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.
Mr. Speaker read a communication from Mr. Arthur F. Sladen, Deputy of the Governor General's Secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate Chamber at 3 p.m., on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the Dominion Parliament.
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And the House being returned to the Commons Chamber:

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that during the recess I received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz:
Of William Folger Nickle, Esq:. Member for the Electoral District of Kingston, by resignation;
Of Simon Fraser Tolmie, Esq., Member for the Electoral District of Victoria City, consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown, to wit: the office of Minister of Agriculture;
Of John Gillaniers Turriff, Esq., Member for the Electoral District of Assiniboia, consequent upon being summoned to the Senate;
Of the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Member for the Electoral District of Quebec, East, by decease;
Of Joseph Read, Esq., Member for the Electoral District of Prince, (P.E.I.), by decease;
Of Hon. Frank Broadstreet Carvell, Member for the Electoral District of Victoria and Carleton, consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts respectively.



OATHS OF OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 1, respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office, introduced and read the first time.-Sir George Foster.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both Houses of Parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
In this, his first visit to our Dominion, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at once renews happy associations with his comrades of the Canadian army, and at the same time undertakes the important duty of making himself acquainted at first hand with the resources and development of our country, and with the ideals and aspirations of our people. The warm and sincere welcome which everywhere greets him is an assurance that the ties which unite our country with the Motherland and the other dominions in a great community of nations were never closer or firmer than they are to-day.
The urgency of proceeding immediately to the consideration of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th day of June, 1919, has compelled me to summon you to renewed labours which I trust will not be of long duration.
My advisers are of the opinion that this treaty ought not to be ratified on behalf of



Canada without the approval of Parliament. Authenticated copies will be placed before you without delay for your consideration.
In addition you will be aslced to direct Jour attention to other measures, including those rendered immediately necessary by the approaching return of peace and by the terms of the Peace Treaty.
Gentlemen 0/ the House 0/ Commons:
Estimates will be laid before you making such financial provision as may be required in connection with the Peace Treaty and for other purposes.
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
,Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
For more than five years the world has endured the devastation and horror of war forced upon it by an intolerable spirit and purpose of aggression. Fortunately our country has been spared the desolation and ruin which have been inflicted upon many other nations: but our participation in the war has involved heavy burdens and vast sacrifices which our people have borne with an unflinching spirit. With reverent thankfulness we realize that the world emerges victorious from its long struggle against the forces of barbarous militarism and savage aggression. The labours of reconstruction may be difficult and even painful; and we must undertake them with the same united resolve and inflexible purpose as sustained our efforts during the years of conflict. To you and to the great nation whose affairs are committed to your charge. I bid God-speed in all your endeavours.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER (for Sir Robert Borden):: I beg to move, seconded by the
hon. Mr. Reid, that the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament be taken'into consideration on Tuesday next. .


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Green Foster: That a Special Committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House under Rule 10, said committee to be composed of Messieurs Reid (Grenville), McKenzie, Calder, McCoig, Middlebro and Robb, and that that portion of Rule 10 limiting the number of members of the said committee be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Joint report of the librarians of Parliament.-Mr. Speaker.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform .the House that the Serjeant-at-Arms, with my approval has appointed Louis

Charles Panet, Esquire, to be his deputy during the present session of Parliament.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 3.27 p.m.
Tuesday, September 2, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 

THE PEACE TREATY.


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, owing to a misunderstanding yesterday I did not have an opportunity of laj'ing upon the table of the House certain documents relating to the Treaty of Peace. However, I took it upon myself to suggest that they should be distributed, and I understand that notice has

been sent to each member of the House and that several members have availed themselves of the opportunity to secure copies. There is at least one copy for each member of the House and for each member of the Senate, and, I think, a small surplus; but the supply is very limited and I hope that the demands of hon. members will be kept within the narrowest possible bounds.
I lay upon the table of the House the following documents:
1.	Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919.
2.	Protocol supplementary to the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919.
3.	Agreement between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire and France and Germany with regard to the military occupation of the Territories of the Rhine, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919.
4.	Declaration by the Gdvernments of the United States of America, Great Britain and France with regard to the occupation of the Rhine Provinces, June 16, 1919.
5.	Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the German delegation on the conditions of Peace, June 16, 1919.
6.	Treaty of Peace between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, and Poland, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919.
The documents which I have laid upon the Table and the copies which are available for distribution have been procured from the Government of the United Kingdom. It was understood that a considerable supply had been prepared for the use of Parliament and for other purposes in Great Britain, and so we availed ourselves of the opportunity to get a sufficient number of copies.
There are two authentic texts of the Treaty, one in French and the other in English. Through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Milner, I endeavoured to procure from the Government of France five hundred copies of the French text of the Treaty. I was unable to do so; the best that I could accomplish was to procure one copy in French of each of the documents to which I have referred.
I lay upon the table of the House, therefore, the following documents:
The English and French texts of the Treaty of Peace, li
The protocol, in French and in English.
The agreement respecting the military occupation of the Rhine territories, in French and in English.
The letter to the president of the German delegation covering the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers, in French and in English.
The Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, and Poland, signed at Versailles on the 28th of June, 1919, in French and in English.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

Robert Laird Borden: The name of Mr. Meighen was inadvertently, omitted from the Special Committee appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House under Rule 10. I now move:
That the name of the Hon. Mr. (Meighen be added to the Special Committee appointed to-prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House under rule 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning regarding a statement made by Mr. McMillan, a son of our old friend who formerly occupied a seat in this House, to the effect that there are on the pay lists the names of 30,000 soldiers who never enlisted and who cost the country $30,000,000. I do not believe there is any truth in this statement, but I would ask the minister if his attention has been drawn to it.


Major General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia):: My first knowledge of the matter was when I read the article this morning. I cannot believe there is any truth in it, and, in my opinion, it is entirely erroneous.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. HOWARD PRIMROSE WHIDDEN (Brandon) rose to move that a humble
[Stage Direction]
Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the thanks of this House to His Excellency for the gracious speech *which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament. He said
Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the Address I desire to express my appreciation of the privilege afforded me of participating in the discussion of matters so vital as those which will be under review during the present session.
The speech from the Throne is memorable alike for its brevity and the special features which give it its real character and significance. We are gathered here in Special Session mainly to consider and to ratify, as the representatives of the Canadian people, the Treaty of Peace, the signing of which on June 28 last at Versailles brought to an end the most terrible and cruel war in history.
But before making any further reference to this duty which lies before us, I desire to refer to what has already been so appropriately brought to our attention, viz: the presence in this country of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. That he has already won the genuine esteem and affectionate regard of our pebple in those communities fortunately honoured by his visit, is so apparent that we are accepting it with unqualified satisfaction and delight.
That his coming is most timely all will agree. Following across the Atlantic many of those with whom he had been associated on the Western Front and by whom he was considered a most worthy comrade, his visit makes possible the further friendships and the maturing of the understandings which are mutually helpful and important at the present hour. The new world adventured forth in time of war and joined the old in common cause, and in doing so found across the seas common ideals, institutions and ruling sentiments; now the old land, by its representative, fares forth in time of peace, and there is soon discovered by him common ideals, institutions andi sentiments among the people with whom for a time he associates himself. We were in reality but new-world Britons over there; he is in reality but an old-country Canadian here. It is probably not going too far to say that more than any other the present royal visitor has caught the Canadian spirit and so is best able to interpret to us the deeper meaning of the essential British spirit.
But there is something more than this. The Prince of Wales in Canada to-day is interpreting, perhaps unconsciously to him-
self, the significance and advantage of British traditions and institutions, and this copies at a time when Canadians are more conscious than ever before of their own nationhood and possible destiny. Significant indeed, is it not, that so full a response should be given by 'such democratic people to such a democratic Prince, himself the product of the most democratic Empire the world ha-s ever known?
We in Canada do well not to forget that we are heirs as well as conquering pioneers and that to-morrow as well as yesterday we shall find a complete freedom and a complete national life most easily possible with an ever rejuvenated mother and constantly developing sisters in the great Britannic family of nations. The meaning for both stability and progress in our growing Canadian life of the debt we owe to the past, our connections in the present, and our possible alliances in the future, cannot be over valued. We do well to move with steady steps in all the advance that is made in the coming days.
This will doubtless be known in coming years as the "Peace Treaty Session." Copies of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany are now before us. It is for us to consider intelligently and with as broad an outlook as we can command the essential items in this great document. Already we have learned from the press its more important features. Making peace is a stern business, -and of necessity there are in this Treaty stern requirements. When we recall the methods and the madness of the enemy we will not fail to realize that severe treatment is not only natural but right.
My task to-day does not include reference to special articles or sections. The Prime Minister will undoubtedly condense and interpret for us the outstanding parts of the Treaty.
However, I would like to emphasize in a general way the meaning of this Treaty for the world and for Canada. It marks the guaranteed end of the most terrible war the world has known. Devastation, destruction and death have been so common for five years that we can scarcely realize they are no longer with us. Freedom, Right, Civilization itself, were about to be destroyed. This document says they are to continue. The weak and the small were about to be thrown to the wolves; this Treaty says they will have a chance to survive among the fittest. The safety of the eWorld is once more made secure. Permanent peace is made possible in this Treaty by the

special covenant of the League of Nations. Provision for this league is the result of the most earnest efforts ever made to win a lasting peace. It is the expression primarily of the best thought of the leading minds of Euglish-speaking statomen. Many of us here have looked for the perfecting of some such plan. While its every detail may not command a perfectly unanimous assent, the central idea must have our undivided endorsation and continued support. *
The very fact that the Canadian Parliament is considering this Peace Treaty is itself an evidence that another stage in the fuller development of national life has been reached; and while many influences have been working to this end we do well not to forget the important part played by our own Prime Minister in realizing much of the progress made in this direction.
The war is over. Victory was hard to win, but as the grand " old Tiger of France" has put it, " It is harder to win peace than to win war." May Canadians never be behind in performing their full share in order that an unbroken peace for the world may be realized.
The labours of war are over; the settling of peace is well nigh accomplished, but as the speech from the Throne suggests, the painful work of reconstruction is just begun. In some respects by far the most difficult task is the one now committed to our hands. Are we to fail in the undertaking, or are we once more to be among the victors? It depends upon the decisions now reached, and enterprises undertaken by the Canadian people themselves. If we enter upon "the piping times of peace'' merely with a view to making the new era one of barbarously splendid material prosperity we will undoubtedly lose. If, on the other hand, we take up the labours of reconstruction as a necessary part of the renewing and rebuilding not only of our own country but of the whole world, we must just as surely win.
David Lloyd George has said that one of the real aims of the war has been to " get a new world." We need to get. a new Canada, rightly set in a new world. If this is to be realized there must be a larger recognition of the strength there is in unity of spirit, inflexibility of purpose, and loftiness of national and individual aim. If these were so readily possible in war, why not in times of peace? Our people responded nobly in a thousand ways. A wonderful willingness to co-operate possessed ns. Unflinching determination that the right
should conquer held us steadily to our job. Surely this can continue now that the war is over, and yet it will be more difficult to secure in a continued way in times of peace and of new prosperity than during the trying period when the foe was ready to leap upon us.
If we are to carry on the rebuilding of the nation we must in some way secure not only the rights of those who have been deprived of them in large measure hitherto, but there must also be a wider recognition of right as necessarily regnant in every relationship that exists throughout the entire Dominion.
The present class consciousness which characterizes much of our Canadian life at the present time is but the product of causes definite though complex, and very naturally does it emphasize its rights and its claims. But I dare to predict, Sir, that the coming corporate national consciousness will be more mindful of the rights of all for the sake of all than ever in the past of our nation's history. Industrial unrest will not give way to better conditions until this is so. There must be a coming together of all parties concerned, a better understanding of each other, and a greater willingness on the part of each to give place to the simple claims of the other group. But this end will not accomplish what is needed, nor will it ever come to stay, until there is a larger appreciation of the dominance which righteousness should have in all that we now call our Canadian life. Let drastic legislation be enforced to stop profiteering and to secure fairplay all round. But, at the same time, let there be a rapid and widespread acceptance of those splendid ideals and virtues for the perpetuation of which sixty thousand Canadians laid down their lives. Let those ideals and virtues permeate the lives of those who are now going to live for Canada, just as they permeated the lives of those who have died for us. They sacrificed their all in order that law might of natural consequence not only be enacted but kept as the'very expression of our national conception of life, and that truth and justice might prevail in our land. Further, Mr. Speaker, I think it is implied in the speech of His Excellency that if the task of reconstruction is to be well done, there is need for a truer understanding between the different sections of Canada. Provincial boundaries are a convenient device, and they have their interesting historic associations; but Chinese walls are antiquated, and, indeed, are but the evidence of fear, suspicion' or intolerance. Let there
[Stage Direction]
be no Chinese walls separating any parts of Canada. They do not give any guarantee of a healthy spirit actuating the body politic. Healthy rivalry as between province and province, east and west, always has its rightful place and will always continue. But sectionalism should give way to the advent of a truer national viewpoint and a sense of that dominion wide brotherhood which was so noticeable during the five years when we had a common foe to fight and a common cause to bind us together.
The problem of re-absorbing the returned soldier is not so much economic and social as it is ethical and national. What Canada needs to take seriously to-day is not so much the re-assimilation of	the
returned soldier as an assimilation of that ideal and spirit which lead our men to spring to the colours and to live or die for freedom and for the flag, that liberty might still be ours, to be preserved as the priceless legacy of generations yet unborn. We have been well told by some of the strongest of the leaders in our Canadian army on their return to us that we need not be afraid of the returned soldier. This is quite true. The returned soldiers, it is siaid, belonged to us and will very soon find their place once more in the land they call their own. I agree with that; but I believe that we should go even further and say: "Do not be afraid of that high spirit of devotion which took our soldiers overseas and carried them through all the privations and dangers and cruelties of the most frightful war ever fought." Let us make that spirit of devotion our own. We would do well to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, which are applicable to us at present: "It is for us, the living, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced;" and I am satisfied, Sir, as I believe we all are, that it is in proportion as we take up the cause and incorporate in ourselves the spirit of those men who went and conquered ithe enemy, and whom we are proud to have back in our midst, that we shall attain a happy goal. When those who are returning join with us in the dedication of our national life to the making of a greater and better Canada than existed a decade ago, we shall achieve results that would not have been thought possible, at least in our lifetime. If the Canadian people will do this, all the sacrifices and all the cost will not have been in vain, and Canada, standing as she does to-day at the very gateway of her destiny, will enter
[Mr. Whictden.l
upon an era of real prosperity and achievement of which the greatest of our many great national fathers scarcely dared dream. I am sure that if Canadians will harken to the new watch cry and will accept the new challenge flung down by those who will never speak to us again in audible tones, and by those, also, who have returned to represent the fallen, as they represented all of us in their going, we shall see in the northern half of this continent a nation with a character, and one that in actual achievement will in the coming day shine conspicuously among the nations that have made this world great and good for all the peoples of the earth.
Mr. JOHN CHARLES McINTOSH (Nanaimo, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to second the motion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden). To me the honour is somewhat onerous, lacking as I do experience in Parliamentary life, and I trust that the House will be patient with me in view of this circumstance. Since last session there have been several changes in the ministry. The House, I think, will join with me in expressing regret at the loss of the great and talented services as Minister of Finance, of Sir Thomas White. He gave his services freely to his country at great personal sacrifice to himself. The life of Sir Thomas White should be a model and an inspiration to the boyhood of Canada. Reared upon a farm with a widowed mother to support, and being charged with the responsibility in early life of the management of that farm, he had great difficulty in obtaining the education which is at the command of most boys. He worked, and worked hard to acquire the education which has enabled him to take such a brilliant part in the affairs of Canada. His success from the very beginning was mostly the result of personal effort; the money necessary to enable him to pursue his studies at the university and the law school was obtained by working as a newspaper man and in other capacities. Therefore, I repeat that the life of Sir Thomas White and the industry and perseverance with which he applied himself to the attainment of the objects before him should serve as a model to the boyhood of Canada.
His place in the Government has been taken by Sir Henry Drayton who has made such a brilliant record for himself as chairman of the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners and I doubt not that the great ability which he has brought to the discharge of the important duties of that

office will characterize the discharge of his new duties as Minister of Finance.
The portfolio of Agriculture has been bestowed upon my hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). This appointment, I am sure, is one which will have the approval of all the people of Canada as it certainly has the approval of the people of British Columbia. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture is a true farmer. He is a farmer not only in the theoretical sense, but he is an actual larmer. He not only performs manual labour upon his own farm but he has received an education along technical lines in agriculture. The hon. the minister's merits are of no mean character; he has attained to a position of eminence in the agricultural world particularly with regard to live stock. He has long been looked upon as one of the great authorities in North America and that recognition is of such a character that in the United States of America his opinions and decisions are continuously reported in the official bulletins.
The people of Canada will, I am sure, share the sorrow of the people of the sister Dominion of South Africa in the loss of that great empire statesman, Sir Louis Botha. Although formerly an enemy he gave his life to the promotion of those great ideals and principles upon which the British Empire is founded.
This, to my mind, is one of the most momentous and historical sessions of our Canadian Parliament, called .as it primarily is to ratify the Treaty of Peace which has just been signed-by the representatives of our Government who were delegates to the conference held for the purpose of formulating that treaty. It is .a fitting epitome of the great work done by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden,), who has given his life an|d his talents to his country and whose name will go down to posterity with the names oi other Canadian statesmen such as Sir John A. Macdonald, and the late lamented and much revered Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
It is momentous also from the fact that to-day His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, heir to the British Crown, is in our midst, and has performed the historic ceremony of laying the corner stone of the tower of the newly reconstructed Houses of Parliament. It is but right and proper that this should be so, .as his grandfather, the late, revered King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales, performed a similar cefe-mony when these buildings, the first
houses of Parliament of the new Confederation of Canada, were constructed. We welcome him here to-day even as the people of that day welcomed his ancestor. The ties which bind the hearts of the Canadian people to the Throne of Great Britain were never so strong as they are to-day. Though they be but ties of loving sentiment, fine as. silk, yet they are stronger than the toughest bands of steel. His Royal Highness has all the lovable qualities of his grandfather which so endeared him to his people. The son of a great ancestor of his, then Prince of Wales, greatly loved by the English people of that day for his soldierly qualities, was called Edward, the Black Prince; our Prince, showing soldierly qualities in no less degree, is equally well beloved of his people as Edward the White Prince. His admiration for our soldiers while in France was shown by his presence for two months with them while in the field fighting for freedom. May his life long be spared to his fellow countrymen, and when the time comes that he be King, may he rule long and wisely.
That the Prince has the right ideal was, I think, shown by a statement which was made the other day by him. He said:
The splendid services of the British Dominions in the war have given them a new prestige among the peoples of the world, and they have established their status as self-governing nations once and for all.
In June 1535 a Norman Frenchman, an adventurous seaman named Jacques Gar-tier, sailed from the seaport of St. Male, and gave Canada to the world. This has been well described by that brilliant and talented statesman, the late Thomas D'Arcy McGee in the following lines:
In the seaport of St. Malo, 'twas a smiling morn in May,
When the Commodore, Jacques Cartier, to the westward sailed away
In the crowded old cathedral all the town were on their knees
For the safe return of kinsmen from the undiscovered seas.
Some three hundred and seventy-nine years later when the vengeful Germans broke through Belgium into fair France the prayers of the people of France were answered. Canada saved France from destruction and helped save the civilization and liberty of the world from German aggression and tyranny. So long as the tongue of man is capable of utterance, so will the brave deeds of the Canadian Army Corps be spoken of in tones of admiration. Their deeds are imperishable and indelibly

imprinted upon the pages of history in letters of the blood which they so freely shed in France and Flanders.
The Canadian Army Corps was no ordinary army corps, but an army in very truth, greater in point of numbers than any corps in the British service, and let it be said with pride, never under strength. Canada not only gave to the world a brave and effective fighting force, but gave also what was even more rare, a great and successful leader in the person of Sir Arthur Currie. No aUny corps commander stood higher in the estimation of those great leaders, Marshal Foch and Sir Douglas Haig, than Sir Arthur Currie, and deservedly so. Sir Arthur Currie is no creature of fortunate circumstances, no accidental genius. His success was the result of many years of hard work on military lines performed long before the war. Of this I can speak with knowledge, as he was a fellow-citizen of mine in British Columbia for some twenty years. No work on military technique was too formidable for him to peruse and master. Military work was his one great obsession, and how well for his country did it prove.
Although the Peace Treaty has not yet been laid before the House, it is so much a matter of record and discussion the world over that it would here seem permissible to discuss some of its salient features.
There was some slight criticism when the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues attended the Peace Conference. This criticism was never justifiable. The war as waged by Great Britain and the Dominions was not a war of aggression, was not for lust of conquest, but for me liberty and civilization which we value so highly. When the call came, Canada, as well as the Motherland, was ready to defend the right. If with this noble object in view we expended the best of our blood and much of our treasure, so was it right that we should be called with the other powers into conference as to the terms that the defeated enemy should receive. Surely it goes to the very root of our political liberties that as to the expenditure of tmoney we should be represented, and it is a stronger reason when we give our best blood. We have been well and ably represented at the conference by the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, and the world has given him due credit for his great work there. The result of the work of the conference will shortly be before us.
I would like to place some of the salient features of the Treaty before the House.

It defines the boundaries of a new Germany shorn of its ill-fated military prestige.
To France has been given back that which was forced from her fifty years ago, the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine.
The new found freedom of the Polish people is made effective by the return of the territory so long held in subjugation by (Germany, Austria and Russia, and an outlet to the sea given them.
A new independent state has been created as Czecho-Slovakia, and the necessary territory for the self-determination of the future of these people ceded by Germany.
The boundaries of a new Belgium are delineated, and a new system of government formulated for Luxembourg and the Saar basin.
The people, of Northern Schleswig are to be given the right of self-determination ruthlessly withheld from them by the Ger-.mans since 1866.
German-Austria is to be recognized by this new Germany as an autonomous and independent state, and thus separated from unscrupulous German influence and control.
The colonial possessions of Germany the world over have departed from her pernicious control to the several powers subject to the mandate of the League of Nations, our sister Dominion, that of Australia, having control of certain island territory adjacent to her shores.
Germany's army and her armaments are restricted, making her harmless from a military point of view.
Those persons, including the ex-Kaiser, who are responsible for this horrible war, or who have, committed offences against international law, are to be placed on trial for their acts before special tribunals representative of the powers.
Reparation must be made by Germany for the ruin and distress she has caused.
Certain ports, railways, rivers and canals are to be internationalized.
Guarantees are arranged for the due carrying out by Germany of her treaty arrangements so that the future peace of the world may be assured.
These-are shortly, the main features of the Treaty. The great outstanding fact is that Germany is shorn of her proud boast and vain ambition of "Germany over all." It was her lust of conquest and desire to put into being this selfish ambition which has caused the unutterable distress throughout the world.
Of all the countries that participated in the war Canada should recover the most quickly. A country of great area, greater in territory than that of the United States

and Alaska together, she is a vast reservoir of raw material for which the world hungers and cries out. The conversion of these resources into marketable products and their sale will soon create a vast trade, and only by the creation of this trade can we effectually carry the financial burden which the war has placed upon our shoulders. This, however, is dependent upon industrial peace. Industrial peace can only be obtained by legislation and regulation in a remedial way for the protection of the worker, the creator of all real and true wealth.
This was recognized by the great powers in the Peace Conference, and incorporated in the Treaty.
At page 193 of the Treaty, being part XIII relating to labour, the preamble reads:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship, and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled;
And an improvement of those conditions is urgently required ; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young -persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures;
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries ; etc.
To this declaration Canada is a consenting party.	The	general	principlesembodied . in this part of the treaty are the result of' the work of the Prime Minister, Sir	Robert	Borden.His was the	mind	which	conceived
this portion of the treaty; his was the hand that wrote the words, and too great credit cannot be given him for the work that he has done along these lines.
The motion of the Prime Minister which put into	effect	these	principles
at the Peace Conference is incorporated in the treaty as Article 427, which is to be found at page 204. It reads as follows;
The High Contracting Parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual,
of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate [DOT] attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour tehould not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance:
First:	The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not he regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
Second:	The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
Third:	The payment to the employed of a
wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth:	The adoption of an eight hours day
or a forty-eight hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth :	The adoption of a weekly rest of at
least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth:	The abolition of child labour and the
Imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
Seventh:	The principle that men and women
should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth:	The standard set by law in each
country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Ninth:	Each State should make provision
for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensqre the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed.
These are the principles laid down by the conference in regard to labour and included in the Peace Treaty. I say that labour should have no fear of the mind that conceived these principles; labour should have no fear of the hand that wrote the words embodying these principles; labour should have no fear of the personality that brought these principles into being. On the contrary the foundations laid by Sir Robert Borden at the Peace Conference will be the beginning of a new era for labour in Canada-the Prime Minister's work on these lines, when brought into effect in Canada by legislation, as I feel sure it will be shortly, will, to my mind, be the saving of our country from industrial unrest.

The necessity for this legislation is selfevident. The report of the Industrial Relations Commission shows this very clearly, and their recommendations will, I feel sure, be immediately given effect to by necessary legislation brought before this House when the work of the Industrial Congress which' has been called together is finished.
Organized labour is playing the game, even as they so manfully placed the game in their participation in the war. Of the great army which Canada sent overseas to put into effect the great principle of right, seventy per cent came from the ranks of labour. True organized labour still contends for right. They are rapidly casting off the false Bolsheviki doctrine advocated by the One Big Union, which is declining as rapidly as it rose. They still, however, have their objectives, and their principal objectives are just and laudable ones. Chief among them are statutory regulation of hours of labour, establishment of mini mum wage, insurance against unemployment and insurance against old age. The first two objectives are dealt with in the treaty and no one can justly deny the right of labour to receive these rights.
We are told by scientists that two great basic and primal instincts survive in the human race to-day. One is the instinct of self-preservation. It is deeply implanted in all of us. The margin of safety to the worker-what is necessary to maintain life -is miserably small. The nightmare of unemployment is ever before him-the great and constant fear that he and his dependents may feel the gnawing canker of actual want. This calamity must be provided against by the State and that constant fear removed from the mind of labour.
The men leading organized labour are safe and sane men; I have sat in council with them in my own constituency and in the city of Victoria. Their mentality is sound, and they are certain of the justice of their demands. I would like to see labour represented in this House; I do not think it is to the credit either of the people of Canada or of our present system of representation that the condition in this regard should remain as it is. It seems to my mind an anomaly that the great proportion of our population occupying the ranks of labour should be without direct representation in Parliament. Not only is it their right that they should have that representation, but it would make for the safety and stability of our nation.
I am glad to know that the Board of Commerce is performing the functions for

which it was created, and I trust that its powers may be amplified if found necessary.
The fundamental cause of the extraordinarily high cost of living is undoubtedly the lack of production during the war and the destruction of so much material wealth throughout the world. This condition, however, has been aggre-vated by the selfish greed of those who took advantage of the opportunities which the war afforded them. This is something which should be strongly repressed; I trust that the work of the newly-created Board of Commerce will be effective in curbing this menace.
The high cost of living bears harshly upon the worker. It may be said that wages have advanced concurrently with the increase in the cost of living. That is not strictly true, because the increase in wages generally takes place a considerable time after increases in the prices of commodities necessary to life are made effective.
Then again, if unemployment takes place or there is only intermittent or casual employment, suffering is sure to ensue. The great fear of actual want is more oppressive than ever before upon the mind of the worker.
The dean of all newspaper men, iColonel Henry Watterson, fondly as "Marse Henry," the friend of men of letters and the companion of statesmen, in his reminiscences now being published, declares civilization to be balanced on the edge of a precipice, either to go upwards to higher things' or to go down to a thousand years of barbarism. I do not agree with this. Civilization must be ever upward, no downward plunge awaits it. It should, however, be our constant care to guard against any retrograde movement by taking care of conditions as they arise and not allow irritation to grow into open discontent. I have every faith in the mental stability of the Canadian people to safely override any storm which may arise.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that, having in view the purpose for which this Parliament is summoned, no hon. member on this side of the House will have any fault to find with the text of the speech from the Throne. I am further sure that no hon. member will have any fault to find with the speeches made by the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. For many years I have had the pleasure of being in this House, and :I have listened to

many speeches, of a like character. We always, on occasions of this kind, look forward to good speeches, carefully prepared and well delivered, and if I may be permitted, let me assure the hon. gentlemen who have performed the duty of moving and seconding the address this afternoon, that their speeches rank well and equal to the best of those which have graced the traditions of the past. I have always been proud of being a native of that little province where the mayflower blooms beneath the snow down by the roaring Atlantic, and I have further reason for being prouder to-day that we claim as a Nova Scotian the hon. gentleman who moved the Address. While I -must confess I am not sure of the homeland of the hon. gentleman who seconded the Address, his attainments and his name would justify the presumption that he is a Nova Scotian, and until there is evidence to the contrary, I shall ask the House to believe that he is.
I am sure that we are very much pleased and edified by the very learned manner in which the hon. gentleman dealt with the various subjects implied in the speech from the Throne and also in the duty for which we are called here to-day. But it is not my purpose, nor will the occasion on which I arise in the arrangement which appears to be understood, between both sides of this House permit me to say very much at present on the Address or on the speeches which have just been delivered. I have nothing in any way controversial to say in regard to those speeches. The hon. gentleman who moved the Address spoke eloquently, and I am sure feelingly and conscientiously about the great blessing of unity not only between separate nations but within individual nations themselves. If he has ever felt any lack of unity or has ever seen any signs or evidences of lack of unity in this country, I am sure his great ability as a Canadian, as a member of this House and as a gentleman will come to his raid in trying to stamp out any spirit of that kind which he may meet with in this House, and I will advise my good friend to begin with that very excellent work at Jerusalem.
Let me hasten to associate hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and the Liberal party generally with the kindly reference made in the speech from the Throne to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The Canadian people, and indeed the British people at large have a right to expect and do expect great and splendid things from the Prince of Wales who will in due course and we hope in the dispensation
of Providence, one day be the Sovereign of this great country. Without wishing to approach anything like exaggeration I may say that our highest expectations have been more than realized in the person of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We pride ourselves upon being a democratic country; we pride ourselves upon having our very life, politically and otherwise, based upon the sound principles of democracy, freedom, justice and right, and we have every reason to hope and believe, aye, Sir, we are sure, that we have in the person of the Prince of Wales a gentleman who understands those principles and who, during his future career will do much towards supporting those ideas and placing them on a surer and wider foundation than they ever have been in the past. When the day comes in due course and in the dispensation * of Providence that he shall become King and Emperor of this great country, he will, I am sure, from his education, his training, and his contact with the people of Canada, be fully equipped for carrying forward the great heritage handed down to him by those who have preceded him on the glorious throne of Great Britain. We all wish His Royal Highness the greatest possible happiness in his trip through Canada, a safe return to the motherland, and all happiness and prosperity during his career as Prince of Wales and as our future King.
The Treaty to which reference has been made by the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address will no doubt occupy the centre of the stage during this session and will in due course receive the careful consideration of the members of the Government as well as of hon. members on both sides of the House. From the observations made by the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address, particularly by the mover, it appears, and we believe there are in that treaty terms which may possibly change the conditions and status which have hitherto existed between this great country of ours and the motherland. If any action of this House is to have for its purpose or effect the changing of our relations with the mother country, the changing of the constitutional status of Canada, we shall have, indeed, to be very careful as to how we deal with such questions. This is a democratic country; this is a country in which we profess to act along the lines suggested by the free will of the people as expressed at the polls. This matter of changed relations between Canada and the mother country has never been submitted to the Canadian people and if this Treaty

has for its purpose the making of any such change without its being submitted to the people, we should move with the greatest possible care and caution. I am sure that such a spirit will animate every member of this House and of the Government in dealing with this question.
I suggested a moment ago that it was not my purpose for the present to go fully into this discussion, but I thought it well to make these observations at this stage, as I have it in view to move the adjournment of the debate in a lew moments.
It has been arranged with the Prime Minister that the discussion on the Address shall not proceed for the moment, as he is anxious to bring forward some business in connection with the Treaty, and, of course, we are only too glad to facilitate this important business. I now beg to move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: Might we have some intimation when the debate will be resumed ?


Robert Laird Borden: Very soon, I think. There is a matter of urgency on which I desire to speak. With the permission of the House I should like this afternoon to take the resolution which is to be found on page ii of the Votes and Proceedings, and which reads as follows, with the addition of two words which were accidentally omitted:
Resolved, that it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and .Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
I beg to inove for the leave of the House to proceed now with this resolution, which in the ordinary course could not be taken until to-morrow.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: May I ask whether this resolution involves a full discussion of the Treaty which has been laid on the Table to-day?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Jacques Bureau: I might remark that I have not had an opportunity of reading the Treaty, except such parts of it as were published in the newspapers; and I think most of my fellow-members are in the same

position. We could hardly have an intelligent discussion until we have had an opportunity of studying the Treaty. I understood that this resolution was put on the Order Paper to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to make a statement, and that after the statement had been made the debate would be adjourned until hon. members had had an opportunity of studying the Treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be only reasonable, if hon. gentlemen desire it, that the debate should be adjourned after I make my statement. On the other hand, I think the statement which I shall make to the House may possibly be of some assistance in giving to hon. gentlemen a conception of the salient points of the Treaty, and especially as they affect the interests of this country. It was really with that idea I proposed to take this resolution this afternoon. I shall be quite agreeable to whatever my hon. friends on the other side may desire as to to adjourning the debate after I have made the statement.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Gape Breton North and Victoria)): I am sorry I omitted to say that the Prime Minister agreed this morning to adjourning the debate after he had made his statement.	j


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I
think a large number of copies of the Treaty should be printed and distributed for the use not only of members of this House, but of the Canadian public. I do not think it wouli take a great deal of space to incorporate it in Hansard. At all events, the Treaty and the associated documents should be printed immediately so that the members of this House and the public may become acquainted with the real issues involved.


Samuel Hughes: I have not had the privilege of reading the resolution or the Treaty, except as it appeared in the papers. I do not know what the object of the resolution may be. I cannot find it in the Votes and Proceedings. I think in all fairness to members on both sides of the House some notification should have been given, so that we would have known this was coming up. Is it the intention that the Prime Minister's statement shall conclude the debate?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already
explained that I desire to make a statement which I thought might be helpful to members of the House in grasping the salient points of the Treaty, and that immediately after I have made the statement the debate may

be adjourned if any bon. gentleman so desires.


Samuel Hughes: That is this debater


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Mr. J. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Veroheres):: I understood the Prime Minister to say that there was only one copy of the Treaty in French. Would it be possible to have furtther copies printed for distribution to bon. members?


Robert Laird Borden: If hon. gentlemen desire it, it can be done; it may take a little time. I might explain that it was impracticable to translate the Treaty into French and have it printed, for the reason that it would not be authentic. There were two authentic originals, one in English and one in French. The French text arrived only two days ago, and therefore could not be printed in time. If we had attempted to translate it after we had received the English copy of the Treaty, we would have had two French versions, probably differing somewhat from each other, and that was not desirable.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: One would have been in Parisian French.


Jacques Bureau: And the translation might have in it the patois.



THE PEACE TREATY.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move the following
resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and Which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by th$ plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are still too near to the tremendous and terrible events through which the world has passed since August five years ago to realize fully their supreme significance in the world's history and their all-compelling influence upon the future destiny of humanity. The conflicts of a thousand years fade into relative insignificance whefi compared with this struggle in which for one or another purpose the entire manhood, and more than that, the entire womanhood, of the bellitSir Robert Borden.]
gerent nations were engaged. This war numbers its dead by millions and its maimed and wounded by tens of millions. It surpassed all previous conflicts in the extraordinary extent to which applied science and the control of mankind over the mighty forces of nature were brought into play [DOT] for purposes of destruction. It overthrew and destroyed the most formidable and highly organized military power known in the world's history; it crumbled thrones and sent kings and princes wandering as outcasts far from the places they once occupied; it tested as never before the courage and self-control of all the nations; and finally it seemed to shake the very foundations upon which organized society has slowly, and as we thought securely, established itself during a score of centuries.
It wias a war not of armies but of nations; and yet if we mistake not it was something more. If we cannot perceive in its genesis an inevitable clash between two strongly opposed and mutually destructive ideals and in its issue the triumph of reasoned justice and ordered liberty, if, out of its limitless sacrifice, mankind may not gain redemption from such unendurable horrors in the future, where can we see one ray of hope to lighten the pathway that lies before the nations?
We are assembled to consider terms of Peace which were presented to Germany after many anxious months of study and debate. Including the British Dominions, who were given in the Peace Conference a place commensurate with the part they had taken in the war, there were thirty-two nations assembled on the 6th day of May last in the secret Plenary Session of the Peace Conference at which those terms were unanimously adopted. I do not claim that there was no hesitation or even that there was no protest. Probably there was not a single nation whose representatives were absolutely satisfied with every disposition contained in the Treaty. I do not except the representatives of Canada from that sweeping assertion. But there was the great outstanding fact that thirty-two nations of varying and sometimes conflicting ideals and aspirations, widely divergent in status, in power and in political development, and separated sometimes by ancient antagonisms and long-standing jealousies, did finally give their undivided assent to a treaty which, whatever its imperfections may be, was designed in all sincerity to assure the future peace of the world.



for the prevention of future war, so far as that may be humanly possible. Since the terms of the Covenant were made public some months ago they have been subjected in each country to keen analysis and sometimes to fierce criticism. No one would pretend that the Covenant is a perfect instrument or that it affords an absolute guarantee against future wars. Its most sanguine advocates have made no such claim. Above all waves of criticism stands the solid rock of a Covenant foupded upon the solemn and unanimous affirmation of thirty-two of the world's nations that not force but right and justice shall be the arbiter of international disputes, that war is not a reasonable, just or recognized method of determining controversies between States, and that each of the thirty-two signatory nations binds itself to the maintenance and enforcement of these eternal principles.
No nation shall resort to the arbitrament of arms until its quarrel has been submitted to the Council of Nations or to an international court of justice. Any nation failing to respect this just obligation is subject in the first place to be treated as an international outlaw and placed under a commercial and economic ban. Thereafter it is liable to such punishment through naval and military measures as may compel an observance of the obligation imposed upon it by the Covenant. The League of Nations further contemplates effective provisions for preventing trade with uncivilized races in noxious drugs, intoxicating liquor and munitions of war. It is to establish safeguards against the white slave traffic. It provides effective means for that direct and intimate consultation and discussion which are so necessary for a true understanding and settlement of international difficulties. The Canadian delegates took exception both in form and in substance to certain of its original provisions. Our views were set forth in a confidential, memorandum which I circulated to the members of the Commission who drafted the Covenant and to the representatives of the five great Allied Powers. Many of our objections were met in the revised draft; and as to the others we felt that important as we regarded them, they ought not to be accounted of moment in comparison with the supreme purpose embodied in the Covenant.
Side by side with the Covenant stand the provisions of the Labour Convention. It was my privilege to attend the earlier meetings of the Commission which framed the articles on that subject now embodied

in Part XIII of the treaty. At one of these meetings the preamble of the Labour Convention was framed. It is as follows:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, 'by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures ;
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries :
The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity, as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, agree to the following. ,
Subsequently I was charged with the duty of bringing together representatives of the important industrial powers and of endeavouring to reconcile certain divergences of view in respect of the affirmation of general principles which have already been under discussion in this House. Those principles were adopted upon my motion at the Peace Conference in the following form:
The High Contracting Parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in Section I and associated with that of the League of Nations. They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance:
First:	The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
Second :	The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.

Third:	The payment to the employed of a
wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth: The adoption of an eight hours day of a forty-eight hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth :	The adoption of a weekly rest of at
least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth :	The abolition of child labour and the
imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
Seventh : The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth:	The standard set by law in each
country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Ninth: Each State should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the law's and regulations for the protection of the employed.
Without claiming that these methods and principles are either complete or Anal, the High Contracting Parties are of opinion that they are well fitted to guide the policy of the League of Nations ; and that, if adopted by the industrial communities w'ho are- members of the League, and safeguarded in practice by an adequate system of such inspection, they will confer lasting benefits upon the wage-earners of the world.
These general principles and the recital above quoted constitute together a basis upon which international regulation of labour conditions shall proceed. Upon them the Magna Charta of labour throughout the world will be founded in the years to come.
The Labour Convention provides that the original members of the League of Nations shall be the original members of the Labour Convention.
It provides for a permanent organization consisting of a general conference of representatives of the adherent nations and of an international labour office controlled by a governing body. Each adherent nation is entitled to send four representatives to the general conference which is to be held at least once in each year. Of these representatives two shall be government delegates and two others shall be delegates representing respectively the employers and the work people. The conference is entitled to frame proposals which may take the form of a recommendation to be submitted to the adherent nations or of a draft international convention for ratification by each such nation. It is incumbent upon each government concerned to place any such proposal before the proper legislative authority for its consideration. There are also provisions
for inquiry into any alleged grievance or injustice. The first meeting has been convened for the 29th of October next and it is to be held at Washington.
The immense labours and responsibilities which devolved upon the British Plenipotentiaries, and especially upcn Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour, can only be realized by those who were intimately associated with them in the labour of the Peace Conference. When the time comes for a fuller history of the events at Paris between the middle of January and the end of June, there will be an even warmer appreciation and recognition of their service to the Empire and to the world. Nor should I omit a tribute to the representatives of the other Dominions, with whom the Canadian delegates always worked in absolute co-operation and understanding.
It was my privilege to have very intimate relations with General Botha, whose service to his couritry and to the whole Empire has been so splendid and so conspicuous and whose loss is universally deplored.
I desire further to place on record also my grateful acknowledgment of the invaluable assistance of those of my colleagues who were associated with me in the representation of Canada at the Conference; also to my colleagues in Ottawa with whom we were in very close communication on questions of doubt or difficulty.
I should not omit to mention the valuable assistance which my colleagues and I received from Mr. Lloyd Harris, Chairman of the Canadian Mission in London; Mr. Frank P. Jones, Vice-Chairman of the Canadian War Trade Board; and Dr. James W. Robertson as representative of the Department of Agriculture. During a portion of the time Mr. P. M. Draper aided us with useful advise and suggestions respecting labour questions. The services of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar, Judge Advocate General, and Mr. Loring C. Christie, Legal Adviser of the Department of External Affairs, were especially notable. They filled highly important positions on several committees of the Peace Conference and discharged responsible duties in connection with the British Empire delegation. Their services received very warm appreciation from Sir Ernest Pollock, Solicitor General of England, and from Sir Maurice Hankey, British Secretary General of the Peace Conference.
I now come to consider the character of the representation secured by Canada at

the Conference, her position as a signatory of the Treaties concluded there, and her status as a member of the League of Nations and of the International Labour Convention. Early in the war it had been announced in the various Parliaments of the Empire that the Dominions would be fully consulted concerning the terms of peace. The sessions of the Imperial War Cabinet held in the spring of 1917 and in the summer of 1918 afforded in a certain measure the means for the carrying out of this understanding. Before leaving Great Britain for Canada on the 17th August, 1918, I had been actively engaged as a member of a committee of the Imperial War Cabinet, the constitution and purpose of which were somewhat notable. This committee had its genesis in a very frank and full discussion which I initiated in the Imperial War Cabinet immediately after my arrival in June, 1918. The whole issue involved was relegated for consideration to a committee consisting of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, General Smuts representing General Botha. The committee called into consultation the Secretary of State for War, the Chief of the General Staff and the highest military experts from the more important theatres of war. Its duty was to determine what further effort was necessary to win the war according to the views of these experts, who were also asked to express their opinions as to the place where and the time when the supreme effort should be made and the conditions under which it should be attempted. An elaborate report was prepared which, however, was superseded within a few weeks by the rapid and wholly unexpected march of events.
Shortly before the armistice the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom strongly urged that I should arrive in London as soon as possible and with three of my colleagues I left Ottawa on the 8th November last. The status of the Dominions at the Peace Conference came immediately into question and was the subject of earnest discussion. Various methods, which it is not necessary to explain, were suggested. In the end I proposed that there should be a distinctive representation for each Dominion similar to that accorded to the smaller Allied powers, and in addition that the British Empire representation of five delegates should be selected from day to day from a panel made up of representatives of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. This proposal was adopted by the Imperial War Cabinet, Early in December preliminary

conversations on the making of peace took place in London between representatives of the British Empire, of France and of Italy, and the proposal which I had already put forward was accepted in principle. The Preliminary Peace Conference began at Paris on January 12, 1919, and the question of procedure, including that of representation, was immediately taken up by the representatives of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, afterwards commonly known as the Council of Teh. At first strong objection was made to the proposed representation of the British Dominions. Subsequently there was a full discussion in the British Empire delegation, at which a firm protest was made against any recession from the proposal adopted in London. In the end that proposal was accepted.
The adoption of the panel system gave to the Dominions a peculiarly effective position. At plenary sessions there were sometimes three Canadian plenipotentiary delegates, two as representatives of Canada and one as representative of the Empire. Moreover, throughout the proceedings of the Conference the Dominion delegates, as members of the British Empire delegation, were thoroughly in touch with all the proceedings of the Conference and had access to all the papers recording its proceedings. This enabled them effectively to watch and check those proceedings in the interest of their respective Dominions and placed them in a position of decided advantage. Dominion ministers were nominated to and acted for the British Empire on the principal Allied commissions appointed by the Conference from time to time to consider and report upon special aspects of the conditions of peace. The Canadian ministers acted as the principal representatives of the British Empire on these commissions as follows:
Commission on Greek Questions, Sir Robert Borden (Vice-Chairman).
Economic Commission, Sir George Poster (Vice-President).
Commission on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and Railways, Hon. A. L. Sifton (Vice-President).
Sub-Commission on Pre-War Contracts, Hon. C. J. Doherty (Chairman).
Supreme Economic Council, Sir George Foster, with Mr. Sifton and Mr. Doherty as alternates, was on the panel from which the British Empire representation was chosen from time to time.
On several occasions I was charged with the duty of attending as one of the British Empire representatives on the Council of Five. Mr. Lloyd George called upon me to put forward before the Council of Four the British Empire case in respect of the clauses

on economic questions, on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and1 Railways and on Submarine Cables. During the last month of my stay in Paris I acted regularly as Chairman of the British Empire delegations in the absence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, whose duties as a member of the Council of Four constantly prevented his attendance.
It is desirable to note an important development in constitutional practice respecting the signature of the various Treaties concluded at the Conference. Hitherto it has been the practice to insert an article or reservation providing for the adhesion of the Dominions. In view of the new position that had been secured and of the part played by Dominion representatives at the peace table we thought this method inappropriate and undesirable in connection [DOT]with the Peace Treaty. Accordingly I proposed that the assent of the King as High Contracting Party to the various Treaties should in respect of the Dominions be signified by the signature of the Dominion plenipotentiaries, and that the preamble and other formal parts of the Treaties should be drafted accordingly. This proposal was adopted in the form of a memorandum by all the Dominion Prime Ministers at a meeting which I summoned, and was put forward by me on their behalf to the British Empire delegation, by whom it was accepted. The proposal was subsequently adopted by the Conference and the various Treaties have been drawn up accordingly so that the Dominions appear therein as signatories, and their concurrence in the Treaties is thus given in the same manner as that of other nations.
This important constitutional development involved the issuance by the King, as High Contracting Party, of Full Powers to the various Dominion Plenipotentiary Delegates. In order that such powers issued to the Canadian Plenipotentiaries might be based upon formal action of the Canadian Government, an Order in Council was passed on April 10, 1919, granting the necessary authority!. Accordingly I addressed a communication to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requesting that necessary and appropriate steps should be taken to establish the connection between this Order in Council and the issuance of the Full Powers by His Majesty so that it might formally appear of record that they were issued on the responsibility of the Government of Canada.
The new and definite status of the Dominions at the Peace Conference is further
manifested in the constitution of the League of Nations. Since they had enjoyed the same status at the Peace Conference as that of minor powers, we took ,the ground that the Dominions should be similarly accepted in the future international relationship contemplated by the League. The League of Nations' Commission, while inclined to accept this in principle, did- not at the outset accept all its implications as was apparent in the first draft of the Covenant. This document, however, was professedly tentative. The Dominions' case was pressed, and in the final form as amended and incorporated in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, the status of the Dominions as to membership and repre- . sentation in the Assembly and Council was fully recognized. They are to become members as signatories of the Treaty, and the terms of the document make no distinction between them and other signatory members. An official statement as to the true intent and meaning of the provisions of the Covenant in that regard was secured by me and is of record in the Archives of the Peace Conference.
A similar question arose in respect of the constitution of the International Labour Organization. Corresponding to the Council of the League there is a Labour Governing Body consisting of delegates nominated by a limited number of governments. The original form of the Labour Convention did not adequately recognize the status of the Dominions and at the Plenary Session of April 11, 1919, when a resolution was proposed that the Peace Conference approve of the Draft Convention, I moved that the resolution be amended by adding a provision which authorized the Drafting Committee to make such amendments as were necessary to have the Convention conform to the League of Nations in the character of its membership and in the method of adherence. As a result the Labour Convention was finally amended so that the Dominions were placed on the same footing as other members of the International Labour organization, becoming eligible like others, for selection to nominate their Government Delegates to the Governing Body.
I hope the House will realize that the recognition and status accorded to the British Dominions at the Peace Conference were not won without constant effort and firm insistence. In all these efforts the Dominions had the strong and unwavering support of the British Prime Minister and his colleagues. The constitutional structure of the British Empire is imperfectly

understood by other nations, even by a nation so closely allied in kinship, in language and in the character of its institutions as the United States of America. Such lack of comprehension need excite no surprise because the association between the Mother Country and the great self-governing Dominions has been for years in a condition of development and that development is not yet bomplete. The' future relationship of the nations of the Empire must be determined in accordance with the will of the Mother Country and of each Dominion in a constitutional conference to be summoned in the not distant future. Undoubtedly it will be based upon equality * of nationhood. Each nation must preserve unimpaired its absolute autonomy, but it must likewise have its voice as to those external relations which involve the issue of peace or of war. So that the Britannic Commonwealth is in itself a community or league of nations which may serve as an exemplar to that world-wide League of Nations which was founded in Paris on the 28th of last June. On behalf of my country I stood firmly upon this solid ground; that in this, the greatest of all wars, in which the world's liberty, the world's justice, in short the world's future destiny were at stake, Canada had led the democracies of both the American continents. Her resolve had given inspiration, her sacrifices had been conspicuous, her effort was unabated to the end. The same indomitable spirit which made her capable of that effort and sacrifice made her equally incapable of accepting 'at the Peace Conference, in the League of Nations, or elsewhere, a status inferior to that accorded to nations less advanced in their development, less amply endowed in wealth, resources and population, no more complete in their sovereignty and far less conspicuous in their sacrifice.
I commend this Treaty to the consideration and approval of the Canadian Parliament, claiming not indeed that it has no imperfections, but that it does in truth embody terms consistent with honour and justice and that the most earnest endeavour of those who framed it was to ensure the future peace of the world.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman to supplement the very interesting, instructive, and helpful statement he has given by answering a question I am about to put, and which I hope he will regard as reasonable. I should be glad to have his opinion as to what will be the con-

sequences of refusal or failure on the part of the Parliament of Canada to ratify the Treaty. In what manner, and in what degree would the interests of Canada, of the Empire, and the world be affected?


Robert Laird Borden: The failure of Parliament to ratify this Treaty would, of course, involve the fate of the Government which presents it to Parliament for ratification.


William Stevens Fielding: I. had not that in mind


Robert Laird Borden: That is what would be involved, and then it would devolve upon my hon. friend, or those associated with him, if they should occupy the Treasury Benches, to answer the question which he has just now asked.


William Stevens Fielding: I had not that in mind at all. The fate of one Government or of one party is a small thing in the presence of the story of the League of Nations. My question was not, how will it' affect the fate of hon. gentlemen on that side or this, but what effect will it have upon the interests of Canada and the interests of the Empire? What would be the consequences as affecting any one of the nations concerned in this matter? What difference does it make to us, the Empire, or the world, if we never ratify the Treaty at all ?


Robert Laird Borden: It makes this difference: Canada would stand out of and apart from the rest of the Empire ratifying the TreatyIt would virtually, I think, commit Canada to such absolutely independent action, that she could not be regarded in the future as acting in cooperation with the other nations of the Empire.


William Stevens Fielding: W'ould not Canada, as a part of the Empire, be affected in all her international affairs by the ratification of His Majesty the King and the British Parliament?


Robert Laird Borden: His Majesty the King and his advisers have recognized the right of this Parliament to express its opinion upon this Treaty. I made that pledge to Parliament, and the British Government have been informed of that pledge. They recognize the situation, and they are not disposed to deal with this Treaty, so far as Canada is concerned, apart from the approval of the Canadian Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the right hon. gentleman bring down any. papers that will

show that the British Government have said they would not ratify this Treaty without the consent of this Parliament. He has made a statement to that effect, and I hope he will bring down the papers showing the foundation for it.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say
there were papers. The subject was discussed. There may be papers or there may not. I am stating to the hon. gentleman an absolute fact as to which I hope he will not doubt my word. I tell him that it is recognized by the ministers of the Crown of Great Britain that this Treaty must.be submitted to the Canadian Parliament for its approval, and that we desire, we insist, upon the judgment of the Canadian Parliament in regard to it before we advise the King on behalf of Canada that the Treaty should be ratified.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, I accept without any hesitation any statement my Tight hon. friend may make. While there may be no question as to the right and desirability of our approving of the Treaty, my question was, what would be the consequences to us, to the Empire, or to the world, if we did not approve, and my right hon. friend has shown us no more serious consequences than that we might have a change of Government.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. He has forgotten what I said a moment ago. Failure to ratify the Treaty would involve very serious consequences indeed.


William Stevens Fielding: What are they?


Robert Laird Borden: The consequence would be that Canada would stand out of a Treaty of Peace accepted by the Empire.


William Stevens Fielding: Would we be at war?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already
said what in our opinion our status would be in that case. If my hon. friend means that, notwithstanding the arrangements which have been made, the conventions which have become recognized, the status which has been accorded to the Dominions during recent years, we are still subject to have this Treaty ratified by His Majesty on behalf of Canada whether the Parliament of Canada is willing to ratify it or not, then I tell him he is dealing in ancient history and that his ideas should advance with the progress of recent years.


William Stevens Fielding: I was not making any statement, advancing any argument, or contending anything. I was asking for information, and I have got it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend may have only asked a question, but the implication which he made was very plain to every hon. member, and will be readily understood by the people of this country. His suggestion was that ratification by the Parliament of Canada is merely a farce, that the Government of the United Kingdom possesses such constitutional right in respect of this Dominion that they can impose their will upon us without regard to this Parliament. I repeat that if such is the opinion of the hon. member he is thinking in terms of a hundred years ago and not of to-day.


Samuel Hughes: I have no desire
to enter into any little difference that may have arisen, 'but is it not a fact that by refusing to ratify the treaty, it would not be a case of Great Britain imposing her will upon us, but we would not be imposing our will upon Great Britain? Is it not essential that we should ratify the treaty in order to strengthen the hand of Great Britain?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, if we are
to stand for co-operation and in union with the rest of the Empire.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not wish to be
understood as speaking to this resolution, I think it was understood that when the Prime Minister had made his statement an arrangement would be made as to when the discussion should be resumed. Copies of the treaty have been, or are about to be, distributed, and it has been suggested to me that we should have an opportunity of studying both the treaty and the right hon. gentleman's speech. The treaty is a voluminous document and it will take considerable time to digest it. I think it would be time well spent and would expedite the business of the House if the right hon. gentleman would allow us a fair amount of time to consider the terms of the treaty and his own address.


Jacques Bureau: Adjourn for a week.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the House should continue sitting it would be difficult for members to give their attention to the consideration of the Treaty, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be an adjournment of the House for a sufficient time to enable us to consider the Treaty and also his own observations upon it.


Ernest Lapointe: I would support the request of the leader of the Opposition. The ratification of this Treaty is a matter of grave importance and we must be given an opportunity to consider it in all its bearings. By Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, if we ratify the Treaty we assume an obligation to guarantee the territorial integrity of thirty-two nations, and it is essential that we should know just what this obligation implies in respect of each nation. We cannot bind Canadian lives and Canadian money for many years to come without a clear knowledge of what we are doing. Having had this Treaty and all these papers in our possession only two days, it is but fair that we should be afforded some time adequately to consider the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: This very question which is raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) is the question over which great discussion is now taking place in the United states, namely, our commitment under Article 10 for all time to certain obligations. As a nation on the America^ continent, we do commit ourselves for all time to embark upon wars waged in Europe to maintain the integrity of all other nations that are parties to thp League of Nations. I think, therefore, tnat the question is entitled to the fullest consideration in this House, and that the people of Canada ought to know what we are commiting ourselves to ,in regard to practically all the future wars of the world.


Robert Laird Borden: I might remind hon. gentlemen that the Covenant of the League of Nations was printed and distributed in this Parliament, I believe, last session1. Hon. members ought therefore to be fairly familiar with it by this time if they are ever going to be familiar with it.


Samuel Hughes: Was it hot amended?


Robert Laird Borden: Not in any material way.


Samuel Hughes: It was amended.^


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it was materially amended. Does my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) suggest that we should adjourn the House altogether or proceed with the debate on the Address?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My suggestion is that we adjourn the House altogether so that members may devote their entire attention to the consideration of the Treaty.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: May I ask the Prime Minister if the 
original text- of the Treaty is in English or French?


Robert Laird Borden: Both texts are authentic.


Lucien Cannon: If the original was in both languages, does not the Prime Minister think it fair that every member of the House should have a copy of both originals? Whether my information is correct or not, I learn from the papers that at the time of the signing of the Peace Treaty the delegates discovered that there had been big mistakes and that the two texts, English and French, were not absolutely identical. As a result of that discovery there was delay, and experts had to revise the texts to make them correspond. In this House, where there are both French and English members, it would be only fair, before we are called upon to decide whether or not we should ratify the Treaty, that we should be provided with both versions in order that we might be in the best position to understand exactly what we have to consider.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend will have any difficulty in comprehending the Treaty in either language. I should have had it printed in French if it had been available earlier/ but the French text arrived only two days ago, and therefore there has been no opportunity to print it, and indeed there is now only one copy available. I thought that it might be utilized on the table of the House for the purpose of reference in case any hon. gentleman desired to assure himself of the exact terms of the Treaty in both languages, and that with that safeguard we might proceed with the Treaty without waiting for it to be printed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How long will it take
to have copies made of the authentic document which we have? We do not run any risk in making copies of the authentic text, and that should not take very long.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure
about that. It contains over two hundred pages and I do not think it could >be completed without considerable delay. There are copies in English available for all members, and one copy in French available for reference..
^ Mr. CANNON: I wish the Prime Minister to bear in mind that, according to our Constitution, members of this House cannot be called upon to vote on any measure unless it is submitted in both languages. When a Bill is before the House it is presented in both languages; otherwise it cannot be read

a second time. This is a measure of far more importance than any other that has been submitted to the House, and it is unfair to ask the French members from Quebec, who are not all quite conversant with English, to come to a reasoned decision on such an important and momentous: document as this when they have not the opportunity of reading it in their own language.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: The revised draft of the Covenant of the League of .Nations, printed in both French and English and known as sessional paper 93B, of last session, has been available for several months, and any member can get a French or English copy of the Covenant by sending to the Distribution Office.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This discussion is technically not in order, but owing to the importance of the subject I have not felt disposed to interrupt it. We cannot, however, have a debate within a debate. It should be determined whether the present debate ought to. be adjourned or not.


Mr DEVLIN:: Any member can raise a
point of order on the subject, and it is well to let it go on as it is.


Lucien Cannon: I have not had an answer from the Prime Minister, and I wish to say that if the resolution is brought in again and a French text is not placed in the hands of every member of the House, I will raise a point of order, and, according to the rules, it will be sustained.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I beg to move, seconded by the .hon. member for Shelbourne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.
Robert Laird Borden: I am content to adjourn over to-morrow until Thursday at three o'clock, and I hope my hon. friends will be prepared to go on then. Meantime, I shall communicate with the leader of the Opposition. With the consent of the House I will move that when the House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Thursday at three o'clock.


Mr. BELAND:: What will be the order of business on that day? Will it be the debate on the Address or the debate on the resolution?


Robert Laird Borden: Just as my hon. friends prefer. I should prefer to go on with this.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it would be preferable to go on with the Address.


Robert Laird Borden: I will confer with my hon.. friend the leader of the Opposition.
Motion agreed to
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until Thursday at 3 p.m.
Thursday, September 4, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to present a communication from His Excellency the Governor-General approving of a Minute of the Privy Council appointing Hon. Martin Burrell, Secretary of State; Hon, John Dowsley Reid, Minister of Railways and Canals; Hon. J. A. Calder, Minister of Immigration and Colonization; and Hon. A. L. Sifton, Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purpose, and under the provisions, of the eleventh chapter, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, entitled, "An Act Respecting The House of Commons."



REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 7th August, 1919, relative to a resolution of this House with respect to the conferring of titles of honour on British subjects resident in Canada.-Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ISAAC E. PEDLOW (Renfrew South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, respecting Thanksgiving Day.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the purport of the Bill?


Mr. PEDLOW:: As the House is well aware, this Bill was introduced by me at the last session of this Parliament, and on its first reading on the 9th of April last, I explained its purport. The Bill has a twofold object; first, to set aside Armistice day as a day of special thanksgiving in the years to come and as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the world-war; second, to establish a set day each year on a certain day of the week in the month of November, so that the (commercial life of the country will not be unduly disturbed by the uncertainty of the date as has been the case heretofore. It is not my intention at the .present time to explain at greater length the provisions of

the Bill or the reasons for it. I will take opportunity to do so on the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill to amend the Interpretation Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The purport of this Bill is simply to make provision that the rules of the Interpretation Act shall apply to the interpretation of Orders in - Council. I -[DOT]may say that under the War Measures Act an Order in Council was passed making that provision, and as that Order in Council will lapse within a reasonable period of time, it is thought advisable to make the provision generally applicable.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has the hon. gentleman a copy of the Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been printed,
but it is not here at the moment.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the Government aware that not a single one of our young men, who enlisted voluntarily either in the Imperial Navy, or in the Canadian Naval Reserve, has received any decoration, reward or recognition for the services rendered during the entire period of the war?
2.	In the affirmative, does the Government intend calling the attention of the British Admiralty to the fact and asking for an official statement in that regard?
Major-General MEWBURN:
The Government has no complete record of the Canadians who enlisted in the Imperial Navy. It is, however, aware that decorations have been awarded to Canadians serving in the Imperial Navy for meritorious conduct and distinguished' services.
The members of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve who have qualified for the 1914-15 Star, for the War Badge, for the British War Medal and the Allies' Medal will receive these decorations as soon as they are issued.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORGE.
Mr. J. A. M. ARMSTRONG (North York):: I should like to ask the Minister of Militia, in view of the fact that his attention was drawn some two days ago to :a report emanating from Woodstock, Ontario, and crediting to a Mr. McMillan, of Seaforth, at a U.F.O. picnic at Lakeside, the statement that something like 30,000 names had been added to the pay lists overseas at a cost of some $30,000,000 to the Canadian people, what action, if any, his department has taken, or what action, if any, his department or the Government intends to take with a view ito giving this Mr. McMillan an opportunity of proving the truth of his statement, or in the'absence of that truth being produced, of making Mr. McMillan publicly retract what, to my mind, is a very serious charge against 'the administration of this department.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): My attention was called to the article in question, and the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) also brought the matter up in the House on Tuesday. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I purpose calling on Mr. McMillan to give me w'hat information he has so that an investigation may take place. If he is not prepared to substantiate his statements, the matter will have to be dealt with in the proper way.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to add to what the Minister of Militia has said that I had'a conversation to-day with General Ross, Paymaster-General, of whom I asked information on the subject. He tells me there is not the slightest foundation for the statement that Mr. McMillan has made.


Samuel Hughes: Having been Minister of Militia for three years during the war, I felt that Mr. McMillan's statement reflected on my administration, and I also saw General Ross. I should like this matter investigated as fully as possible. I am satisfied there is not a word of truth in it.


THE PEACE TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: With respect to the information available to members of the House respecting tire Peace Treaty, I made some inquiry and the

following memorandum has been furnished me:	'
The original draft of the League of Nations Covenant was published in the Canadian Official Record on the ISth of February, 1919. That draft whs printed and distributed to both Houses of Parliament on the 24th of March, 1919. The revised draft of the^ League of Nations Covenant (which is almost precisely that embodied in the Treaty of Peace) was distributed to both Houses of Parliament in English on the 9th of May, and in French on the 23rd of May, 1919. Further, the official summary of the Peace Treaty was printed in the Canadian Official Record on the Sth of May, 1919; that publication is circulated to every member of the House. The summary in question is very full and comprises about fourtem thousand words.
With respect to the business of the House in connection with the Peace Treaty I had the advantage of a conference with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) this morning, and at his suggestion I have agreed to postpone the further consideration of the resolution which 1 moved on Tuesday last until Monday next, the 8th of September, but upon the understanding, to which my hon. friend agreed, that the debate upon that resolution should be brought to a conclusion not later than Thursday, the 11th of September. I am ready to make to my hon. friend a further suggestion, which is this: If hon. members on the other side of the House should desire to proceed with that debate to-morrow instead of Monday, which would give an additional day, we would be quite prepared to meet their wishes.
I should also say that on Tuesday evening I gave instructions that the French copy of the Treaty which was laid upon the table of the House on that day should be printed forthwith, and the Treaty itself with the Protocol has now been printed in French, and I hope has been distributed.


Ernest Lapointe: Might I ask whether we shall have the opportunity of discussing the resolution in committee, so that we may ask for information and put questions without exhausting our right to speak on the resolution?


Robert Laird Borden: Subject to the
arrangement which I made with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, I do not think there is any objection to the resolution being considered in committee. I appreciate what my hon. friend says as to the opportunity which it would afford of obtaining more precise information on some points, so far as it is available.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that the
Prime Minister has just moved that the next step to be taken on the resolution to approve of the Treaty will he to go into Committee of the Whole House. I should like to ask whether, when we resume the debate, we shall go into Committee, or shall we resume with the Speaker in the Chair. The motion has been made that we go into Committee to-morrow on the second resolution on page 7 of the Order Paper of to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: That is another resolution altogether. The resolution I put to the Speaker was not precisely in the proper form. I moved that the resolution should be considered to-morrow, so that it might go on the Order Paper in regular form. That is a different resolution from the one my hon. friend will find on the last page of the Orders of/the Day; I did not make any motion with regard to that. The resolution of which I am speaking at this'moment is No. 2 fen page 8 of the Orders of the Day.


Jacques Bureau: Does this resolution appear on the Order Paper by virtue of sonif rule of the House, or is it because it precedes a Bill which is to be' introduced involving an expenditure of money? I should like to know what the object of the resolution is if a Bill is to be introduced to the same effect and purpose which the resolution seems to have.
iS'ir ROBERT BORDEN: The purpose of the resolution is to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing either approval or disapproval of the treaty. If the House should express approval of the Treaty, then it would be necessary to introduce a Bill for carrying out certain provisions of the Treaty which require legislation.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet):: I see the following statement in the Canadian Railroader of August 30:
The Canadian delegation has filed a strongly worded protest against the famous Article X (of the League of Nations Covenant), which has excited so much criticism and opposition in the United States. Sir Robert did not hesitate to point out its significance, which he clearly realized ; he exposed the danger of committing everybody to everbody else's wars and was very dubious as to the offhand guarantee of all the territorial adjustments which were made at Paris.
The .same statement is published in the Farmers' Sun of yesterday. I should like


Robert Laird Borden: I am not familiar with, and certainly I am not sponsor for the statements made in the publications to which my hon. friend has alluded. With regard to the whole question which he has asked, I really have nothing more to say at the moment than what I said in my speech, namely, that there were some provisions of the first draft of the Covenant as to which we made certain representations in a confidential document, and that many of the objections which we raised were covered by the modifications made by the revised Covenant.


Arthur Trahan: What about Article X? Mr. SPEAKER: These questions cannot properly be submitted on the Orders of the Day. They might be put in the course of debate in Committee upon the resolution or upon the Bill, hut in no case can there be a regular interrogation upon the Orders of the Day.
On the Orders of the Day:


Lucien Cannon: Certain provisions of the Treaty of Peace refer to a map which is supposed to be annexed to the Treaty. I cannot find the map. Would it be possible for the Government to supply the members with copies of that map?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the copy of the' Treaty .laid upon the Table has maps. The copies of the Treaty circulated in the British Parliament were precisely the same as those which we have circulated to the members here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is well to have it distinctly understood that the intention of the Prime Minister now is that this resolution on the Treaty shall not be taken up until Monday, and then it shall go on in the regular way with the expectation of finishing it at the Thursday sitting of the House; no other business to interfere with that arrangement except by common consent.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard Primrose Whidden for an address (Mr. Trahan.]
to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his. Speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, September 2.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is always more or less a disadvantage to divide anything one may have to say on a suhject of this kind into two parts. On Tuesday I had the honour to make a few observations on the reply to the speech from the Throne. On that occasion other business necessarily intervened and in consequence my remarks were brief. I referred to the very excellent manner in which the mover and seconder had discharged the duties devolving upon them, and also the general rejoicings of the Canadian people in having among them His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I proceeded to refer to the status of Canada as regards our relations with the Mother Country, and spoke briefly on what I regard, and think this House regards, as a very important subject, namely, the relations of this country with the Mother Country and with other nations of the world.
The Treaty, which is the real cause of our coming together on this occasion, reveals the fact that we shall have relations with other nations and kingdoms which we have never had before. Heretofore the Mother Country was blazing the trail and indicating the relations that we might possibly have with any foreign country, and we rendered whatever assistance we found it necessary to give. Under present circumstances it would appear from the reading of the Treaty and from the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, we are to go a step further, and we are, to some extent, to deal directly with outside Powers, regardless of any intercommunication with the Mother Country. A . full discussion and explanation of the circumstances connected with this phase of the situation, and the responsibilities which we may assume in the result, will come when we deal with the Treaty itself and the resolution which is now on the Order Paper.
The speech from the Throne makes reference to but few matters. It has something to say about the ties which bind us to the Mother Country, and which bind one to another the sister nations of the great Empire to which we belong. It is gratifying and satisfactory to find that at the close of the war, after the enormous sacrifices which all the various parts of the Empire have made, there is no acrimonious feeling of any kind, and no strained relation whatever between ourselves and the Mother Cbuntry, or be

tween us and any of the sister nations. 1 therefore fully concur in what is said in the Address, and the views that have been expressed by the mover in that connection, and the happy conditions that exist to-day in this respect I regard with great satisfaction.
Hie Address makes reference to the proud position which Canada occupies in its relation to the war. This is a matter that has been so often touched upon in felicitous and eloquent terms not only in this House but elsewhere, that it is not necessary now for me to say anything further upon it. No matter how interesting a subject may be it is possible to spoil it by too much reiteration. However, one fact that can bear repetition is the magnificent way in which our soldiers upheld the best traditions of the British Empire. We recall with pride the achievements of our men, and the splendid work of our women also compels our admiration. The masterful courage shown by the Canadian people in backing up every step that was necessary to maintain our share in the fight and the bold and unflagging efforts which we put forth to suppress the oppressor in his attempt to rob us and other civilized nations of our autonomy, are matters which have been Ably dwelt on on previous occasions.
The speech from the Throne informs us that not only shall we deal with the cause which immediately brings us here, but that we shall consider other questions having a bearing on the subjects directly concerned in the closing of, the war. Those questions are many, and I have no doubt they have particular reference to the social and industrial conditions that prevail to-day in this country. While it is true that this session is called especially for the purpose of dealing with the Treaty, it' is necessary to bear in mind that this Parliament is the great clearing house of Canada, the great forum in which all questions affecting the people's welfare generally are discussed. And no matter what may be the real purpose of calling us together at this unusual time of the year, it is quite proper that we as members, and the Government as the executive of Parliament and of the Canadian people, should take into consideration and effectively deal with any subject which requires special attention.
I would bring to your notice, Mr. Speaker, the fact that at. the last session of Parliament which closed on the seventh of July, we hurriedly passed an Act to create what is now known as the Board of Commerce for the purpose of dealing specifically with the high cost of living,,-which is one of the great
and serious questions affecting the Canadian people to-day and has been for the last three and a half years. I have reason to complain-and to bring particularly to the notice of the Government

that they have not moved as rapidly or as effectively under that Act as the Canadian people, and I venture to say this Parliament, expected. There was such a rush, if I may use the term, to put that Act through Parliament that when a certain report from a certain committee, which I choose to call the Nicholson Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, was sent up to this House in a manner which seemed to us technically irregular,
[DOT] and when I suggested that a couple of hours, might be spent in sending that report back to the committee so that they would send it to us in a regular way, I was chastised, criticised and denounced most violently by ministers of the Crown and told that I, and the Opposition, were blocking this Act which was so very urgent and necessary and that no delay of that Kind could for one moment be brooked. July has passed, August has passed and this is a fair commencement of the month of September, but as far as I know nothing whatever of importance has been done by virtue of that Act.
It is only a few days ago that the court was constituted. After a long time we had two men appointed-two capable men no doubt-but upon consultation it appears that they discovered that the court was not properly constituted without a third man. After a delay of a couple of weeks we find that temporarily a third man is put upon that court, but so far nothing effective has been done. One would think, Mr. Speaker, that after the various inquiries which have taken place during the last three and a half years, after the various commissions that have been appointed, after the various investigations which have been conducted at the expense of the people of this country in connection with this very important subject, even this Government, which appears to be somewhat impervious to information, would be seized of some of the salient facts in connection with the matter. What inquiries have we had? About three and a half years ago we began with reports from Mr. O'Connor, who was then an officer of the Minister of Labour. We had several reports from him. Then, about the same time a gentleman by the name of Henderson, I understand a K.C. of this city, came into the field and he gave us some reports. After that there was a learned commissioner appointed who found his way into the West, to the city of Winnipeg, and

exceptional and very different line of action was being taken in Canada by other members of the Government. While the real Minister of Justice was interesting himself in the high-sounding phrases which found their way into the Peace Treaty, the Acting Minister of Justice was at Winnipeg calling the forces of Canada into play in order to drive the local labour leaders into the penitentiary.
And in view of what has taken place at Winnipeg the leaders of labour driven to the Stony Mountain penitentiary, and the post office clerks driven out of employment and themselves and their families, thrown upon the streets because they did not immediately bow !to the mandate of this Government and throw away every spark of manhood which they might possess. This is the condition that existed, Sir, that one section of the Government was writing a second "Sermon on the Mount" to labour,
' while another section was driving labour men to the penitentiary. Under those conditions I would join issue very sharply with the hon. member from Nanaimo (Mr. J. C. McIntosh) who thinks that labour should do nothing for the next three months but sing psalms of praise and glorification for the Prime Minister.
It is some concern of ours whether the constitution of this country is complied with. When we have Acts of Parliament providing that the labour of looking after the affairs of the country shall be divided up in a certain way with a competent man at the head of each department, it is our business to see that that is carried out. That is not the condition to-day, We have practically a vacant deserted house with, the windows broken. If this is the era of reconstruction, Mr. Speaker, it is time, as the Eight Hon. Lloyd George puts it, that the boat should be manned. Every department of this Government should be fully manned with the best personnel at the disposition of the Prime Minister. That is not the condition to-day. Where there used to be a full treasury bench and at least some capable men, we have nobody at all now-I exclude, of course, a few notable exceptions. If there is anything at all to he expected from a Department of Trade and Commerce it is that the head 1 of that department will sometimes be here. But our difficulty has been that while we delight to see the genial countenance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) .and to revel in his magnificent expositions, theoretically, of how he manages his department, it is only on 
rare occasions that we have him with us. However, we are delighted that he is present for the moment, and I take this opportunity of telling him how we love him, a'nd at the same time that we expect him to do something for this country that stands so much in need of his services.
Since last session, Sir, the angel of politi-, cal death, has touched with his wings many of the stars of this Chamber. We had sitting in front of us and, in fact, leading this House during last session, a very distinguished gentleman, who, while still a member, is now only an ordinary individual like myself as far as po.wer is concerned. I have reference to our good friend, the exMinister of Finance, Sir Thomas White. He has gone so far as the Department of Finance is concerned. I would be false to myself and false to this House and to the country if I for a moment suggested that Sir Thomas White is a man without ability. Nothing of the kind. He is a man of great ability, a man who gave great energy to his duties as Minister of Finance. But he discovered that there was a point in the manipulations of his finances where the tether had wound around, like the story about the bull-the tether had wound round and round the stake so that his nose was to the stake and he could not do anything more. He had run the length of his tether; there was nothing he could do. There were a great many sources upon which he drew, from the Bank of England down to the Indian grarve-yaxds, but he exhausted everything from which he could extract money, and with no possibility of conducting his department any longer he made the famous jump by which often we find an engineer saving his life, when his engine is about to plunge into the surging waters, and he got away.
Now, whom have we got in his place? We certainly have another "Sir." We have not yet had an opportunity of passing judgment upon his ability as Minister of Finance; but he will, I am afraid, find himself like old Mrs. Hubbard's dog when he went to the cupboard looking for a bone, he will find the cupboard bare and dry and Mrs. Hubbard gone away. Is it a ease again of our hon. friend^ the new minister, occupying that position where, it is said, people who are perhaps feeble-minded step in where "angels fear to tread"? Or is it a repetition of the old story about the bull and the locomotive, where the courage was splendid but the judgment most reckless? Have we much reason to hope that where the experienced, practical, well-trained SiT

Thomas White failed, our new friend-who, I am lold, is an excellent lawyer, and has other excellent qualities but no special knowledge of finance-will succeed? Is the miracle of the loaves and fishes to be repeated, and is the present Minister of Finance going to succeed where the other failed? My own suggestion, Mr. Speaker, would be not to wait too long for the development of this new captain of finance, but to make a change entirely, lock, stock and barrel, and let the people have an opportunity of putting new men at the wheel.
Our good friend the Prime Minister seems to think it a cure-all to prevent anything being done in this House which would in the slightest way savour of a change of Government. He must understand that there are some timid hearts sitting behind him, because whenever there is a cloud on the horizon he tells them there may be a change of Government, and that is an end of any difficulty from that quarter. We are, however, in the hands of the people. This Government has been returned by the people in a sort of a way; it is something like tying a man's feet and tying his hands and gagging him; and then asking him to express his opinion. That is the sort of-an electorate that put our hon. friends on the treasury benches. The sooner the fetters are taken off the legs and the hands and the gag is removed, and the people of Canada are allowed to pronounce a free and open judgment on the affairs of this country, the better it will be for Canada and its affairs.
I was referring to the different members who left us. For many years I sat with the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I admired him then; I admire him now. True, I would not run after him to-day as vigorously as I would have done some years ago, but no person need for a moment question the ability of the ex-Minister of Public Works,. He also was finding that the place was getting a little hot and uncomfortable, and his position reminds me of a story which you, Mr. Speaker, have often heard' about the fox who was running around the country for days trying to get a drink. At last he came to a well at the1 bottom of which he saw a little water, and he was so thirsty that he jumped down. But after slaking his thirst he found he could not get out, and seeing an innocent-looking goat also looking down, he began to tell the goat what a magnificent place that was and how good the water was, and he asked the goat to come down. So the goat jumped into the well, and1 immediately the fox jumped on
top of the goat and got out. But the goat could not get out. I think that in a similar way the ex-MinisteT of Public Works was telling Sir Henry Drayton what a magnificent thing it was to be a minister. )So the goat got in and the minister got out. That seems to be the position, and if we hear the truth, I think, speaking witn all respect and deference, the goat is rather disappointed that he ever listened to the solicitations of the fox.
There are a few other changes. I am very glad that we have a new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie). While I have no knowledge of the hon. gentleman's ability except what I learn from the press and from a very slight acquaintance with the hon. gentleman himself, I have no doubt that he will give a splendid account of his stewardship. His knowledge of matters of this kind will come to his aid, and, if he is given permission or opportunity to apply his practical knowledge to the department, I have no doubt that he will make good, as the saying is, if this slow drag of a Government will not throw their shackles on him and keep him down to their own pace.
There is one more noted vacancy in this House. I have reference to the ex-hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I am sure that I speak earnestly and sincerely when I say that I regard his going out of this House as, a great loss to the debating power, the thinking power, and the legal power that are to be found in this House. Why did he go? That is the question. Was he satisfied with the progress of this Administration? Was he satisfied with the way things were being done? Well, the conclusion which I have reached is that he was not satisfied; that, so far as he was concerned, things were going too slow and this Government was not up to date, and he thought he would register his protest by going out and, giving the people of Kingston an opportunity of passing judgment upon this Government.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Has the hon. member come to that conclusion from any remarks made by the former member for Kingston?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may say to my hon. friend that I have not seen in print one word one way or the other uttered by the former hon. member for Kingston. I think he has maintained a most discreet silence since leaving the House. I commend him for that, because there is one thing-


John Wesley Edwards: Did he not state a reason or reasons?	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He may have stated a reason, but my capacity for reading newspapers is pretty limited, and there are practically only a few papers, such as the Mail and Empire-	/


An hon. MEMBER:: The Globe.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and the Toronto Times, that I read. They are voluminous and interesting and they take up all the time at my disposal. I did not see in those papers any statement made by our good friend the ex-hon. member for Kingston. When the close relationships and the happy family ties that existed between this Government and the hon. member are snapped and the hon. member goes out and refuses to stay any longer with them, we have a right, as a jury, to draw certain inferences from the facts. And I believe if the hon. member could say something that would be helpful to this Government and give a helpful reason, he would do so; but as long as he could not do that, he held hi-s tongue, and in my opinion, he did quite properly, for I have no great use for any man who goes out of a party and then tries to abuse it. I always apply to such a man the saying, " It's an ill bird that befouls its own nest ", and the least we should do is to leave them alone and let the people at large judge the conduct of the Government.


Samuel Hughes: In case Mr. Nickle should present himself for re-election for Kingston, would the leader of the Opposition go down there and support him?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It so happens that I am neither a soldier nor a sailor, and I fear I would have no other qualification to vote there.
I hope we shall be able to stir up this Government to do some of the things that are absolutely necessary in the best interest of the country.: It is to be hoped that the Prime Minister will fill up the gaps, although he may be under an embarrassment because he has two elements to consider, the Unionists and the old line Tories; and whenever he has a position open he has this fight for it from two ranks. I suppose there will be no peace for him until he fills the vacancies, but the people of this country expect him to have courage and determination to see to it that those vacancies are filled and that some business is being' done by the Government more than simply the shuffling back and forth with the hope of keeping themselves in power. I hope those matters will be attended to and the different elements which enter into the

life of this country will-during the short time that hon. gentlemen who are now on the Government benches have the privilege of holding their respective positions and dealing with these matters-be able to say of them that in their last days nothing became them, in respect to the administration - of the departments of this country, better than the leaving of them, and at the last moment they had made a dash for the improvement and betterment of the affairs of this country.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I join most heartily and jsincerely with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) in extending congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address, both of whom made admirable speeches and acquitted themselves very worthily of the important duty which devolved upon them.
With respect to the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, I desire also to .associate myself with what was said by the mover and seconder of the Address, as well as by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. It has been both my duty and my privilege on more than one occasion to express to His Royal Highness the welcome of the Canadian people. In that welcome there has been a note of personal affection and esteem, apart altogether from the very high position which His Royal Highness holds as ihedr to the Throne. Everywhere there has been a very warm expression of affection, admiration, and, more than that, of comradeship. I am quite sure that the close ties by which the Prince has bound himself to the people of Canada in this visit will never be severed.
I need not spend much time in replying to the interesting and amusing address of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. He has taken upon himself a good deal of concern with regard to reconstruction of the Government, the filling of portfolios, and with regard to the position -which the Government holds in the country. My hon. friend in these matters -dealt, admittedly, almost altogether dn surmise, but he might have given us -some very interesting information indeed as to conditions on the other side of the House as to which he has a perfect knowledge. I -could not but observe his remarkable reticence in that regard, and I -do- not think it is necessary for me -to pursue the subject further.
My hon. friend has -taken exception to the delay which has taken place in constituting the Board of Commerce. I quite agree that it would have been far better

if we - could have constituted the board at an earlier date, but I desire to assure my hon. friend that the matter was taken up immediately after the close of last session. Immediately after the Act had become law, communication was had with the gentleman who has been appointed chairman of the tribunal. At first he found himself unable to undertake the new duties which we desired him to accept. He had asked some time ;n which to consider whether his answer would be in thf negative or the affirmative, and finally he gave us what we regarded as a negative answer on account of certain considerations personal to himself which appealed to him very strongly. At a little later date, however, we found that Judge Robson was inclined to reconsider the question, and after some further necessary delay which he requested for the purpose of making his arrangements, he finally agreed to accept the position. Hon. gentlemen will recollect that it was urged upon us, and especially from the other side of the House-by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) for one, I remember-that the success of this board would depend very largely upon its personnel, and we did regard, and we do regard. Judge Robson as possessing in a very eminent degree the qualities, the experience and the knowledge which are essential in the person who undertakes those duties.
We have succeeded also in having Mr. O'Connor accept a position on the hoard, and he has been very glad to associate himself with Judge Robson in the very important duties which they are called upon to discharge.
50	far as the third member of the board is concerned, we thought it desirable to piake a temporary appointment until we could consult more fully with the chairman of the board and his associate as to the qualities that should be looked for in the third member. In the meantime we have appointed a very capable gentleman who has had a very great deal of experience in work of this character-the Deputy Minister of Labour-and upon consultation with the Minister of Labour as to his qualifications I was perfectly satisfied that as a temporary measure the best course in order that the work of the hoard might proceed at once was to appoint Mr. Acland to the position which he now holds as a member of that board without salary.
My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has indulged in some criticism. He has run over the various efforts of the Government during the past two or three years to investigate and, so far as possible, to provide a remedy for the high cost of living in this country. So far as I could understand, he must have convinced even himself that the Government had approached this subject from every possible standpoint and had established every kind of machinery that might he useful for the purpose of providing a remedy for such conditions. I will not at the moment go over the details of all that the Government has undertaken ' during the past three years, but my hon. friend doubtless remembers that we conferred distinct powers, powers of a very wide character, upon every municipality in Canada to abate profiteering and to bring down excessive prices. There was not a municipality in Canada that was not armed by the statute law of this country or by Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act, with powers Which should have been effective, if they had been utilized, to remedy the conditions complained of, in so far as those conditions can he remedied by any legislation.
We all know that these conditions are not confined to Canada alone. They are world-^vide and to a very great extent they depend upon world-wide conditions which cannot he remedied by legislation of this Parliament or of all the parliaments of the world combined. But in so far as excessive profits are concerned, there ought to be a remedy in this country or in any other country, and we sought to give that remedy by legislation which we passed at the last session of Parliament, and by the appointment of a tribunal of commerce for the purpose of carrying out its provisions. Mjr hon. friend.has made a statement with regard to relative'prices in the United States and Canada. Let me remind him that the late Minister of Agriculture, whose desire to give public service, whose experience, whose ability, and whose devotion to public duty will not he questioned by any man who knew him in this House or elsewhere, had this very matter under his direction for eighteen months or more, and devoted his best efforts and attention, to providing a remedy for the conditions which prevail. And I have yet to hear in this House any effective criticism of the policy and the action of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in that regard. Apparently my hon. friend has not read the report of the Canada Food Board for 1918 in which this very question that he has dealt with was discussed. The relative prices of many necessaries of life in the one country and


Mr.   BUBEAU@: Was not that your election slogan in 1911?


Robert Laird Borden: I have told my hon. friend what the facts are and he is absolutely mistaken. Indeed, his imagination has run wilder even than that of the leader of the Opposition, and I think it would be well for him to use his utmost efforts to keep it within some reasonable bounds.	,


Jacques Bureau: My memory is good and it serves me rightly.


Mr. ROBB:: May I ask the Prime Minister if that quotation he has just referred to was not the slogan of the Montreal Star?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that- it was the slogan of the Montreal Star. If it was, my hon. friend will be good enough to take up that question with the Montreal Star and discuss it with them. Now, I should like to say further that my hon. friend is somewhat mistaken in supposing that the Board of Commerce has not taken active and effective steps in some matters already. I know that the board sat in Montreal on Tuesday last and the results of the efforts they made with regard to. sugar have been effective. They had two considerations before them: One vras to ensure a sufficient domestic supply for the people of this country, because we had received many representations from differ-

ent parts of 'Canada as to the inadequacy of the supply available. The other was the question of price, and I understand that in respect of both these considerations the work of the Board of Commerce in its session at Montreal has produced excellent results.
iMy hon. friend has also suggested to us that there should be legislation in this Parliament with regard to certain labour matters. Apparently he has overlooked or forgotten the fact that an industrial conference has been summoned by the Minister of Labour to meet in Ottawa on the fifteenth day of this month, and I venture to hope that out of that conference good results will flow. It is perhaps notable that since that conference was called, the Government of the United States have decided to pursue precisely the same course and have summoned for some early date in that country an industrial conference of the same character as that which the Minister of Labour proposes soon to hold in Ottawa. I think I have covered pretty much all the matters of substance which my hon. friend has alluded to. He did indulge in some badinage at the end as to the disappearance of some of the ministers from the Government.
In so far as Sir Thomas White is concerned, his service to the country during the past eight and a half years has been notable. He was anxious to retire from public life a year or eighteen months ago, and he only continued to discharge the duties of Minister of Finance at my urgent request. His retirement from public life was not due to any disagreement with the Government or any such consideration as iny hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has playfully suggested. I think my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition would not desire to have his remarks treated too seriously when he speaks of the cupboard being dry. It is, I am sure, the belief of every hon. member of this House and of every thoughtful man in this country that although the burdens imposed upon Canada / by this war are severe, the resources of the country are ample to sustain them and the people are prepared to see that this is done.
My hon. friend referred somewhat playfully also to his desire for a general election. He must have referred to it playfully because I have good reason to believe that not more than two months ago he was very anxious that no general election should be held, and I am inclined to think that he has not changed his mind in the interval. Therefore I assume that he desired us to regard his remarks along that line'as
entirely jocose and that he did not intend that they should be seriously taken.
He spoke of the electorate in 1917 being incapable to express its opinion for the reasons-the alleged reasons-which he put forward. Upon consideration, I think he will agree that the electorate in 1917 succeeded in expressing its opinion in a very pronounced and emphatic way. That seems to me to be hardly open to question.
The late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell) has retired from the position which he held in the Government and has undertaken new duties to which he will bring conspicuous ability, great energy and strong devotion to public duty. I have not the slightest doubt that his discharge of his new responsibilities will be acceptible in every way to the people of the country. The portfolio of Minister of Finance has been accepted by Sir Henry Drayton, to whom my hon. friend has made generous allusion. Sir Henry Drayton, it is perfectly true, had not great experience in financial matters before he undertook, at my request, the duties of Minister of Finance. But we have had men occupying the position of Minister of Finance in this- country who, up to the time of their assuming the duties of the office had had absolutely no experience whatever in finance-even less than that which Sir Henry Drayton has acquired in various ways during his career as a member of the bar and in his work as chairman of the Railway Commission. I might suggest to my hon. friend that the gentleman who has been promoted to a seat beside him, the hon. member for Shel

 burne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), up to the time that he became Minister of Finance certainly had no very great experience in such matters, or knowledge of financial conditions, and yet I am sure my hon. friend would be the last person to.suggest that the duties of Minister of Finance for fifteen years were not well discharged by the member for Shelburne and Queens.
Sir Henry Drayton has a great task before him in connection with the duties which he has consented to undertake. I have no doubt that he brings to the discharge of these duties conspicuous ability, great industry, a fine capacity for mastering facts and an earnest devotion to the public welfare. I have ev5ry confidence that his discharge of the duties of his office will be acceptable to the members of this House as well as to the people.
My hon. friend indulged in a number of conjectures as to the cause of the resigns-

tion of the hon. member for Kingston, Mr. Nickle, whose fine qualities, high position in this House and devotion to duty are well known to us all. Mr. Niekle came to me and discussed -his resignation after it had been placed in the hands of the Speaker. He announced to me no such reasons as those which my hon. friend has conjectured, and which are the outcome of his all too vivid imagination. If my hon. friend would confine himself more to facts and rely less upon his imagination he would be of more service to us in this House.
If I could be induced-I do not think I could be, but if I could for one moment be induced-to follow the example of the leader of the Opposition and give rein to my imagination, I would rather suggest this, that although Mr. Nickle knew that he had important duties to discharge as a member of Parliament and that such responsibilities ought not lightly be thrown aside, nevertheless his confidence in the Government was so strong that he really thought that his presence here was not needed any longer. That is the real explanation which should be accepted if any hon. gentleman in this House desires to trust to his imagination.


Mr. McMASTER:: That requires real gifts of imagination.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing at all in comparison with those which my hon. friend's leader exercised in the speech he addressed to the House.


Jacques Bureau: That puts my hon.
friend's leader in the shade.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not recall anything else in the address of my hon. friend to which I should direct my attention. The conditions with which we are to deal at this session are more especially those that relate to the bringing about of the peace of the world. It is, I think, highly desirable that peace should be announced between four of the nations of the world at the earliest opportunity. No doubt the ratification, if it is accomplished, will very soon be followed by the ratification of the other allied nations. But when peace is once established, when this- treaty is once ratified we in this country have still a great task before us. The task, after peace has been established, will be no less difficult than that which confronted us during the war. We have our different ideals, we have our different views of public questions and out of this conflict of ideals and out
[Sir Robert Borden. 1
of the discussion of .public questions will be evolved in the end some policy which we hope will be in the best interests of the country. If we maintain in Canada the same spirit of resolve, the same spirit of unity, the same purpose and endeavour in the development of the resources of this country as that which sustained our men at the front, and sustained the population at home as well, I am perfectly confident, heavy as our burdens are, that we can face them with a firm heart. To strive as. best we can for the interests of our country is the purpose which every one of us should keep before him. We have divergent views, and that purpose may incline us along separate lines, but I hope regard for the real interests of the country will be the overmastering consideration that will animate all of us.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: I desire to join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition in congratulating 1 the mover and seconder of the Address. Both gentlemen performed the duty allotted to them with credit to themselves and with satisfaction to members on both sides. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden) comes from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and it will be a pleasure for me to tell his old friends and neighbours that his abilities and personal worth are being recognized by the Government and by his fellow members in this Ufouse.
The visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada was very well timed. He has -had a most cordial reception everywhere, and I have no doubt that his visit will tend to deepen the devotion and affection of the Canadian people for His Royal Highness, as well as for thp illustrious house that he represents.
The present session, we are told, has been called for the purpose of dealing with the Peace Treaty. We all recognize the importance of that document. We also recognize that the Treaty has already been ratified by the only Parliament in the world whose ratification counts for anything, and that anything we can do in the Canadian Parliament with respect to it will be largely of a sentimental character.
We must not forget that many domestic questions are pressing for attention from the Government of mis country. The speech from the Throne expressed the hope that the session would be short, but, Mr. Speaker, why should the session be short if by remaining here and attending to busi- ' ne#s we can honestly earn our indemnity an* at the same time do something to re-

lieve the present disturbed condition of the country?
A great convention of the Liberal party was held'in this city in the early days of August. Every riding in the Dominion was represented uy delegates who received their appointment from the people. A thousand men and women, the popular choice of the Liberal party of Canada, came together to select a leader and construct a platform. This convention demanded among other things:
Reforms in our election laws. Punishment of election frauds.
Proportional representation.
Reciprocity with the United States.
Downward revision of the tariff.
Increase in the British preference.
Improvement in the laws governing labour and capital.
Greater encouragement of our agricultural and fishing industries.
A fair deal for the returned soldier.
The restoration of parliamentary government in this country.
Why does the Government suggest a short session of Parliament when the country is seething with unrest and discontent and all these vital questions require to be dealt with? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Whidden) quoted some celebrated man as saying that it was always harder to make peace than to make war. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government does find it hard, but it has only itself to blame. To use an old saying, " The chickens are coming home to roost." Imagine, if you can, my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) trying to convince an audience of hungry men and women that the Government that refused to vote a dollar to prosecute the profiteers is really in earnest on the question of reducing the cost of living. Imagine, if you can, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) delivering an address on electoral purity with that famous ballotswitching telegram in his pocket. Imagine my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) delivering an exhortation on economy with a copy of the Canadian Record under his arm, when it is remembered that that publication cost the people of Canada over $80,000 last year, and that it was not worth eighty cents ! Imagine my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) with his numerous declarations and protestations regarding the purpose and scope of the coalition, trying to convince the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) of the morality of making the Union party a permanent institution! Is it any wonder then that the present Government finds the pathway of peace even more thorny than that of war?
One crying need at the present time is a reduction in the cost of living, and my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) in his speech to which we have just listened devoted attention to that important matter. No effective action has been taken by the present Government to reduce the cost of living. For over three years the people of Canada have been groaning under excessive prices. While the war lasted they were patient, but hostilities terminated more than nine months ago and in place of getting better, conditions are getting worse. The cost of living is higher to-day than it was when the war was brought to a conclusion. The Government has been tinkering with this question but all the time the profiteer has been having full swing, and he was never more aggressive and arrogant than he is at the present moment. Threats are being made at the present time by the Board of Commerce, but similar threats were made by the old defunct Food Board. The Board of Commerce which was recently organized is the twin sister of the old Food Board. Threats do not disturb the profiteers; no one understands the situation better than they do. When the legislation creating this Board of Commerce was being enacted, members on this side strongly urged the importance of the Government providing money for the conduct of prosecutions and the throwing of responsibility for those prosecutions upon the Department of Justice. The Government refused to yield tc our request and in consequence of that refusal the Board of Commerce 'became as useless as the defunct Food Board..
What does the profiteer care for investigations if there are to be no prosecutions?
I think it was President Roosevelt who said, that the Government that shakes its fist first and its finger afterwards will soon fall into contempt.
In some phases of violation of law this . Government has been perhaps over-zealous. [DOT] I heard of a man in this province who got into jail for having in his possession a copy of a little pamphlet called "The Fiddlers." I read the pamphlet, but I could not understand why in the world the man was punished. Another man was put in jail in this province for having a copy of Plato's "Republic" in his possession. For the past year or two the jails have been

full of all kinds of offenders, but so far as I have heard not a single profiteer has yet seen the inside of a jail in Cana'da.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have all been knighted.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Jacques Bureau: He is stating facts.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend will refer to the New Testament he will find the story of the kiss of Judas. That is my authority on that question.


George Green Foster: I understood mj hon. friend was making a quotation.


John Howard Sinclair: Does my hon.
friend object to my using notes? If he does

he should have taken the same exception to his leader (Sir Robert Borden) a few minutes ago.


George Green Foster: I understood
my hon. friend was reading from some authority. If he is not, it is my mistake.


Jacques Bureau: That is camouflage. That is not a mistake.


John Howard Sinclair: I am endeavouring to show that this Government has failed altogether to prosecute the profiteers. That fact should be admitted without the support of any other authority. As a matter of fact, you cannot find a worse example of gross and unjustifiable profiteering than is contained in the menu of the Canadian Government Railways. On this menu the Government charges its patrons sixty-five cents for less than one half pound of fresh cod fish. They purchase this fish at Mul-grave and other places along the coast of Nova Scotia for about four cents a pound, so that the portion they sell for sixty-five cents originally cost them only two cents. That is to say, the railway gives the fisherman forty cents for a codfish weighing ten pounds and, after cooking it, sells it to the consumer for thirteen dollars. No one can contradict those figures for they are found on the menu of the Canadian Government Railways.


Jacques Bureau: There is good authority.


John Howard Sinclair: If the Board of Commerce is in earnest, and if it or the Minister of Justice really wants to institute a prosecution for profiteering, may I suggest that the first offender to be dealt with should be my hon. friend the Minister of Railways.
I .wish also to take the ground that such a vital question as suppressing profiteering should not be-turned over to any commission. It should be dealt with by a responsible minister. We have had Royal Commissions by the score. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) told us himself that they are " as thick as blackberries." For the last four years this country has been overrun by irresponsible busybodies attending to matters that ought to have been attended to by responsible ministers. If anything more were needed to show the utter absurdity of commission rule it can be supplied. It developed a few days ago that the Board of Commerce had issued an order prohibiting the export of sugar.
At the same time the Canadian Trade Mission was negotiating for the sale of sugar abroad and issuing licenses permitting its export. It is high time that Royal Commissions and Orders in Council should be relegated to their proper place and that responsible ministers of the Crown should attend to the business of the country.
There is another matter that calls for explanation on the part of the Prime Minister. In one sense it is a semi-private matter, but it will be admitted. that political morality and fair dealing are matters of Dominion-wide concern. The Union party was formed to carry on the war. It is now proposed, without any appeal to the people, to make it over into a permanent political party. This Government, if it can be said to have been elected at all, was elected on a single issue and for a definite purpose. Thousands of Liberals, and Conservatives too, threw their party allegiance to the winds and voted on that issue, and on that issue alone. The appeal was to their patriotism and they re-snonded in that spirit. These men had no idea that after the war was over the Union party would settle down to be a permanent political party that would take the place and carry on the policy of the old Conservative party. I am informed that many of those who supported Upion Government look upon this move as an unjustifiable piece of political strategy.


Jacques Bureau: Serves them well.


John Howard Sinclair: So abhorrent was this proposal to the mind and conscience of the hon member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that he withdrew his support from the Government and now sits on the cross benches. I submit that this matter is of sufficient importance to call for some explanation from the Prime Minister.
The Government is carrying on a propaganda in the newspapers in favour of economy. This is a very proper thing to do, but the Government should show an example. Has this Administration been economical? The answer is easily given.


Jacques Bureau: No.


John Howard Sinclair: No one can answer that question in the affirmative.


Jacques Bureau: Unless he drew on his imagination.


John Howard Sinclair: I could with justice use stronger language and say that this Administration has been profligate in

its expenditures, and apparently no attempt is made even now to economize. Here are the figures of expenditure for the month of June:	<
Expenditure on Consolidated Revenue Account	 $ 9,042,209
Expenditure on Capital Account 54,632,871
Total	$68,675,080
Or $2,122,754 per day, or $88,448 per hour. In the month of June we got from all sources a revenue of $26,780,316, so that, after crediting all our revenue, we are going into debt at the rate of $1,229,825 per day, or over $51,000 per hour. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) took an hour this morning to eat his breakfast and say his prayers, when he got up from his knees this country was $51,000 worse off than it was when he sat down.


John Wesley Edwards: How much of this expenditure was voted last session for the hon. gentleman's constituency?


John Howard Sinclair: None at all.


John Wesley Edwards: In public works?


Jacques Bureau: What about the expenditure on national schools?


John Wesley Edwards: You might have something a good deal worse than that.


Ernest Lapointe: What about Kingston penitentiary?


John Wesley Edwards: When the hon. gentleman mentions Kingston penitentiary it shows that he recognizes the necessity for that institution. Does my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. 'Sinclair) allege that no money was voted last session for public works in his constituency?


John Howard Sinclair: Not that I remember.


John Wesley Edwards: I will take occasion to refresh my hon. friend's memory.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend
has not posted himself m regard to the way in which my constituency has been usea by the present Government. Practically no money has been voted for my constituency since the dhange of Government, and public works started prior to the change of Government are still unfinished. Small improvements of various kinds were very much required. In one case there was a breakwater on which $10,000 was expended prior to 1011, and which was a very important work, because it gave shelter to tne fishermen's boats. A little village had grown up at this breakwater and the result of that expendi-
ture was a large increase in the production of fish. The number of fishermen increased so that they could not shelter their boats behind the breakwater. In 1912 they asked for $10,000 additional to complete the work. I have pressed that matter on the attention of the Government at every session of Parliament since then and have asked for that breakwater to be completed, [DOT]but I have not yet been able to get one dollar for that purpose. That is the way in which my constituency has been treated by the present Administration. That is a matter aside.


John Wesley Edwards: Two-thirds of the money voted last session for public works was voted for constituencies represented by hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Howard Sinclair: My recollection
is that a very small amount was voted for public works in Nova (Scotia.


John Wesley Edwards: Small or large, hon.
gentlemen opposite got the big end of it.


John Howard Sinclair: I should explain
to my hon. friend-I have just thought of it now-that in the county of Antigonish there were some small expenditures. When the hon. member asked me' the question, I thought he referred to expenditures in the county of Guysborough, but I have the honour to represent two counties which are now one constituency, and if the public accounts were examined it would be found that there were some trifling expenditures in the county of Antigonish, but practically none for Guysborough. However, I was referring to general expenditure. A large part of this expenditure is, I admit, inevitable, but there is also much that could be controlled and reduced. The departments are admitted to be overcrowded with officials-is that not true? The ex-iMinister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell) admitted that to be true in his department, but nothing has been done to rectify that condition of affairs. Millions have been spent in Royal Commissions, most of which have been of no use whatever so far as the public is concerned. Here is a question asked by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmor-ency (Mr. Casgrain) last session:
Mr. Casgrain:	What has been the cost to
the Government to date of the paper inquiry-conducted by Mr. R. A. Pringle, K.C, ?
Sir Thomas White:	Total amount paid to
March 12, $75,945,26.
Over $75,000 for one inquiry which was not then finished. I suppose that the amount will have reached $100,000 by this time. With these Royal Commissions " as

thick as blackberries," to quote my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster), it is not surprising that we are going into debt at the rate of a million dollars a day. The Government spent $646,230.89 in connection with the Canada Registration Act. Nearly every one has forgotten that we have such ari Act in Canada, and I think it will be admitted that this large expenditure was a useless waste of money.


Samuel Hughes: Which registration was that, the first or the second? There were two, were there not?


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to the last one. There was another that cost a great deal of money and that was just as useless as this last one. Take another example:	The Department of Public Information publishes the Canadian Official Record. Hon. gentlemen have seen that organ of public opinion, that little paper, which cost us last year $80,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Shame.


John Howard Sinclair: Eighty thousand dollars per year is over $220 per day. Will any man say that it is worth 20 cents per day to the people of this country?


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. member not aware that the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) stated that it was a great help to the clergymen of Canada in preparing their Sunday sermons?


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad to hear it is good for something. On this side of the House we cannot control this criminal waste of public money; we are too few in number at present. We are in the position, of the advance guard who are holding the trenches until the reserves come up. But, Mr. Speaker, they are coming, and when they arrive, the result will be serious for this Government. Permit me to say, in conclusion, that waste of public money at a time like this is like the sin against the Holy Ghost-it should not and it will not be forgiven.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, if tihe Allied powers overseas ever expected any enlightenment from the speeches delivered by the honourable members who have just preceded me, they will surely be disappointed. Not a word'was said by them on the question raised by the speech from the Throne. It is not my intention to refute all the arguments or even to deal with all the matters mentioned heretofore, 'because they are irrelevant to the 'question alluded to in the
speech from the Throne. I shall therefore proceed at once to consider that speech, and I iwish to say, first, that the able and eloquent manner in which the Address was proposed and seconded is most commendable. I approve, and so do you all, the matter in the speech from the Throne. Honoured as we have been with the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at the opening of this session, it is with pleasure that I convey to His Royal Highness, in the French language, the sentiments of our loyalty and of our unswerving devotion to the Crown and to British institutions.
We are satisfied with the liberties already acquired 'and we wish to keep them unimpaired. We -are proud to be British subjects, especially for the reason given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he repeated Tennyson's verses in his vindication of British liberty.
"It Is the land that freeman till,
"That sober-suited Freedom chose,
"The land where, girt with friends or foes,
"A man may speak the things he will;
"A land of settled government,
"A land of just and old renown,
"Where Freedom broadens slowly down, "From precedent to precedent;
"Where faction seldom gathers head,
"But by degrees to fulness wrought,
"The strength of some diffusive thought,^ "Hath time and space to work and spread."
As said Tennyson of England, his native land, so I say to-day of Canada. Within the folds of the flag which guides us we have placed our confidence, pledging our honour *and fidelity to the word given. The best warranty we can give to the British Empire >of our filial sentiments, not to say anything of -the -soldiers who left their country in ordeT to fight side iby side with England on European soil, His Royal Highness will be able to discover it during his journey through Canada; that is to say from St. John's, Newfoundland, through those long famed regions of Nova 'Scotia, and as well in the sister provinces of New Brunswick; treading that soil of Quebec still impregnated with the history and traditions of old France, or visiting the province of Ontario of loyalist stock, or crossing the great prairies of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, inhabited by people of various races; or ascending the Rocky mountains and finally reaching the enchanting seaboard of the Pacific ocean, the same flag will unfurl itself along the route followed by the heir to the Crown, and it'will he the British flag, in other words, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in this northern part

of the American continent, north of the 45th line, we are all animated by one and the same sentiment, and I shall quote the words which that great French Canadian, Sir Wilfrid iLaurier, uttered in a speech delivered at Somerset in 1887:
We form part of the British Empire, we are British subjects; and remember, gentlemen, all the dignity and pride that were involved in the title of a Roman citizen, at the beginning of the Roman Era when St. Paul, loaded with chains and on the point of being subjected to unworthy treatment, had only to exclaim: "I am a Roman citizen," to be treated with the respect to which he was entitled. We arc British subjects and should be proud of the fact; we form part of the greatest empire on the globe and are governed by a constitution which has been the source of all the liberties of the modern world.
Therefore, I say, Sir, that from one ocean to the other there are different races which live in perfect understanding, rejoicing in the enjoyment of a prodigal nature, and forever grateful to Providence for having directed them to this Canadian land which is and will always be their only country.
The speech from the Throne draws the attention of the House to one subject in particular: The successful conclusion of peace; but the twenty-six first clauses of the treaty refer to the establishment of a League of Nations, and therefore they form part of the treaty.
The success which our armies had achieved last year could only pave the way to a bountiful peace.
The frightful war which was waged for four years and a half could not but leave devastation in its trail. Though we rejoice at the happy conclusion of peace, still the results of the struggle will be felt for a long while, and time only may partially heal the gaping wound. The consequences of the war are numerous; it cannot be denied that the evil has been and still is great.
Germany has suffered and is still suffering, She is not the only victim. The allied nations will also be confronted with afterwar problems. These are as difficult for us to solve as they are for the conquered countries. It is only by a wise and energetic policy that we' shall be enabled to solve them. Apart from the League of Nations, the treaty of peace as sanctioned by our representatives sitting on the Supreme Council of Nations, is worthy of our war policy and unreservedly meets our entire approval.
The League of Nations, forming part of the treaty, as advocated by the Council of the Powers represented at Versa'Tles, is the [Mr. Mackie.'j
second question submitted to our consideration. To discuss it on its merits, to analyse the treaty clause by clause, to review minutely whatever is good, to condemn that which would be found detrimental and to draw the conclusions which must be logically inferred, would be a task I shall not undertake for. numerous reasons. In the first place, all I could say on the matter would not alter at all the text of the Constitution which is to govern the League of Nations.
In the second place, my advice would not change in the least or would scarcely change the position which the Government is going to take as to the adoption of the principles governing a League of Nations.
In the third place, I have such little confidence in the success of the League, that, taking it as a whole, I would hesitate to approve of such a scheme. According to me, a league of natrons is somewhat of an Utopia. Besides, this is my way of looking upon that idea itself, in the abstract. If a true league of nations could come to pass, it would certainly be the greatest achievement of this century, an unexampled ending to the war. Although fiuman intelligence has reached the climax in this twentieth century of ours, the idea is not a new one. Long ago people thought of forming such a league. Is it not the great Italian, Mazzini, that prophet in exile, who had conceived a similar scheme? The nationalism of Mazzini and his associates, also refugees, was cosmopolitan; they wanted to secure the freedom of all the people that were worthy of sitting at the convivial table of the nations. Mazzini thought .that the freedom of Italy, however triumphant she was, would be incomplete and precarious unless she became a member of a great brotherhood of free nations.
Did not Napoleon make this statement: "The first sovereign to embrace in good faith the cause of nationalities would at once hold sway over Europe and accomplish anything he might desire?" Did not Napoleon follow that policy with regard to the Poles in the establishment of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw? As I take it, the true principle of a league of nations means the protection of smaller nationalities. Although the great powers will gather certain advantages thereby, inasmuch as the League of Nations will be conducive to the reduction of armaments, it nevertheless remains true that they shall keep against the whole world the unassailable right of protecting themselves against the other powers by continuing the manufacture of arma-

men is in order to provide for their legitimate defence, as they have done in the past. The smaller 'countries, on the other hand, will continue to ask for protection from the more powerful nations and, in future conflicts, will he once more at the mercy of the more generous peoples.
If we refer t-o the Agreement or Covenant of the League of Nations, which, no doubt, has been read by every one of us, we find three clauses to which our attention is more particularly drawn. They are the only ones I wish to quote:



COVENANT.

[Stage Direction]
Preamble.
The high contracting parties, in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just, and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understanding of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, agree to this covenant of the League of Nations.
Article VIII, to which I want to make allusion, will be of special interest to us in the coming discussion.
Article VIII.
The members of the League agree that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.	[DOT]
The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years.	[DOT]
After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the council.
. The members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war ris open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
The members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military and naval programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes.
Still more interesting is Article X: Article X.
The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
I shall deal with only three sections of the Covenant, namely:
1.	The purpose of the League of Nations, which is to promote international co-opar-ation .and to secure universal peace;
2.	Article VIII, iwhich calls for a reduction of armaments proportionate to each country, having regard to its population, its place among the nations, its geographical situation and circumstances in order to attain the object in view, which is a lasting peace;
3.	Article X, which teaches us how the stronger, nations impose their views upon the weaker and how 'among themselves the associated powers can tell one another how to behave.
The purpose as.defined in the preamble is surely splendid, but can it be accomplished? That is another question. Six thousand years of history, atavistic passions of men, unquenched thirst of a growing democracy, such are the considerations that prevent me from accepting those arguments in favour of a League of Nations as the basic principles for the future guarantee of an international peace. It is not at a time when peoples are busy killing each other on twenty different fronts or places, that I believe in such a peace. Let us wait till peace is restored in Hungary, Poland, Ukrania, Bulgaria and Rumania; in Siberia and other parts of the Russian territory; in Turkey and Armenia, without mentioning any other countries-I exclude Ireland -and then arguments in favour of -a League of Nations shall perhaps have greater weight.
I avail myself of this opportunity to express regret that the Peace Conference, with its splendid platform concerning the rights of nationalities, as laid out in the Covenant of the League of Nations, should already show many failings. The fact that the new kingdom of Poland is now waging war against the Ukraine in order to enlarge its territory is not only a gross injustice, but hinders and ridicules in the most flagrant manner this new League of Nations.
Was it not an American senator who asserted not long ago that within five years the most frightful war would break out between Japan and the United States?
That which the great Napoleon anticipated when he said, after the Russian campaign, that after a century Europe would be yellow or Cossack, may yet happen, and we have
[Stage Direction]
no assurance that America, if not Europe, might not have unpleasant quarrels with Japan.
So as to pave the way for that international peace, section VIII is aiming at the reduction of armaments. Such a scheme suits me very well, provided I am given the assurance that wars shall henceforth be bygones. However, that is so uncertain that, although the idea of extravagant armaments is repugnant to me, I cannot help crying out: " Let us he prepared1 for whatever may come." The saying is " forewarned is forearmed." May it be also true in the case of nations. Let the sad experience gained during the first year of this universal war be conducive to other results than the laying out of the foundation of a ridiculous Utopia: the dawn of that everlasting era when war shall forever lose its sway.
There is a last topic which I intend to broach. Will the conclusion of peace and the establishment of a League of Nations bring any changes in our relations with the United Kingdom? In 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in Edinburgh:
" A time will come when the relations between the colonies and the Mother Country can no longer remain as they are; they will either be severed or drawn closer. The solution of this dilemma rests' with England, Scotland and Ireland, for the colonies will always be disposed to maintain filial ties as long as England will uphold them."
Has that time come? Must we anticipate change in the near future? The present is uncertain and the future will be alble to tell us. Nevertheless, true it is that the war has brought a complete transformation of the map, an upheaval of trade and of all the powers in the world, barring none. Will the swerving of nations from their former course, will the new spirit instilled by the war be felt in Canada as elsewhere?
This query will puzzle many politicians, many Canadian statesmen. In alluding to this, I am not in the least inclined to raise a discussion which would bring about a practical settlement just now. The problem will be thrust upon us and time will undoubtedly set it on its proper ground. Our relations with Great Britain, as with the different colonies forming part of the Empire, were always most satisfactory; the cause of the one has always been the cause of the others and we may say without fear of contradiction that because of those common ideals the same patriotic spirit has prevailed throughout the Empire. We have.

approved and we still desire to maintain the same state of things, but we will not allow our integrity to be attacked, when we in Canada have enjoyed for the last seventy-five years the rights and privileges of a quasi independent state.
As far as Canada is concerned, one of the results of the war is that, on account of our participation in the struggle and of the part we have played in the council of nations in order to lay the foundation of peace, instead of being a mere dependency or colony in the face of the world, we have virtually been acknowledged ipso facto as a free nation. Having signed the Treaty of Peace, Canada has incurred responsibilities, and the fact of being assembled here in order to approve or condemn the terms of the Treaty in question is the undeniable proof of the status we have gained among the future nations of the earth. Present times bring responsibilities to Canada, as to the other, shall I say colonies, towards the. Mother Country, on acoount of their being an integral part of the Empire. These responsibilities bind us to England by ties closer and closer inasmuch as we are called upon to follow its policy of reconstruction and adopt its standard of international magnanimity. Because we are to play a part identical with that of England, have we to adopt a policy which would embroil us in the old-time quarrels of European countries.
Or again, while accepting the responsibilities and obligations imposed by our new status, shall we be in a position to better co-operate with the other countries toward solving the numerous and intricate problems that will from time to time arise? Can we play that new part without impairing our constitutional privileges, and avoid being drawn into bloody and disastrous wars, by the force of events or circumstances without having been consulted by the contracting parties? I for one shall always hesitate to give my approval to any measure that might "modify our actual relation to the Mother Country. The parting of Canada from the British Empire is as. distasteful to my mind as a policy of irrational im-peralism. I am a Canadian and such I wish to remain, though always a loyal British subject. "All that is national is ours" used to say the Duke of Orleans. All that is Canadian is ours. That is what we want, and that is yet the safest way to continue to be loyal British subjects.
Accept, Mr. Speaker, the assurance of my complete approval of the principles of the national and international policy expressed in the speech from the Throne.

Mr. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in rising from my seat at this moment, my intention is not to discuss the speech from the Throne, but to add a new protest to the one I uttered at the last session, in the course of the debate on the Address. On that occasion, as you are well aware, both [the mover and the seconder of the Address spoke in English. The French language was ignored then, as it was ignored a few days ago. Our constitution gives the French language equal rights with the English language dn this country. Moreover, it was an established tradition in the House of Commons that the mover or the seconder of the Address should be a French Canadian or an English Canadian able to speak French.
Last year I brought to the notice of the Government the fact that they had among their supporters a member highly qualified to move or second the Address in French. We have had a few minutes ago the great pleasure of listening to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) in a masterly speech delivered in faultless and elegant French and that is the reason why I protest with the greatest energy against the injustice done to the French language and against the contempt shown by the Government for my mother tongue, because such a conduct on their part is an insult to the inner feelings of a large and important section of the population of this country.
The hon. member for Edmonton, let me say it again, has delivered a magnificent speech and I offer him my thanks and congratulations in the name of the province of Quebec and of the French Canadians of the whole Dominion. A few days ago, in the ancient city of Champlain, the Prince of Wales, the future King of England, on two different occasions, answered in French the addresses presented by the people of that city. Apparently, the old country people, the members of the Royal family, are better informed, as to the importance of the French language than certain English Canadians in this country.
The Prince of Wales, beyond a doubt, intended to teach a lesson tlo some of our friends (?) from the province of Ontario particularly,'who never miss an opportunity to hurl insults tat all that is French and are endeavouring, by all means in their power, to get through this House bills and resolutions aiming at the complete cutting out of the French language.
Let us hope that Itbe lesson given to these gentlemen by the Prince of Wales will not be wasted; let us hope that they will understand that if this country is to resume its progress toward prosperity; that if Canada js ever to become >a nation and is to fulfil the destinies that have been assigned to it by Providence, all the different sections of our population must he united; all racial and religious strife must come to an end; we must remember that we are all Canadians; that we are here to live and die, that we shall he united and prosperous only if we understand that we are first, always and above all 'Canadians.
In the words of the hon. member tor Edmonton, all that is Canadian is ours. It is all very well to make sacrifices for the sake of the Empire; it is all very well to go to the battlefields of Europe to fight tor liberty and the safety of small nationalities; it is all very well to have offered the lives of sixty thousand Canadians and to bankrupt Canada to give peace and liberty to Europe, but liberty must also be respected here.
There are now in the jails of this country young men who are called defaulters because, it is claimed, they broke the law; however, who in Canada are those who set the example by breaking the law? Was there ever in any country on earth a more cynical offender in this respect than the present Government? Consequently, it is not those young men who should he in jail, but the whole ministry and those who abetted and still support the Unionist party, who sanctioned everything which the Government has done, who applauded the enactment of the most iniquitous and prejudicial legislation. Those are the gentlemen who should be in jail and all these young men, farmers and farmers' sons, should be working in the fields so as to increase the production of food for the Canadian people.
I confidently expected that in the speech from the Throne the Government would convey their intention to quit hunting these young men in the most distant forests, and would introduce a Bill granting a general amnesty, because, after all, these men are far less guilty than the members of the Government, These young men thought that it was rather in the interests of the country to go on with their work upon the land so as to feed not only the Canadian people, but also our soldiers overseas. After all, what crime have they committed, especially seeing the gigantic effort made by Canada of its own accord? In a new country like ours, seeing the population we had and
[Stage Direction]
the scant resources at our command, was it reasonable to impose conscription, and when the. war was over and peace concluded to turn those young men into' political victims?
It is not my intention at present to discuss the Treaty of Peace. When the resolution submitted by the Prime Minister is brought anew before the House I shall make whatever reservations may seem necessary.
At the last session the Union Government appointed a commission to inquire into the high cost of living, that is>, to try and reach the profiteers. As the leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago, it is the same with this commission as with every other commission which the Government created; do-nothing commissions. Meanwhile, people are starving to death and the cold storage plants are filled with supplies of every kind.
The people must not expect any compassion on the part of the Government since the ministers are profiteers. The king of the profiteers belongs to the Government. It is a heartless and pitiless Administration which ignores, the sufferings of the people. Most of its members stalk proudly in gorgeous mansions, drive- in/ motor ears bought at the public expense. Meanwhile, the working man, his family and children are starving to death.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska). (Translation) : There is no prohibition for them.
Mr. d'ANJOU. (Translation) : No prohibition for them whatever.
Well, Sir, I hope that ere long this Government will decide to appear before the public. I hope that they shall once muster enough courage to face the electorate and to account for their charge; and I am sure that they will get a hot reception; that, not only in Quebec, but in every other province the Unionist candidates will be cheered by the defaulters- who are to leave jail. I can assure them they will receive a sound thrashing, and they will have richly deserved it, for, as I say, it is not these young men who are the culprits, but the Prime Minister and all the ministers, even those who signed the Treaty of -Peace.
I shall rest with that. I am anxious to raise my voice -at -this moment so as to protest, as I -said at the beginning, against the Government for having, even at this very session, ignored the French language and the rights of a most important section of the country. I felt it to be my duty towards the province of Quebec and towards the constituency I have -the honour of representing in this House. My opinion is that under all

circumstances a member, conscious of his mission, who has at heart the interests of his race, of his language, and who wishes to have them respeoted should not hesitate to stand up and to protest emphatically against the infringement of those rights-; -and I am sure that in so doing I -shall secure the approval of my constituents, and that the province of Quebec will also uphold me.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at six p.m.
Friday, September 5, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. S. -MIDDLEBRO (North Grey) presented the following report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House during the present session:
[Stage Direction]
No. 1. ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS.
Armstrong- (York), Blake,
Boys,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cannon,
Copp,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Demers,
Dgvlin,
Imherty,
Douglas (Strathcona), Fripp,
Guthrie,
Messieurs
Jacobs,
Keefer,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lemieux,
McCoig,
McIntosh, McKenzie, McMaster, Meighen,
Mowat,
Porter,
Sifton-,
Tweedie, and Vien.-29.
.	No. 2.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs	,
Allan,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Anderson,
Andrews,
Archambault, Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Ballantyne,
B&land,
Blair,
Bolton,
Bonnell,
Boyer,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe (St. James), Lavigueur,
Leduc,
Lemieux,
Lesage,
Long,
Mackie (Edmonton), Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (York), MacNutt,
McCoig,

Boys,
Bristol,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cahill,	[DOT]
Calder,
Campbell,
Cannon,
Casgrain,
Chabot,
Charlton,
Clark {Red Deer), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Cooper,
Copp,
Crowe,
Cruise,
Currie,
d'Anjou,	i ,
Davidson,
Davis,
D6ch£ne,
Delisle,
Devlin,
Doherty,
Douglas {Cape Breton), Douglas {Strathcona), Edwards,
Elkin,
Ethier,
Fafard,
Fielding,
Fontaine,
Fournier,
Fraser,
Fripp,
Guthrie,
Harold,
Harrison,	.
Hay,
Henders,
Hepburn,
Hocken,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Kay,
Keefer,
Lalor,
LanctCt,
And that the quorui do consist of twenty-f
McCrea,
McCurdy,
McGregor,
McLean {Royal), McLeod,
McQuarrie,
Maharg,
Manion,
Marcile {Bagot), Marshall,
Martin,
Merner,
Mewburn,
Middlebro,
Molloy,
Morphy,
Mowat,
Murphy,
Myers,
Nesbitt,
Nicholson {Algoma), Nicholson {Queens), Pardee,
Parent,
Pelletier,
Porter,
Power,
Reid ( Grenville),
Reid {Mackenzie), Richardson,
Ross,
Savard,
SSguin,
Shaw,
Sheard,
Simpson,
Smith,
Stevens,
Stewart {Hamilton), Stewart {Lanark), Sutherland,
Thompson {Weybuim), Thomson {Qu'Appelle), Trahan, 0 Tudhope,
Vien,
Wallace,
Wilson {Saskatoon), Wilson (W ent worth) and Wright.-125.
of the said Committee s members.
No. 3.
ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS. Messieurs
Ames (Sir Herbert), Anderson,
Armstrong {York), Ballantyne,
Ball,"
Blair,
Blake,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Boys,
Brien,
Bureau,
Butts,
Casselman,
Charters,
Cronyn,
Douglas {Cape Breton) DuTremblay,
Ethier,
Hocken,
Kennedy,
Lafortune,
Mackie {Renfrew), McGibbon {Muskoka), McLean {Royal), McLeod,
Marcil {Bonaventure), Martin,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paul,
Peck,
Pedlow,
Power,
Provost,
Proulx,
Euler,
Fortier,
Foster {York), Fraser,
Fripp,
Fulton, Gauthier, . Glass,
Green,
Guthrie,
Harrison,
Hepburn,
Reid {Grenville), Richardson,
Robb,
Rowell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Steele,
Stewart {Lanark), Thompson {Hastings), Tobin, and Wigmore.-SI.
And that the quorum of the said Committee do consist of ten members.
No. 4.
ON STANDING ORDERS. Messieurs
Armstrong (Lamhtor*) Brien,
Burrell,
Butts,
Chabot,
Clarke {Wellington), Cruise,
Deslauriers,
Doherty,
[Stage Direction]
Euler,
Gervais,
Griesbach,
Hartt,
Hepburn,
Kemp (Sir Edward), Maclean {York),
, MacNutt,
McGibbon {Argenteuil) McGibbon {Muskoka), Mclsaac,
Marcile {Bagot), Mayrand,
Michaud,
Mowat,
Paul,
S£guin,
Stacey,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Wallace,
White (Sir Thomas)and Wigmore.-33'.
And that the quorum' of the said Committee do consist of seven members.
No. 5.
ON PRINTING. Messieurs
Bowman,
Brouillard,
Buchanan,
Burnham,
Cardin,
Charters,
Clark {Bruce), Clarke {Wellington), Crowe,
Currie,
Fontaine.
Hocken,
Hughes (Sir Sam),
Keefer,
Maclean {Halifax), Michaud,
Murphy,
Provost,
Reid {Mackenzie),
Richardson,
Shaw,
Verville,
White {Victoria), Wilson (W entworth) and Wright.-2-5.
[Stage Direction]
No. 6. ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Andrews,
Archambault,
Ball,
Best,
Bonnell,
Boys,
Calder,
Cannon,
Chaplin,
Chisholm,
Copp,
Crerar,
Crothers,
Messieurs
McGregor,
Mclsaac,
McMaster,
Maharg,
Meighen,
Merner,
Mewburn,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Murphy,
Parent,
Proulx,
[Stage Direction]


Crowe,	Redman,
Davidson,	Reid (Grenville),
Demers,	Ross,
Devlin,	Scott,
Duff,	Sheard,
Edwards	Sifton,
Fripp,	Simpson,
Fulton,	Sinclair (Antigonish),
Gauvreau,	Spinney,
Green,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Griesbach,	Tobin,
Jacobs,	Tremain,
Kemp (Sir Edward).	Tudhope,
Lapointe (Kamouraska)Tweedie,	
Mackie (Renfrew),	Verville.
Maclean (Halifax),	Vien,
McCoig,	White (Sir Thomas)and
McCrea,	Wigmore.-62.
And that the quorum of the said Committee	
do consist of twenty-one members.	
No. 7.	
ON BANKING AND COMMERCE.	
Messieurs	
Allan,	Johnston,
Ames (Sir Herbert),	Kay,
Argue,	Kemp (Sir Edward),
Baldwin,	Kennedy,
Best,	Lang,
Bristol,	Lavigueur,
Burnham	Leduc,
Calder,	L§ger,
Cardin,	Lemieux
Casgrain,	Lesage,
Chaplin, A	Doggie,
Charlton,	Maclean (Halifax),
Clark (Red Deer),	McCurdy, *
Clements,	McMaster,
Cockshutt,	McQuarrie,
Cowan,	Marshall,
Crerar,	Meighen,
Cronyn,	Middlebro,
Currie,	Molloy,
d'Anjou	Nesbitt,
Davis,	Pacaud,
D6ch£ne,	Papineau,
Demers,	Pardee,
Denis,	Peck,
Desaulniers,	Pedlow,
Deslauriers,	Porter,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Redman,
DuTremblay,	Ross,
Edwards	Sexsmith,
Elkin,	Sinclair (Antigonish),
Fielding,	Steele
Finley,	Stevens,
Fortier,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Foster (Sir George),	Sutherland,
Foster (York),	Thompson (Yukon),
Gauthier,	Tobin,
Gladu,	Trahan,
Glass,	Tremain,
Hal la day,	Tweedie,
Henders,	Whidden,
Hunt,	White (Sir Thomas)and
Jacobs,	Wilson (Saskatoon).-84
And that the quorum of the said Committee do consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 8. ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION.
Messieurs
Allan,	Mackie	(Edmonton),Anderson,	Mackie	(Renfrew),Argue,	Maclean (York),

Armstrong (York),	MacNutt,
Armstrong (Lambton),	.McCoig,
Arthurs,	McCrea,
Baldwin,	McCurdy,
Ball,	McGibbon (Argenteuil)
Best,	McGibbon (Muskoka),
Blair,	McGregor,
Bolton,	McIntosh,
Bourassa,	Mclsaac,
Bowman,	McLean (Royal),
Boyce,	Maharg,
Brien,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brouillard,	Marshall,
Burrell,	Mayrand,'
Cahill,	Merner,
Casgrain,	Molloy,
Casselman,	Morphy,
Charters,	Myers,
Chisholm,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Clark (Red Deer),	Nicholson (Queens),
Clarke (Wellington),	Paul,
Cowan,	Proulx,
Crerar,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Cruise,	Robb,
Davis,	Savard,
Delisle,	Seguin,
Denis,	Sexsmith,
Desaulniers,	Shaw,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Sifton,
Edwards,	Simpson,
Finley,	Sinclair (Antigonish),
Fournier,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I)
Fulton,	Smith,
Gervais,	Spinney,
Glass,	Stacey,
Halladay,	Steele,
Harold,	Sutherland,
Hay,	Thompson (Hastings),
Henders,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Thompson (Yukon),
Johnston,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Hunt,	Tremain,
Kay,	Truax,
Knox,	Wallace,
Lafortune,	Whidden.
Lanctdt,	White (Victoria),
Lang,	Wilson (W entworth) and
L£ger, Long,	Wright.-103.
And that the quorum of the said Committed do consist of twelve members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 9. ON MARINE AND FISHERIES.
Messieurs
Ballantyne,
Butts,
Cardin,
Chisholm,
Clark (Bruce), Clements,
[Stage Direction]
Fielding,
Gauvreau,
Gladu,
Hartt,
Hay,
Lang,
Lapointe (St. L6ger,
Loggie,
Mahion,
Martin,
Munson,
McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McQuarrie,
Nicholson (Queens), Pelletier,
Rowell,
Sinclair (Antigonish), Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I) Spinney,
Trahan,
Truax,
James), Tudhope,
Turgeon, and Wigmore.-34.
And that the quorum of the said Committed
do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]

No. 10. ON MINES AND MINERALS.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister), the report was concurred in.
Messieurs
Arthurs,		Knox,
Blake,		Dalor,
Bolton,		Demieux,
Bonnell,		Doggie,
Burrell,		Dong,
Cahill,		Marcil (Bonaventure),
Campbell,		Nesbitt,
Cochrane,		Nicholson (Algoma),
Cockshutt,		Pacaud,
D§ch&ne,		Peck,
Deni6,		Pelletier,
Fortier,		Provost,
Green,		Reid (Mackenzie),
Griesbach,		Sexsmith,
Harrison,		Smith,
Hartt,		Thompson (Yukon), and
Johnston,		White (Victoria).-34.
And that	the	quorum of the said Committee
do consist of ten members.		
		No. 11.
ON FORESTS,		WATERWAYS AND WATER-
		POWERS.
		Messieurs
Argue,		Foster (York),
Baldwin,		Fraser,
B61and,		Halladay,
Bourassa,		Knox,
Bowman,		Mackie (Edmonton),
Boyce,		Manion,
Bureau,		Michaud,
Campbell,		Pacaud, *
Casselman,		Power,
Charlton,		Redman,
Cochrane,		Stewart (IIamilton),
Cooper,		Thompson (Hastings),
Cowan,		Thompson (VSeyburn),
Ethier,		White (Victoria), and
Fafard,		Wilson (Saskatoon).
Finley,		[DOT]-31.
And that	the	quorum of the said Committee
do consist of ten members.		
		No. 12.
OFFICIAL		REPORT OF DEBATES.
		Messieurs
Ballantyne,		Eemieux,
Burnham,		McKenzie,
Chabot,		McEeod,
Devlin,		Marcil (Bonaventure),
Elkin,		Munson, and
Foster (Sir	George), Richardson.-13.	
Kay,		
And that	the	quorum of the said Committee
do consist of five members.		
	i	No. 13.
	ON	THE LIBRARY.
		Messieurs
Andrews,		Harold,
Boland,		Lapointe
Borden (Sir Robert), (Kamouraska),		
Boyer,		Demieux,
Chaplin,		Meighen,
Clark (Red	Deer), Myers,	
Cooper,		Pardee,
Copp,		Rowell,
Cronyn,		Sheard, and
Crothers,		Whidden.-20.
Foster (Sir George),
Sir Robert Borden moved:
That the Select Standing Committees of this House shall severally he empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from' time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the Committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.
. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
FIRST READING OF RILL TO CARRY INT^ EFFECT THE TREATY.
Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) *moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers.
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Robert Laird Borden: This Bill is for
the purpose of carrying into effect the Peace Treaty.


Jacques Bureau: Is this the legislation
that was intended to be introduced if the resolution be passed?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Or is further legislation to be introduced?
* Sir ROBERT BORDEN: This is the legislation.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister how it happens that this Bill and the resolutions are introduced in this House at the same time that" the resolution is introduced in another chamber of	this	Parliament. The resolution has passed the Senate and is now under discussion in this House. Can the Prime Minister give any reason why such a procedure should have been adopted? Here we have a resolution whichf should have originated either in this *House or in the Senate. It originated in this House, I presume, and I should like to know why it has been considered by the Senate before being disposed of by this House. What is the actual state of the resolution now?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know
that I quite understand my hon. friend. It is perfectly competent to proceed either by joint resolution or by a separate resolution in each House. The latter course was adopted, and it is perfectly proper.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: When we consider the resolution shall we be sitting as a court of appeal, or as revising the action of the Senate?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure, still, that I understand my hon. friend. The resolution before the House is for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the House upon the Treaty. The fact that the Senate has given its opinion already does not affect the action of this House in any way.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has the Bill which my
right hon. friend has just introduced already been introduced in the Senate?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not.
My hon. friend's experience as a member would indicate to him that no such procedure is possible.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My experience in this
matter is somewhat similar to that I have had during the past few years. I had been accustomed to Acts being passed by Parliament, but my experience of late has taught me that Parliament has given place to a Cabinet, and that we now proceed in most cases by Order in iCouncil.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not appreciate the relevancy of the hon. gentleman's statement, inasmuch as this Bill is now being presented to Parliament and we are not dealing with the matter by Order in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty (Minister of lustice), Bill No. 4 to amend the Interpretation Act, was introduced and read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of1 Mr. Howard Primrose Whidden for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Thursday, September 4.
Mr. MARIE JOSEPH DEMERS' (St. Johns and Iberville): Mr. Speaker, although I have no desire to prolong this debate unduly, there are some questions in regard to which I should like to express my views and feelings at this session. We have been told that the main purpose for which we are assembled is the ratification of the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant of the

League of Nations, but it is to be hoped that before prorogation we shall realize that there is something more urgent that faces us, and that it is incumbent on us to turn our attention to other questions of greater moment and of more importance for Canada than the consideration of the Peace Treaty. When I say this, Sir, I trust there will be no misapprehension on the part of this House as to my views concerning this question. I wish it to be understood that I in no sense lack an appreciation of the great importance of the Peace Conference and the Treaty which it has evolved. The fact is quite otherwise. At the same time, however, I must say that so far as I can judge there is no reason why this Parliament should ratify the Treaty, because that ratification has already been given by the only authority in the circumstances-His Majesty the King as representing the whole British Empire to which we belong. The Imperial authorities, I am of opinion, do not see any necessity for action on the part of Canada or any other of the Dominions in order that the Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations may become operative so far as the British Empire is concerned; and I think that from the international standpoint the interpretation of the Imperial Parliamentt regarding our status as it affects other nations and powerg* is right. For myself, coming to the conclusion that our participation in the ratification of the Treaty is unnecessary, I cannct see why we should engage in any consideration cf its terms, when the only direct consequence will be to bind ourselves to military and financial undertakings in the event of the violation of the Treaty by any of the contracting parties should the League of Nations decide that action on our part is imperative. What shall we receive in return for our assumption of these obligations and responsibilities? What clause of the Treaty can apply to Canada in the future apart from the obligations I have just mentioned? What clause of the Treaty can Canada violate? We are not a great power; we are not even a small nation; and there are no clauses of protection or security in the Treaty which can apply to Canada or to the colonies or dominions of the Empire. Why, therefore, should we endeavour to be a party to this pact? I think that the best and only thing that we could do would be to refrain from any undertakings which may involve us in future obligations. It seems to me that our palpable duty is to devote ourselves entirely and exclusively to the industrial and econ-

omic reconstruction of our country without any interference in European affairs.
There is another very strong reason why this Parliament should not ratify the Treaty, and that is the unconstitutionality of such approval on our part. We are limited by the British North America Act, according to which we have no power to bind Canada to military participation beyond our own territory, except for its own defence; and we are seeking to so bind Canada when we undertake to ratify the Treaty. It is not necessary to discuss this question at any great length. It seems to me that the mere enunciation of it is sufficient to show the soundness of the proposition that we have no power to bind this Dominion to participation in military matters outside our own territory. It is true that the Prime Minister on Tuesday told us that Canada had acquired a new international status since the Peace Conference. But, Sir, I should like to know what changes were brought about. I should like to know if our constitutional relations with Great Britain have been affected by the Treaty, and, if so, what the changes are. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we have absolutely no power to assume such obligations as are proposed in the Peace Treaty, and particularly in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that in so assuming them we shall be violating the provisions of the Constitution that governs us. It is not within our power to alter the Constitution which we have received from the Imperial Parliament, and without hesitation I express the sincere opinion that we should not ratify the Peace Treaty, or, at any rate, that we should not enter the League of Nations. We are not a nation in the international sense of the word. Consequently, we have no power to assume the obligations of a nation any more than we can enjoy the rights, powers and privileges of a nation. If ever a war happens in°which the great principles of justice and humanity are at stake, I am sure that we will be ready to give our voluntary participation as we have in the past. Why should we tie our hands and not keep our liberty when our international influence is so lightly thought of that the Imperial authorities , would have forgotten us had it not been for the strong representations made by the Prime Minister? Why should we insist under the circumstances upon taking part in a treaty by which we are assuming unlimited responsibilities without any compensation? For myself I am very much inclined to vote against the Treaty because
the Treaty contains the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Now, I am coming to a most important subject which should, above all, occupy public attention at the present time-the cost of living. The general unrest in this country is, in great measure, the result of the high cost of living. We cannot expect any improvement in the situation unless we apply the necessary remedy. As long as the situation remains unchanged there will be strikes and trouble. We can settle a strike to-day by meeting the demands of the workmen for higher wages hut the strike will be renewed as soon as the prices of foodstuffs and the necessaries of life are increased.. There is no justification for such steady increases. There is no justification for the high *cost of living. The speculators and the profiteers are according to my opinion, mainly responsible for the trouble and it is the duty of this Government and of this Parliament to put an end to their criminal extortions. In my opinion the cold storage is directly responsible for the terrible situation in which we find ourselves. The Government should see to it that the accumulation of food is made for the benefit of the public and not to its prejudices. The prices of foodstuffs are controlled by the cold storages *and in an arbitrary manner. They constitute a monopoly of which they are taking reprehensible advantage. It is simply shameful. If this Government has any intention of avoiding crime, disorder or revolution it is time, if indeed it is not too late, drastic measures should be taken. The hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) answering a question during the last session of Parliament, as to what was the intention of the Government concerning the cost of living, told', the Mouse that the Government was to build -a large cold storage. This, Mr. Speaker, was an admission on his part that cold storages are largely concerned in the matter of the cost of living. If so, instead of building cold storages, why not take possession of those existing and then accumulate foodstuffs' for the benefit of the people? I do not see any good reason for not doing so. This Government should have long ago taken the necessary stVps to fight the enemy. In England, in France, and in the United States the fight has been on for many months and the results which have been secured are absolutely satisfactory. Practically nothing has been done in this country yet. It is true the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) gave figures
[Stage Direction]
to this House in order to prove that the prices of certain goods were about the same in Canada as in the United States, but I do not think that the people of this country win be satisfied or that they will feel that they should keep still because the Prime Minister has shown that the profiteers in the United States are making 100 per cent when the profiteers in Canada are making only 99 per cent.
The time for investigation has passed. Deeds axe needed: First of all, in my humble opinion, the Government should exercise a strict control over our exports, taking as their motto "Charity begins at home." There should be some action taken for the vigorous repression of monopoly and for the .punishment of the profiteers. There should be absolute control of the cold storages,, regulating them and compelling the owners to make public the cost prices of the goods stored up, and there should be an exercise by the Government of their right to sell the excess of food in these cold storages. There should be the removal of the tariff duties on all food stuffs and necessaries of life. There should also perhaps be established public stores where foodstuffs will be sold at a necessary profit to cover the cost of administration. This would be a great factor in the lowering of prices; it has proved to be workable and very efficient in some other countries. Such are the ways and means to solve the problem, and I think if this policy were strictly enforced in Canada considerable .general relief would very soon result. Reducing the cost of living is the problem that confronts us. The future of this country depends on the proper solution of the problem, and it is the duty of the Government to devote its whole energies for a while at least, to that object.
There is another question to which I desire for a few moments to draw the attention of the House and of the Government, namely, the question of what action should be taken in regard to deserters and defaulters under the Military Service Act. Last session I took the opportunity of expressing my views on this very important subject, but I deem it to be my duty to again return .to the charge and to once more impress upon the Government the necessity of enacting a law under which a general amnesty will be extended to these men. Let me give the reasons for my conviction that the passage of a law to afford such relief would be wise and proper. The infringements of the Military Service Act were numerous in many parts of Canada, and
	:	(
1 do not think we should be surprised at that when we remember that there was an absolute want of education of the public in regard to military service. Our population was not prepared to face conscription. Not only was there a complete lack of education of the people, but the idea of conscription was at first deliberately thrust into the background. In the next place, promises were made to a certain element of the population that they would not be made subject to conscription, and reasons were given as to the necessity for pursuing such a course. Furthermore, an Order in Codn-cil was passed in December, 1917, giving countenance to promises along those lines made by parliamentary candidates to their electors. Even the Prime Minister himself, speaking in this House in 1916, pointed out that compulsory military service was not to be contemplated in this country; and in February, 1917, one of the ministers of the Crown was elected in Dorchester as an anti-conscriptionist. That i? the kind of education that was given to our young men with respect to compulsory military service, and under the circumstances is it surprising that so many of them'were refractory to the law? Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the establishment of conscription was a very serious problem even in some countries more directly concerned with the questions at issue than Canada. The problem, was only solved after a well-organized campaign of education of one or two years' duration and after the peril which threatened was fully realized for certain reasons that were not applicable to Canada. Moreover, in approaching this question, we must bear in mind that certain countries intend to proclaim amnesties to defaulters, although in those countries compulsory military service 'has existed for years. How much more necessary is it to adopt such a policy in a country like this, where the people had not the slightest idea of military service? I do not want to consider the various reasons why a general amnesty is necessary in 'Canada-for instance, the necessity of maintaining and enhancing production, which will not be realized if the Government continues to put all the young farmers, in jail, as they are doing now, and the necessity of maintaining the peaceful industry where there is such a state of unrest, and so on. The actual and only result of the application of the Military Service Act to-day, as far as the defaulters are concerned, is that the poor are going to jail and. staying there, whereas they should be at work in order to maintain themselves and families.

On the other hand, the rich are in a different position, They have their , liberty. The poor man cannot pay the fine of $250 and is sent to jail each time he is called to account, and the lamentable fact is that the great majority of them are farmers I ask the Government to take these facts into *consideration, for it is not yet too late. I maintain that politics were responsible for the resistance which was shown to the Military Service Act in certain quarters. Such being the case, I say it is the duty of the Governmeht to at least be merciful and to extend forgiveness to those who have erred against the law. I am sure that such action would be appreciated and that it would very much help in restoring our country to its normal condition. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can close my remarks in.a more appropriate way than by quoting the observations of General -Smuts the other day in respect to the late General Botha:
He returned to South Africa more than evei convinced that salvation and healing would only he found in a new spirit of humanity and in forgiving and forgetting old differences and wrongs.
Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the leader of the Government has summoned the House as a result of what I would call " a half-cocked idea." Members have now been here five days, we are beginning the fourth sitting of this Piarliamemt, and by reason of its demands the Printing Bureau is running night and day at high tension. The only conclusion to be drawn is that, for some reason or other, men of long experience have forgotten the preliminary work which is essential in connection with the calling of Parliament. The leader of the Government, with several of his ministers, has been overseas for the greater part of nine months. Whether they were summoned to Paris or went there on their own initiative we are not aware, but we do know that their work at the Peace Conference in the outer guard was infinitesimally small. While the Peace Conference was in session the legislators of this, country were doing business at the old stand with a superabundance of Cabinet ministers. It was rumoured last winter that some of the delegates who went from Canada to the Peace Conference were going to the island of Prinkipo. It would not have' bothered us had they gone there to hold a conference with the ancient cannibalistic tribes of the Orient.


Ernest Lapointe: Amphibological.


Willis Keith Baldwin: It would not have
troubled us, I .say, because of the superabundance of ministers who were here to carry on the work of this country and squander the people's money. They were here under the leadership of the late Finance Minister, a man of noble bearing, fine character and good deportment. But yet he got rankled, he talked about dirty babies, he turned on the thumbscrew of the closure, he muzzled the Opposition, and then he and the other ministers went on at their own sweet will and put upon this country that great octopus, the railroads. That not being enough, they introduced a housing scheme to build houses for people too indolent to help themselves. Then they had a Good Roads scheme, but the provinces were not organized to receive the money and had no way to expend it properly. Not only that, but they multiplied expenses by putting upon the country a double portion
of the Northwest Mounted Police

that
excellent body which we have had for so many years-at a time when they had seen fit not to let any more people come to this land. And they have doubled the standing army. How did that co-ordinate with the action of our emissaries at the Peace Conference-a conference which directed all its energies towards rendering future wars utterly impossible. History has told us that any country that organizes a military machine goes on enlarging and perfecting it until at last an excuse is found to declare war. We do not want that condition of affairs in Canada.
Last session we were told time and again that we did not know our mind on the Good Roads question, the railroad question, or any other question; but after the closure was invoked we thought in the name of conscience we had better keep our seats than have the muzzle put upon us. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) and the hop. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) have said. We know that the Government has put a ponderous load upon this country, and that the leader of the Government last session reached the end of his tether in trying to find money to pay interest upon the stupendous debt and to meet our maturing notes. By the fore part of August there was one hundred million dollars due, and it was paid by that legerdemain finance that says: We have got to renew our notes. As a result our securities instead of standing at par have dropped to about ninety-five. We

cautioned them against that condition of affairs, but it was of no use. Therefore I I say that the superabundance of ministers that remained in Canada plunged the country into the condition in which it is to-day.
If you must have that great military machine in Canada I would say: take the criminals from the jails and penitentiaries and gather up the loafers of every description and put them on the public works under the care of this standing army, and so put it to some use. We do not want to feed men in this country three meals a day and clothe them and keep them indolent. Let them loose and give our soldiers something to do. But we object to such an army. We say it is not consistent with the attitude of our emissaries who went abroad to build up the peace of the world. Instead we are building up a machine for "a glorious war." You cannot help it, Mr. Speaker, for when you build up a great military machine, it must give vent just as when you put a fire under a boiler. Glorious war! War cannot be glorious and never was glorious. We do not want another war, and we will not have another war if we can help it. We are not jealous of our emissaries, because they do not have much power. We take pride in the great President of the United States who formulated those articles of peace for a League of Nations. We believe that if the best part of the world-seven-eighths of it-comes into a league to guarantee the peace of the world, there can be no war, because seven-eighths of all the resources of the world will be bound together by such close ties that no nation can venture to embark on war without its preparations being nipped in the bud. We understand that in general everybody wants everlasting peace, a peace that is abundant and abiding for all time.
But what do we think of the motives in calling this House together? Let me say that those motives are not very good. We believe that we are called here for another trap. We were called "traitors" in 1911, we were called "rebels" in 1917, .and we have been good students, and should be good Bolsheviki now! Why, we have seen headlines in the papers as to the dissolution of Parliament, and I believe that the Prime Minister himself has uttered the word. My conclusion is that he wants to bring an election upon this country or he would not be threatening dissolution. It is an appalling state of affairs for the Government to get the country into, to talk of dissolution at a time when we are facing cold business facts in the administration of this 
country. It is abominable. The man who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. When the Prime Minister was putting conscription before the country he said he would rather face the conscriptionists than face the returned soldiers. Now he stands between the devil and the deep blue sea. Let me make a comparison between our soldiers and the two million returned American soldiers. I can speak advisedly because I have a son in the American army. When they returned to the United States they had a paltry sixty dollars handed over to them and were transported to the place where they were enlisted. I said to my son: "Did you see in New York, Minneapolis, Chicago, or anywhere else, an aggregation of soldiers?" " No, I did not." He said: "It took more than sixty dollars to get the barest of an outfit."
I said a moment ago that we are appropriating money without any specific system to get " value received" for that money.
Last week the United States Government appropriated $50,000 to link up with a proper piece of road two little villages about fifteen miles south of the boundary line- $50,000 to make a permanent road, through a sand-bank; they are even going to rubble the ditches so that the road-work cannot be washed out. They do things over there; they are offering the soldiers work and they are paying them for it. They do not simply pay their soldiers a flat rate equivalent to three, six or nine months' pay on discharge as is done in this counrty. But we do not do things' as our neighbours to the south do. Besides, they have the money. This country is facing financial ruin; there is no question about it.
I have sat in this House for two sessions and I have seen that gentlemen on the other side are adamant when it comes to accepting any suggestions made by members on this side. The member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has introduced his Bill respecting Thanksgiving Day. I said to him: "I congratulate you upon, that Bill; if it passes, it will be the first Bill emanating from this side of the House to which the Union Government has paid any attention." I come to this House with the intention of doing something in a progressive way. I have often desired to present a Bill on a given subject, but there is no use; I have seen that everything is turned down. Let me tell you right here that we have put the brakes on you
4 p.m. people. We have tried to do things, but it is utterly impossible for us to accomplish anything. And now your members are resigning; you are

replacing your ministers; you cannot stand the pressure. You want an election so that you can get a new mandate from the people to go on with your maladministration- either that, or you want somebody else to take the reins of power, because of the deplorable condition in which our country is at the present time. You are willing to spend money for anything under the sun except for that which is necessary-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. member to address the Chair.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I have said that we are building up a grand military machine in this country. While our peace emissaries were abroad working in co-operation with that conclave of men who were engaged in formulating the conditions of a world peace, we were building up a grand military machine, looking to a
glorious	war some	day.	But	hasthere	ever been	a glorious	warin the	history of	the	world?	No.
War is destruction; war is murder; war is hell. Wars have destroyed the substance of this world; wars have destroyed the people of this world. During the great war, between eight and nine millions of people were killed. Thousands of people have died of broken hearts. Many fathers and mothers are now weeping for their dead; widows and children are sorrowful and in despair; tens of thousands of girls in this world will never be loved. And can we say that war is a justifiable thing? Why should we build up a military machine in this country, bounded, as we are, on three sides by broad oceans and on the south by that great and peaceable power, United States, the better element of the population of which is located along our borders? Should we build up a machine which has for its purpose the destruction of humanity? No, we should not, nor is it necessary that we should do so. We should reduce the standing army to the lowest possible number consistent with the safety of our country. The men who went overseas fought and died in order that peace might prevail and war be done away with. Let us carry out the ideals for which these men strove; let us not waste the money of this country by building up an expensive military machine.
I have said some things about the financial condition of the country. I have pointed out the deplorable state that we are in, and I have asserted that this Government cannot face its obligations; that its members are resigning, and that the Administration intends to spring an election on the country. I believe that is what this session was called for, but we on this side of the House are too shrewd to put our foot into your trap. At any rate, that is my opinion.
The Prince of Wales has been touring this country. His words have been magnificent; he is winning the hearts of the people. As he goes from place to place he grows in the estimation of the people of Canada because he evidences a democratic spirit. He shows that he feels for humanity and that he longs for the peace of the world; his is the heart of Abraham Lincoln and of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Never in all the history of Canada has a Government had such an opportunity of doing something for the people as it has to-day-the opportunity of carrying out the ideals to which our future King has so nobly given expression.
Persecution has gone on long enough in this country. W7hen the League of Nations becomes operative I believe that there will be no more war; the great powers and nations of the earth will be united to prevent it. Then there will be no need, for conscription; there will be no need for compelling people to engage in war; there will be no need for the employment of harsh measures. In order to liken the presence of the Prince of Wales in this country to the passing over our land of the Prince of Peace, we should declare an amnesty in respect of those young men who have been imprisoned for no further fault than that of being ignorant of the law and not doing the things that the State required of them. Where no act of violence has been committed, where the peace has not been disturbed, where there has been no treason or sedition, there should be an opening of the prison bars and a releasing of those who have been detained for committing no further crime than that of neglecting to come forward and go to war.
In the province from which I come the people believe in peace, harmony and happiness. The province of Quebec has saved the Dominion of Canada two or three times; she is saving it and has been saving it for the past six months. Her people have been doing what honourable, industrious and upright people should do; they have been sticking to industry; they have been working. We can prove that, because the capitalists of Canada and United States have their eyes on' the province of Quebec as a safe place to invest their money; in that province there are no uprisings and no strikes. I repeat that it would be a splendid

consummation of the visit of the Prince of Wales to our country if the hearts of those who have the Government of the country in charge could go out towards these young men to whom I have referred. This is an age of democracy, an age when people are willing to live and let live. That principle was never better exemplified than it was *when the Prince said: " Let the people come forward who have done the dirty work." The Prince has not been hobnobbing with the classes; he waits upon the blind, the afflicted, the troubled, the weak and the downtrodden. Let the Government, therefore, on the recommendation of its Minister of Justice, release from bondage these captives in our jails and prisons. Let them stop persecuting these young men in the back settlements and bringing them from distances of hundreds of miles at great expense, thereby breaking the hearts of thei'r parents and relatives. >*nen a man is apprehended in this way some one who has worked hard to make a few hundred dollars has to go down to the jail and pay the fine- simply because of the hard-heartedness of the Government.
Is the United States Government persecuting the young men over there who made mistakes? No, it is giving them a square deal; it recognizes that all men are human and fallible, and I plead with this Government also to do what is just and right. Let the Government turn right about face and do what is democratic and just and honest, for their day of reckoning is at hand.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Mr. Speaker, I avail myself of my privilege to speak on the Address to draw the attention of the Government to a matter which I think is of paramount importance to the people of this country, and that is the question of international transportation. I have a couple of letters here from two of my constituents complaining of the shortage of cars. The first one is from Amos, in the Abitibi district, and reads as follows:
I would ask you to kindly lay before the proper department the situation at present existing at Amos with regard to shipping the lumber which we manufacture. I am one of the small lumber merchants here. I manufacture about three hundred carloads per year and so far this year I have only been able to ship twenty-five oars since April.
The other letter is along much the same line; it js from a larger shipper who is unable to get cars. Following up their requests, I called on the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals and received the following reply:
[Mr Ba.ldwin.1
I am now in receipt of advice that if the cars were for Canadian destination, there should be no difficulty in obtaining a reasonable supply, *but that if the destination is to points in the United States, the difficulty Is possibly due to general shortage of American railway owned cars, which exists all over the territory. You will understand that on account of the large excess of Canadian owned cars in the United States it is not considered advisable to continue loading Canadian owned cars to that territory.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that should receive the serious consideration of the Government. It is a question that should interest the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Colonization, the Department of Railways, and the Department of Finance. 'The Transcontinental railway runs through a timber country, practically speaking, which is being settled by prospective farmers who first take out the pulpwood and the lumber. The whole investment is dependent on the transportation facilities afforded to the settlers, and owing to the lack of cars they ar.e unable Ito itak-e out what is their crop-the lumber and the pulpwood. The statement I have read, that it is impossible to ship Canadian cars over the boundary, is not a new one. This difficulty has confronted the shippers of Canada for some time and has been particularly acute within the last two years. This Government is lending money to foreign countries in order to find an outlet for our 'manufactured goods and finance our export trade, and surely it could arrive at some arrangement with the United States whereby an exchange of cars could be effected on a basis that would be satisfactory to both nations. These men are unable to ship their lumber simply because the Canadian Government has been unable to make an arrangement with the United States Government for an exchange of cars There should be very little difficulty in making such an arrangement, especially in view of the fact that the American Government has control of the entire transportation system of that country. If we hope to improve the exchange situation between the two countries and secure a more favourable trade balance we must ship our products to the United States, and our principal pro' ducts include pulpwood, lumber and hay. If the Government are unable to make an arrangement with the United States for the exchange of cars I would consider them incapable of promoting the export and import business of this country.
The Department of Colonization should also be interested in this matter, because the. Quebec Government are colonizing along the line of railway owned by the Dominion

Government. I drew this matter to the attention of the Minister of Colonization last year, and I had hoped he would have taken some note of it and investigated the conditions, but I am sorry to say that he has done no such thing. I also brought the matter before the Department of Railways and Canals, but got very little response. We have an investment in that railroad which the present Government tells us amounts to something like $100,000 a mile; we have settlers in that district to the number of twelve thousand or more, and yet we are told that it is impossible to transport the products of that territory over this railway which cost us over $100,000 a mile. Surely there must be bad management somewhere, and the bad management is quite evident when you travel through that country.
I am not going to move an amendment to the Address, but I do sincerely trust that the Government will take into consideration the matter of an early arrangement with the United States Government whereby our products can be shipped to^ that, country either in Canadian or American cars.
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):	The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahill) has put a perfectly proper case before the House and the Government in the interests of his constituents in that part of the country. It is an old question, as he will find when he commences to follow it up with the different departments. The exchange of cars between two countries situated like the United States and ours is a matter of great necessity and of the utmost convenience, but it is not so easy to effect as might seem at first sight. There have been times when we have had from ten to twenty thousand cars over on the other side in the service of the United States railways, in comparison with a much smaller number of United States cars on this side of the line. A railroad is, of course, very materially interested in having in the first place, its own cars at its disposal for freights within its own country, and it is but reasonable to expect it to put forth every effort to that end. The Government is interested in international trade, particularly in our resources which find a market in the United States and help to bring money into this country, and so stabilize to that extent the exchange situation or prevent it from becoming more adverse. Both Dominion and Provincial Governments are interested in colonizing portions of our country which are becoming gradually opened up, and I can assure my
hon. friend that there is no criminal intent, and not even any neglect, which can properly he charged either to the railway companies or to the Government in this matter.
The difficulty is to retain the proper proportion as between our own country and the United States, and under the congestions which have been prominent and continual during the war, and which are so continuing to a great extent at the present time, it is one of the most difficult problems in the world to equalize that interchange. My hon. friend will see that if we send three hundred cars up into that district, load them with pulp wood, and send them to the United States, and then find that we cannot get them back for five, six, seven, eight, nine or even twelve months, we are diminishing to that extent the number of our cars that are utilizable and are necessary in our own country to carry our own products. So that it is a measure of caution that the railways must take to prevent as many of their cars as possible from going to the United States over the proportion that we have of their cars in this country. We are taking a great deal of stuff down into the United States and are much interested in doing so. I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Railways, and can assure my hon. friend that it will receive the attention which it deserves, and that any possible remedy that can be had will be applied; because it is greatly in the interests of the railway company and of the country that it should be.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, allow me at the outset, to tender my tribute of congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It required no small measure of cleverness and imagination to expatiate at such length and so cleverly as they have done, with such a meagre and limited subject to draw upon as the Speech placed by the Government in the mouth of His Excellency.
It is gratifying to find that the opening of the session synchronises with the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
On several occasions, Canada has tendered a cordial welcome to members of the royal family. Twice already, Princes of Wales have visited Canada, and there was as much gratitude as loyalty in the cordiality of the reception tendered them; but none of those royal visitors have, I believe, won the esteem and heart of Canadians in


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: 
Ernest Lapointe: Just as well.


Onésiphore Turgeon: That m-ay be, but it is not according to the dignity or the duty of the Government to leave a province without representation for such a long time. It may be that it is difficult for the right hon. the Prime Minister to make a choice. However, I do not see why some one has not been called upon to fill the vacancy during t'he last six or seven weeks. The -Government ha-s six or seven supporters on the other side of the House from that province every one of whom, I am- sure, would be
willing to accept uie responsibilities of omce. It is impossible to believe that every one of these six or seven representatives of the people from the province of New Brunswick is so modest that he will not accept any office -at th-e hands of the Prime Minister. Is it, that the sweets of office have turned -sour and that nobody wants to taste them? The people of New Brunswick are- anxious that something should be done, and, while the Prime Minister -continues' to lead the destinies of the nation, New Brunswick should be given its fair share of representation as well as assuming its responsibility for the administration of affairs. In- the years gone by -and up to the present time- the province of New Brunswick has been represented by men of great talent, high position and enjoying a large measure of public esteem. We have had a long succession of able representatives from Confederation down to recent times. We had, first, Sir Leonard Tilley, and then we had the present right hon. the Minister of- Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who, as Minister of Finance, represented the province of New Brunswick in the councils of the nation not only with dignity to himself but with satisfaction and honour to his province. We consider him yet the great -genius of finance on the other side of the -House although he has not lpen given by this Government the position which would enable him to exercise that talent. We are anxious that we -should be represented in this Government no matter what the difficulties may be. One more cannot add much more to its weakness while it may -add something to its -strength.
Before I proceed any further, as my voice is now raised on behalf of the province of New Brunswick and perhaps the last to be heard from that province in this debate, let me say that I do not wish to resume my seat without making reference to the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales who first -set foot in Canada within the province which I have the honour to represent. It was in the city of St. John that His Royal Highness, our future King, who, in the years to come will succeed not only to the throne of his father but to that of his ancestors, every -one of whom from Queen Victoria to George V has added lustre to the British Empire, first met the people of Canada. Let me -say here to the House and the country that the people of New Brunswick received His Royal Highness with the same enthusiasm as has been manifested in the larger cities of Montreal,

Quebec and Toronto, and that thousands ot citizens and thousands of returned soldiers went from the northern and other parts of the province, travelling hundreds of miles in order to be present at the reception of the Prince of Wales, their future King. They have gone back to their homes enthusiastic over his appearance and the development on his part of the true spirit of democracy which characterized the conduct of His Royal Highness not only at St. John but at Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.
We were promised last session that a tariff commission would he appointed consisting of some of the responsible ministers who, together with experts, would travel through the country and acquire all -the knowledge possible in order to be ready at an early date to take up the question of tariff reform. Two months have passed but no step has been taken that I know of yet with the object of forming that commission although many other commissions of different kinds have been appointed since. It has always been my chief aim to see the tariff reduced on the necessaries of life and reduced more particularly on behalf of the larpiers. The farming industry is the chief industry of Canada. We stated last session that further reductions should take place more particularly on food and on the necessaries of life. We saw no effective reduction of duties in the last tariff presented by the Minister of Finance. It is true the Conservative papers of the country have busied themselves since the close of the last session pointing out to the country that an amount of $17,000,000 has been taken off the tariff by the abolition of the 7| and 5 per cent duties imposed by this Government themselves at the opening of the war. Only a couple of days ago we found the Ottawa Journal calling attention to the question of the tariff and emphasizing the fact that when in June the Government brought down the Budget, $17,000,000 was taken off the tariff at one fell swoop thus giving the West lower duties on agricultural implements than reciprocity would have given.
Let me say for the edification of the peo-[DOT]ple that the reduction of seventeen millions of dollars referred to has been effected by removing duties imposed by the Conservative 'Government in excess of the tariff that existed when the Liberal party were in power. After war was declared the Conservatives added special war duties of 7j and 5 per cent to the general and Brit-

ish preferential tariff rates respectively upon, with certain exceptions, all imports. When the war closed, and at the persistent request of the Liberal Opposition, the Government saw fit to remove those duties [DOT]which had not resulted in any great good to Canada. For my part, I always regarded the five per cent special tax on imports coming from Great Britain as evidencing a disappointing lack of loyalty to the manufacturers and workmen of that country, for it meant the imposition of $5 uipon every $100 worth of goods coming from 'Great Britain before they could be landed in Canada. The newspaper in question also refers to the small reduction on farming implements made by the Government as a greater benefit than the reciprocity agreement would have been to the people of Canada. How can that be argued when under the reciprocity agreement the farmers of Canada, particularly those in the West, would not only have got free access to the markets of the United States for their wheat, but virtually for all their other grains, potatoes and live stock? They could have sold their live stock at better prices in the country to the south than they could realize in Canada and could have imported, free of duty, such animals as they needed to improve the stock maintained on Canadian soil. As to the duties on farming implements Canadian farmers would undoubtedly have derived a much greater benefit under the terms of the reciprocity pact than under the legislation of last session. Since 1913, however, the Canadian manufacturers have been given a free market in the United States and have been able to successfully compete in. that market with their American rivals. Therefore, the necessity for the maintenance of the duty on the more important farming implements should have disappeared at once.
The people of Canada have now to consider the question of trade with the nations with Which they have been at war. No doubt there will be great reluctance in the minds of our people to do any trade at all with Germany. Certain restrictions have been imposed upon Germany by the allied nations. I do not say those restrictions are too severe in view of Germany's conduct, but the question must be considered that the compensation to be exacted from Germany depends upon the possibility of her making payment in the future. We have not yet received any payments from that country, and if we deprive her of the power to trade with other countries we can

never expect that she will be in a position to pay any compensation. Canadian financiers may have to seriously consider the possibilities of trade between Canada and Germany. It must be remembered that Canada had commercial dealings of some importance before the war with the German Empire. In the period from 1909 to 1914 the exports of Canada to Germany were valued at 8,398,000 marks. In 1911 those figures had trebled, and in 1913 our exports amounted to 64,100,000 marks, nearly seven and a half times the figures of 1909. On the other hand German imports to Canada had only reached the sum of 60,500,000 marks, giving a trade balance in favour of Canada of 4,000,000 -marks. There is this fact to be considered in connection with our trade with Germany before the war; unfortunately, the bulk of Canada's purchases were in the form of manufactured goods, while our exports consisted chiefly of raw material. That is quite contrary to what should have happened, and something we should be careful to guard against in future if trading with Germany is again resumed. Canada should only buy from Germany those manufactured goods which we cannot produce economically at home, and export to that country no raw material that we can profitably utilize here. As to the future trade relations between Germany and her Allies, the latter have been careful to provide for certain economic clauses which I consider are in harmony with my own principles as an old member of this House, and my desire to see this country move towards the goal of free trade with all reasonable rapidity. There are certain other provisions which tend towards freedom of trade between the allied and enemy nations, under the terms of which the enemy nations cannot impose a greater duty on goods imported from allied countries than are exacted on goods imported from friendly or neutral nations.
Let me take the liberty of citing to you, Mr. Speaker, two or three clauses of Part 10 in regard to commercial relations, from which you will observe that the principle of freedom of trade between the nations of the world is dealt with in such a way as. in my opinion, should convince us that the greater freedom of trade we have with the other nations of the world the sooner will Canada take its place among those nations. Article 264 reads:
Germany undertakes that goods the produce or manufacture of any one of the Allied or Associated States imported into German territory, from whatsoever place arriving, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges (including internal charges) than those to
which the like goods the produce or manufacture of any other such State or of any other foreign country are subject.
Germany will not maintain or impose any prohibition or restriction on the importation into German territory of any goods the produce or manufacture of the territories of any one of the Allied or Associated States, from whatsoever place arriving, which shall not equally extend to the Importation of the like goods the produce or manufacture of any other such State or of any other foreign country.
The principle of freedom of trade has been enunciated by the representatives of the Allied nations, of whom my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, was one, and as he accepted that principle I hope he will endeavour to put it into practice.
Profiteering and unrest are still with us. In the United States prompt measures have been taken to stop profiteering and alleviate the sufferings of the masses. We have seen that the labour element is not without consideration for the position of the country. They have said that they wanted an increase of wages only because of the increase in the prices of the necessaries of life. Only a few days ago the Labour leaders in the United States who had been threatening to call a strike, demonstrated their intelligence by their manly behaviour, when they told the President that they would give him three months to reduce the cost of living, and if he succeeded in doing so there would be no strike and they would continue at the same rate of wages as they are earning to-day. It is not reasonable to always blame the labouring man if he is not satisfied with his fate. The labourer to-day wants a rate of pay that will enable him to support his wife and children and educate the latter to the best extent possible; and it is the duty of every Government to see that the necessaries of life are kept down jto such a figure that the mass of the people may be able to live in peace and contentment. I admire the attitude of the labour element in the United States, and I believe that that attitude expresses the feelings of our own labour element.
The term democracy is often used. I say there is only one democracy that will give the people happiness, and that is Christian democracy. The returned soldier has perhaps not been able to receive at the hands of the people everything that was promised him, and we cannot expect him to enjoy life and to feel that we have been grateful to him until in addition to the showers of sentiment thrown upon his head, substantial means are afforded him to give his wife and family the life to which they are entitled. [DOT] Under a Christian democracy dif-

ferent races and creeds will be able to live together in peace and harmony-and I am thinking more particularly of Canada-and will be able to enjoy the sweetness of life in fraternal fellowship. I hope that this great Dominion of ours will be able to enjoy this Christian democracy and that we will hear no more of the French race and the English race, nor of Catholics or Protestants, but that we will regard one another as Canadians. The expression of harmony between the two races and creeds is one of the great virtues of British sentiment, and we all know that the British flag is symbolical of fair play and sympathy for minorities and for races and creeds of all kinds.
In such a democracy the profiteer will have no contentment, and if he does not disgorge his millions made at the expense of the poor, he will be forced to go to Germany or Russia if he wishes to continue his nefarious practices. Fortunately we have at last a Commission with some power to deal with profiteers, and that Commission is sitting to-day in Montreal. May I be permitted to say that. I hope the Commission may take the same drastic action as the Commission which the United States has appointed, which is empowered to impose a fine of five thousand dollars and a year's imprisonment upon profiteers of food.
It would be well for the Board of Commerce, now sitting in 'Montreal, to look into the conditions respecting the profits on [DOT]clothing, including boots and shoes-more particularly the clothing, boots and shoes used by the masses of the people.
I wish to refer again to the fact that New Brunswick is in the unusual position of being without representation in the Cabinet. If New Brunswick had had a representative in the Cabinet during the past couple of weeks I should likely have conferred with him some days ago on a recent incident in my province. Much has been said about the arrest of defaulters and deserters. I shall not enter into a discussion of that question to-day; I wish simply to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to something which happened a few days ago in the county of Kent in my province. An officer who had been looking for defaulters lost his life and the verdict of the coroners' jury was to the effect that it was not known whether the officer's death was the result of an accident, or whether it was at the hand of a criminal. The evidence given at the inquiry leads to the conclusion that the death of the officer was due to an accident, pMr. Turgeon.]
the firearm which he was carrying having exploded and killed him almost instantly. I shall not give my version or judgment of the matter, but I wish to point out the seriousness of the situation. Here are men going round in search of human beings with firearms in their hands-using them, I might say, indiscriminately.
When conscription was put into effect thirteen hundred volunteers from the county of Gloucester had gone to the field of battle, and if during a few months no more enlisted it was because, in a county whose chief industries are agriculture and the fisheries, there were no more to leave; all the others were required at home. Of the thirteen hundred and more volunteers who went overseas, 1,150 were French-Acaddans. No blemish rests upon the name of the Acadians of the Maritime Provinces. I deemed it my duty from time to time during the course of the war to call upon my constituents to go to the front-all who could possibly leave their fathers and mothers. They responded nobly to my call; yet to-day the county is scoured by officers simply because one or two or a few of these young men, most likely in ignorance of the law and of their responsibilities and duties under it, did not come forward. As has been said to-day and on other occasions in this House, the military service law was such that every young man in the back districts could not be expected to be familiar with it; many of them, therefore, remained at home and worked on the farm for their fathers and mothers. But now these men are being sought after, eight or nine months after the commencement of the negotiations for peace, when everybody is rejoicing in the hope of the enjoyment of priciples of democracy and justice to whose triumph we have looked forward as the result of the successful conclusion of the war. Houses have been opened and entered in the middle of the night; disastrous results have attended the intrusion of these officers into homes. I call upon the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in the absence of the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn), to make a thorough investigation into this whole matter, and in the meantime to stop chasing about for more defaulters in the county of Kent. I hope that these few remarks, made without any previous preparation or consideration, will have their effect, and that the Prime Minister will look into the case which I have mentioned.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add my

congratulations to those which have already "been so worthily bestowed upon the mover and the seconder of the Address? May I also, speaking for the people of the county of Frontenac, express their appreciation of the honour which has been conferred upon the Dominion of Canada by the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to this country and their pleasure at the cordial reception which he has received in every part of Canada which he has so far visited.
It is not my intention, Sir, to occupy more than four or five minutes of the time of the House. I would not occupy even that length of time were it not that I think it my duty to place some facts on Hansard in order that the hon. member for Antigon-ish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) may correct in some particulars the essay which he read to the House yesterday.
I wish first to allude to the expressions which have fallen from the lips of certain hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the losses which we have sustained on this side on the occasion of certain members leaving this side or leaving the Government. Up to the present time we have not noticed any very great decrease in our assets on this side, and I venture to say that hon. gentlemen opposite will not notice any appreciable increase in the assets on their side because of the movements of certain gentlemen who have seats in this House. The sympathy, however, comes from a source which at once commands our respect, because no persons could speak with fuller hearts about the loss of adherents to a party than those gentlemen who sit opposite and who have passed through the trying times of the last two or three years.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turgeon) has made a plea for the defaulters-those who failed to do their duty in the time of war- and he apparently deprecates going after these persons in a way that will be effective. If we went after them With feather dusters or with ice cream cones, how would he expect us to induce them to come forward? The fact of the matter is that certain persons failed to do their duty; they violated the laws of this country, and it is no more than simple justice that they should be punished for their delinquency. I think it is due to the men who came forward and voluntarily offered their services that those who failed to do their duty should be brought to a realization of their responsibility and of the wrong which they committed. I appreciate what has been done by the constituents of my hon. friend. He has 5
very much to be proud of, and I rejoice with him in the number of voluntary enlistments from his county, but in my judgment that should not excuse those who failed to respond to the call. They should be made to realize, whether they come from Gloucester county, Frontenac county, or any other part of the Dominion, that they failed in their responsibility as citizens of this country at a time of crisis, and they should not be allowed to go scot-free.
The hon. gentleman also alluded to the removing of some $17,000,000 of duties by the Finance Minister last session. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including my hon. friend, have seen fit at various times to advocate a reduction- of duty, and it therefore does seem rather strange that when the duty is taken off they should not be satisfied-my hon. friend said that the removing of that amount of duty last session was of no great good to Canada. He also spoke of the increase of 7J per cent. I think I am right in saying that when that increase was made my hon. friend made no protest, nor did those who sat with him on the other side of the House. It was generally accepted as the proper thing to do.
In regard to his observations concerning the removal of the duty on agricultural implements, the record of the Liberal party in that respect is such a peculiar one that I should think hon. gentlemen opposite would never refer to the duty on implements. For eighteen years they had denounced the duty on agricultural implements, and had promised the farmers of this country that if they were returned to power they would give them free agricultural implements; yet when they were returned to power, their fifteen years of office was characterized by an absolute betrayal of the people to whom they had made promises. When they did undertake to do anything with regard to the duty on agricultural implements, after being in office for a number of years, down to 1907, they made a reduction of 2| per cent.	They reduced the duty
from 20 to 17* per cent, but at the same time raised the valuation for duty purposes. The valuation of a binder, for instance, wag raised from $80-the valuation when the duty was 20 per pent-to $100, so while they were trying to make the farmer believe that he was getting a reduction in the duty of 2J per cent, in reality they made him pay $17.50 on a binder, where, under the 20 per cent duty he paid



only $16. These are 'the gentlemen who today, out of office, appeal to 'the farmers as the farmers' friends. I make the assertion, which oan< be substantiated by fact upon fact, that the Borden Administration has done more for the farmers of Canada since it came into office than the Liberal party did during the fifteen years it occupied the treasury benches. I do not propose to follow that matter any further.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: and children of the country in order to make money.
In what respect, as a matter of principle, does he differ from the man who made his millions before the war started? How did this other acquire his millions if it was not out of the sweat and misery, of the white slaves who worked for less than adequate wages in order that he might become rich? There is very little condemnation for that man; yet, I say that, as a matter of principle, the only difference between the two is the difference of opportunity. Men took advantage of the war. I do not believe they are one particle worse than the. men who took advantage of the situation previous to the war to make use of the labour of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people up and down this country and to give them a wage by which they could scarcely provide the necessaries of life.
You tell me that the big problem of Canada is the high cost of living. When did it become a problem? Is there anything new about it? The only thing new about it, and the only thing that makes it a problem, is the fact that it is pinching people whom it did not pinch before. There has always been a cost of living problem in this country for the man whose wages were not sufficient to enable him to buy the necessaries of life. It did not require a great war for him to have a high cost of living problem on his hands. The high cost of living problem to-day is due, in so far as the prices of foodstuffs are concerned, to the relation of supply and demand, to the scarcity of the necessities of life and for the foodstuffs required for the people to live upon. What has brought about that scarcity? In the first place you have had 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 men, who formerly were engaged in production of one kind or another, destroying things for the last four or five years. You could not have anything else but scarcity. Let me go a little farther back to the time when there was a problem in this country. I refer to a time not within the last eight or ten years but to' a time antecedent to that. We will go back to 1896 if you like, and we will recall the golden days when the Liberal party was in power. Was there no problem then? I will tell you what the problem was then. The problem then was that the people living in the cities and towns were buying their eggs for 12J to 15 cents a dozen and their butter for from 20 to 25 cents a pound. The fact of the matter was that the farmer was selling his produce in very nianv cases at less than it cost him

to produce. That did not constitute a prohlsm at that time but that was the beginning and the basis of the problem of the high cost of living to-day. That is what drove people off the farms; they were not making one-quarter of one per cent on their investment and they went to the cities and towns. You need not take my word for that. Take the statistics, take the last census and you will find that the migration from the farms throughout Ontario and the older provinces went on steadily during the whole fifteen years that the Liberals were in power. I have stated the reason why they left the country, forsook rural life and went to the cities and towns. They went because young men realized that they could make a better living by going to the cities and towns than they could possibly make by remaining on the farm. They are up against the problem in the country of not having sufficient labour with the result _ that you have lessened production, scarcity and a greater demand for food than there is food to satisfy that demand. Beyond any question you must have higher prices for the various articles of food khan formerly.
Inhere has been a great deal of criticism in the press, and a good deal of unfair criticism by people who live in the cities, of the profits that are being made by the farmers. I have lived in a country constituency and amongst farmers all my life. I think I understand country conditions in the province of Ontario as well as any man. I have looked very carefully into the conditions under which farming operations are carried on and I have come to the conclusion that the prices that the farmers of the ' county of Frontenac and the adjoining counties are receiving for what they have to sell are not a cent higher than those which they should receive if they are to continue their business upon their faims. I do not care what it is that you mention, the farmer is entitled to every cent he is getting and he is getting none too much for what he produces and has to sell.
You say:	Get more men on the farm;
get greater production. Very good; I agree with that. Every farmer will agree with that. But we are up against conditions today in Canada which cannot be laid to this Government or to any party; they are conditions arising out of the war. Prices were paid for shells and munitions that attracted young men from the country to the city. Why not? If they could get $6 or $7 a day making shells, is it reasonable to suppose that they would not go to the towns and the cities to receive such an attractive wage?

They could not make any such money at home. They took advantage of the offer and they went to the towns and cities where they could get higher wages and shorter hours of work. The prices paid for shells were very high but the urgency was great. There was an immediate demand for them. If I fall into the lake and I am struggling to save myself and calling for somebody to help me, I am not going to quibble with him about the price he has to pay for the, rope which he is going to throw to me. I say: Throw it in, no matter what it costs. That was the position we w'ere in with regard to our troops in France. They were facing troops that were equipped with everything necessary to carry on the war and they were restricted in the matter of shells and munitions. They must have shells at once and it did not make any difference what these shells cost. Any man who had a boy over at the western front and who knew that that hoy was handicapped by a lack of the necessary equipment and munitions to fight the enemy would not stop to quibble about the price paid for those munitions.
Those were the conditions which have unbalanced things in this country. A great many people throughout Canada are making a living by stirring up unrest. Some of them sit in this House; they are taking advantage of the position they occupy in order to exaggerate every little thing that can he brought up in order to stir up any person or any section of people against the present Government. I think the Government will live through it. I think the people of this country, when they have an opportunity of calmly considering these various matters, will size them up pretty nearly right and will also size up pretty nearly right the men who have the honour and privilege of occupying seats in this House. They will determine whether a man in this House is honestly and sincerely endeavouring to solve the problems we have to face in this country or is taking advantage of every little opportunity to make capital for his political party. I believe the people have sufficient intelligence to size up the men of this House and the men outside of this House who are agitating in various parts of the country.	.
The prevailing unrest is attributed to -the returned soldier. I believe Sir Arthur Currie spoke correctly when he said at Toronto that the unrest in Canada was not caused by the returned soldier who went overseas and fought for his country at $1.10 a day, but by the men in this country who remained in perfect safety at
home and pulled down from $5 to $6 and $7 a day. I believe Sir Arthur Currie was absolutely right in that statement.
In conclusion, I have this to say to the leader of the Opposition and those who sit with him: If they think they are capable of fooling the farmers of this country again as they did in 1896, they have another big think coming. I assure hon. gentlemen opposite that they cannot do it again.


James Alexander Robb: What about 1911 ?


John Wesley Edwards: What is there notable about 1911 to which my hon. friend wishes particularly to allude?


James Alexander Robb: The reciprocity pact.


John Wesley Edwards: Was there any doubt about the verdict on the reciprocity pact? So far as I can remember, looking back to 1911, the people spoke very decisively on the matter then at issue. However, since my hon. friend has referred to the reciprocity pact of 1911, let us discuss that for a moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, let us discuss it for a~ moment. The reciprocity pact of 1911 was different in some respects from the platform which was worked out at the last Grit convention held in this city in the month of August. If I remember rightly the great concern of the thousand or more people who attended that convention was about the farmer. He was the man to whom my friends opposite were appealing, he was the one for whom they were expressing great concern. What was proposed by the reciprocity pact of 1911 ? Hon. gentlemen opposite proposed by that pact to force the farmers of Canada to compete against the world, and they left the manufacturers absolutely untouched with the slight exception of the change that was proposed in regard to agricultural implements. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite if that is not a fact? If I am making any misstatement I will pause for a moment and allow my hon. friends to mention any other manufactures that were touched by the pact in question. I ask, were hon. gentlemen opposite concerned then about the price of clothing, boots, or anything else the people had to buy? No, with the exception of the implement manufacturer they left the manufacturer untouched just as they left him untouched in 1907. Just as in that year they said to the manufacturers, who were showing -some concern because of the promises the Liberals had made to wipe out pro-

tection. " Do not be a bit alarmed; we have devised a way by which we can fool the farmers to the limit and yet actually give you fellow's more protection than you are now receiving." " How are you going to do that?" That was simply A, B, C to any person worthy of being called a Grit. The Grit understands political economy along that line; he is 100 per cent perfect where it comes to a question of that kind. "We will simply cut down the duty on binders from 20 to 17^ per cent. We will feature that in big headlines in the Globe and the other Grit papers in the country. The farmers will see that and they will say, "There you are. They are getting after these bloated manufacturers. Look at what they have done. They have cut the duty down from 20 to I7j per cent." " Well, what then?" " We will simply raise the valuation on a binder, which is now $80, to a $100, and the farmer will never get on to that. You fellows will know all about it, and the duty will really be $17.50, whereas it was formerly $16." That is what they did in 1907. The farmers fell far that, so hon. gentlemen opposite said: "We will try it again in 1911. We are afraid to tackle these manufacturers except when we are in the House. We can swear at the manufacturers a little there as far as the rules of Parliament will allow us, but we won't interfere with them." When a big deputation of manufacturers came down to learn the plans of the ' 'Government Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: " I assure you, gentlemen, we have been very, very careful not to do anything to hurt the manufacturers!." 'He used the word "very" twice, in order to carry conviction to the minds of these disturbed manufacturers. Sir Wilfrid said: " We propose to enact this reciprocity pact, but don't worry. We are not going to touch manufactured articles at all; we know you would not stand for it. But the farmer will stand for it, and we will take the duty off every blessed thing that he has to raise. We will make him compete with every other country on the face of Gad's earth in what he has to sell, but he will still pay through the nose-as we have always been telling him he had to under the tariff that we have -for what he has to buy." That is the history of 1911. Now hon. gentlemen opposite are playing the fiddle1 to a new tune. They have come forward with a certain platform and they pledge themselves to do this and do that. I notice there was a great hush-at least I presume there was a great hush, for I was not there-and a great solemnity throughout that great gathering, [Mr. Edwards. 1
when they were preparing the resolution with regard to agricultural implements and cutting those duties off. They did not simply content themselves with passing a resolution, but with eyes lifted to the heavens and hands clasped-I suppose in prayer for success in their future political endeavours-they said "We, the Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada, pledge ourselves to carry this out and to cut these duties off if you will put us into power." I do not know that my friends opposite accompanied their pledge with prayer in 1896, but they made their pledge at that time just as strong as they could make it without prayer. I repeat the statement to hon. gentlemen opposite: You cannot put that over again; you can have all the conventions in the city of Ottawa that you like, and you can call the faithful-that is, all those who were against conscription, because any one who favoured conscription need not apply-you can call the faithful into conventions; you can deliberate on these resolutions and say what you are going to do, but the facts of history are staring you in the face. There is the past to be reckoned with, there is that great record confronting you; there is that great apostacy, there is that great betrayal; there is that great going-back on the pledges and the promises that you had made for eighteen long years. You declared when you were in Opposition that you were ready to wade in blood if necessary-because you were going to cut off the head of protection and trample on its body 

you were ready to wade in blood if necessary to wipe out the protection on manufactured articles and give the farmer a chance. And when you got the opportunity you left the manufacturers absolutely alone; the only man you touched was the farmer. You told the farmers of Canada at that time: "We do not care what the climatic conditions of this country are, you will compete with the world." I say, Sir, to-day, as I have said before, that the policy of the Liberal party, or of 'any other party in this country, in that respect, is absolutely illogical, and it is unfair to the farmers of Canada to compel them to compete with the world in the things they produce.
The tariff, Mr. Speaker, gives us a means of equalizing conditions to a certain extent. We have got to take into consideration to-day not the distance we are from this or that country, but the length of time it takes to bring the goods of any country to Canada. Is it fair that the farmer of Ontario or of Quebec or of any other part of Canada, who has spent thousands of

dollars in putting up expensive barns and stables to house his stock during our rigorous winter, should be told that he must compete on equal terms with the farmers of the Argentine, who have to spend not one dollar on expensive buildings, for ' their *stock are in the open the year round, and whose cost of labour is probably not one-tenth of what it is here? That is, in effect, what any person is saying to the farmers of Canada in general when he announces that he is going to adopt a free trade policy and force them to compete on equal terms with farmers in other countries, who, instead of having the most rigorous climatic conditions to contend with, possess every advantage so far as climate is concerned.
I say it is absolutely unfair, and if hon. gentlemen opposite think the farmers of this country have not thought these things out for themselves and determined the kind of policy they want, then I believe my hon. friends opposite will have to give this matter a great deal more consideration in the future than they apparently have in the past.	[DOT]	_
When I rose I had no intention of doing any more than performing what I consider to be a duty on my part, Mr. Speaker-that of placing some facts on Hansard which would enable the hon. member for Antigon-ish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) to make the necessary corrections in that very beautiful essay which he read to the House yesterday. Although he is not in his seat I trust he will take advantage of the fact that my remarks will be found in [Hansard to make the necessary corrections before he sends out his essay to his constituents.


Mr. EDMOND PKOULX (Prescott):: Is it the intention to sit to-night? If it is not, I can proceed.


Right Hon.   S@: If we should get through with the discussion we would no't sit this evening. If, however, hon. gentlemen desire to speak we will sit.


Edmond Proulx: the United States with regard to the protection of France in the event of another invasion by Germany. The British Government thought that when it had been signed by the British plenipotentiaries it was binding, and that there was no necessity to submit it to the British Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. The Treaty was placed before the British Parliament, and a Bill was passed to carry it into effect.


Edmond Proulx: Then I am mistaken. From the reports which I had read in the press, I was under the impression that the only thing that was submitted to the British Parliament was the agreement between Great Britain, the United States and France.


Robert Laird Borden: Both Treaties
were submitted.


Edmond Proulx: Well, I accept the statement of the Prime Minister. But even if it was submitted to the British Parliament, it would have been binding without submission to or ratification by that body. I am not fully conversant with the questions that were discussed at the Peace Conference; I had not the opportunity afforded to the Prime Minister and his colleagues of being present and of obtaining full information with regard to the matters which were considered. I am not, therefore, in a position to submit any amendments to the Peace Treaty, and I shall not do so. It may not be perfect. It may not contain all the conditions that France would like it to contain. But the task of framing the conditions of peace was a very difficult one. The Premier of France has said that it was harder to make peace than to make war. There were many difficult problems to settle. Many nations were represented at the Conference; each nation had its own needs, its own desires, its own aspirations. After all, I think we may congratulate the world upon the fact that the Treaty has been entered into and that it has brought an end to the horrors of war which have prevailed for more than four years.
The Peace Treaty has been supplemented by the agreement which I have mentioned, entered into between Great Britain, the United States and France. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain have assured France that their countries will always be ready to go to her assistance if she is again threatened with attack by Germany. This supplementary agreement may protect France for many years from any attack by Germany.

A concomitant of the Peace Treaty is the Covenant of the League of Nations. This Covenant is not binding upon Canada unless it is accepted by the Canadian Parliament. The League of Nations Covenant has been designed for a great purpose- that of avoiding wars in the future. But it may not serve this purpose. I had hoped that the Covenant would contain a provision for general disarmament, but I see no such provision in it. In fact, the nation which was most insistent upon the formation of this League is actually increasing its armaments, and other countries are doing the same. Indeed, we are increasing ours, because at the last session of Parliament legislation was adopted providing for the doubling of our military force. But the main purpose of the League seems to be that of avoiding future wars, and if it achieves that purpose-and I hope it will- it will be a good thing for the world. .
But we must admit that under some of the provisions of this covenant we are assuming very heavy obligations. The Prime Minister says that if we ratify the Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations our status will not be changed. It may seem at first sight that our status will not be changed. The Prime Minister says also that an Imperial Conference will be convened in the near future and that these questions will then be discussed. But if we become a member of the League of Nations; if we accept the Covenant and all the obligations which it involves, our status must change; we shall not be free, as we have been in the past, to take part or not to take part in any war, as we see fit. Our action will not be vol- * untary; we shall have to fulfil our obligations under the Covenant. It is true that we can get out of the League, but in order to- do tbait we would have to give two years' notice, and even then we could not discontinue our membership in it unless we had fulfilled all our obligations. I shall defer expressing my considered opinion upon this matter until we come to deal fully with the Peace Treaty. But when the Imperial Conference meets I hope that our Prime Minister will insist upon preserving our autonomy. He will still be Prime Minister, I suppose-unless we have an election in the meantime-and I hope that his views will not change; that he will not consent to any change in our relationship with the Mother Country which would cause our autonomy to be diminished in any way. There has been a movement in England and even in this country, to een-
. SEPTEMBER 8, 1919
tralize the Government of the Empire in London and to diminish the prerogatives of the British Dominions. I hope that the Prime Minister is not of that school. He may have shown himself at times to be a great Imperialist, hut he has assured us that he is for Canadian autonomy and I am willing to trust him until the next Imperial Conference.
During the last few years we have been accustomed to Government by Orders in Council, and I could not help thinking that it was strange that we should be asked to meet in Parliament to ratify a Treaty the ratification of which was not absolutely necessary. Orders in Council dealing with very important matters have been passed during the last few years, even when Parliament was sititng. The Government would not trust the Canadian Parliament in connection with purely Canadian matters; yet Parliament is now asked to discuss Imperial matters-matters which have already been settled before being submitted to this House.
Mr. Speaker, I have some further remarks to make, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN; I was hoping that we could conclude the debate this evening. Has my hon. friend any particular reason for moving the'adjournment?


Edmond Proulx: I can finish now if the House will bear with me a few moments.


James Alexander Robb: Another speaker is i;eady to go on.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case I would suggest that we go on this evening.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would suggest that we adjourn the debate until next Friday instead of going on with it this evening, because some hon. members who could not be present to-day have urged upon me that they would like to have an opportunity of speaking upon the Address. I think any further debate on the Address will be short, but these gentlemen desire to speak.


Robert Laird Borden: How many are ready to speak now? Just one?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have been very glad to have the debate concluded this evening, but if there are some hon. gentlemen unavoidably absent, the request of my hon. friend is not unreasonable. However, we cannot adjourn the debate
until any particular day; we can simply adjourn it.
Motion (Mr. Proulx) agreed to.



THE PEACE TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
Precedence Over Other Business.
Robert Laird Borden: With the consent of the House I beg to move:
That the orders for the consideration of the resolutions with respect to the approval of the Treaty of Peace have precedence over all other business, except the introduction of Bills, until disposed of.
That is to carry out the understanding I have with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 6.10 p.m. *
Monday, September 8, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Messieurs Bowman, Brou-illard, Buchanan, Burnham, Cardin, Charters, Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington). Crowe, Currie, Fontaine, Hocken, Hughes (Sir Sam), Keefer, Maclean (Halifax), Michaud, Murphy, Prevost, Reid (Mackenzie), Richardson, Shaw, Verville, White (Victoria), Wilson (Wentworth), and Wright were appointed' members, on the part of the House, on the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Messieurs Andrews, Be-land, Borden (Sir Robert), Boyer, Chaplin, Clark (Red Deer), Cooper, Copp, Cronyn, Crothers, Foster (Sir George), Harold, Lapointe (Kamouraska), Lemieux, Meighen, Myers, Pardee, Rowell, Sheard and Whid-den, were appointed a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as Members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Messieurs Douglas (Strath-cona), T. J. Stewart (Hamilton), Steele
[Stage Direction]
and Tobin were appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) laid on the Table the following copies of Orders in Council:
P.C. 1200, dated 11th June, 1919, approving clause ll-<b of the Ontario Housing Act as part of the Ontario Housing Scheme.
P.C. 1721, dated 14th August, 1919, approving the General ^Housing Scheme of Nova Scotia.
P.C. 1725, dated 18th August, 1919, approving the application of the Government of Manitoba, to amend the Manitoba Housing Scheme approved June 11, 1919.
P.C. 1766, dated 23rd August, 1919, amendments to General Principles of Federal Government Housing Scheme respecting "Maximum Cost of Dwellings'' and "Terms of Years for Repayment of Loans."

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, respecting the Police.
Some hon MEMBERS: Explain.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The puipose of the Bill is to enact a prohibition upon members of the Dominion Police and the Royal Northwest Mounted Police becoming members of associations of employers or associations of labour men ordinarily described -as Unions. It is to continue in force a provision contained in one of the Orders in Council which was passed under the War Measures Act and which it is anticipated will lapse at whatever date Peace is finally declared.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. J. H. SINCLAIR.

John Howard Sinclair: I have the honour of having been a member of the House for fifteen years and this is the first occasion on which I have risen to a question of privilege. During my absence from the House on Friday afternoon the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), in referring to myself, made the following statement:
Where did that hon. member obtain his knowledge of shipping? In his part of the country there is a firm known as the Carmichael Shipping Company, and II believe the hon. gentleman has a very direct and personal interest in the prosperity of it. That firm before the war was receiving freight rates on deals and lumber of thirty-five shillings a standard,

and during the latter part of the war it received as high as three hundred and fifty to three hundred and "eighty shillings a standard. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are pirates in this country as well as profiteers.
I wish to say that this statement is untrue and has not the slightest foundation in fact. I do not say that the hon. member deliberately made a false statement, because I have no doubt that this story was told him by some malicious person. Whoever told it to him must have had some knowledge of the deal trade, because the hon. member is about correct in regard to the rates. The firm in question carried no deals since the war broke out. They owned only one steamer which was commandeered by the Admiralty early in the war. She was placed on duty in the most dangerous part of the coast of Europe, carrying goods to the army -at Saloniki. She made five trips to Saloniki and on the sixth when bound for an Italian -port was torpeoded by an enemy submarine andisnow at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Her captain : nd chief engineer were confined for nineteen months in a German prison and during that time their wages were paid by the firm that owned the vessel. This was the only steamer owned by the firm and there could be no question of profiteering, for the Admiralty paid monthly freight at what was known as the blue-book rate, which was less than one-third of the commercial rate current at the time. I would not have troubled the House with this explanation but for the fact that the statement of the hon. member involves to some extent the reputation of an in-portant business firm that has borne an honourable name in the province of Nova Scotia for over a hundred years.



THE PEACE TREATY.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the following proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden, adjourned from September 2:
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden)

made his very important and illuminating speech on this Treaty a few days ago, I had the honour of moving the adjournment of the debate which we are now resuming. This question is one of the most important, if not the most important, that this Parliament has ever dealt with. It is more important perhaps than anything we have ever discussed because it is of wider international scope than anything that I at least have taken part in the discussion of in this House. It took a long time to draft and formulate this Treaty. The active operations on which this Treaty is based commenced on the 12th day of January, as we are told by those who know about it, and from that time until the 28th day of June, the ablest men, I suppose the world can produce, were busily engaged in discussing this Treaty and forging it into the shape in which it is before the House to-day. In discussing it, Sir, we require to bring to bear upon it the best talents we possess in this Parliament. I believe that the time at our disposal, or the time that will be given to the discussion of this Treaty will not by any means be sufficient to enable hon. gentlemen in this House to fully comprehend the meaning, scope and far-reaching effect of this document. However, we have to deal with it. It requires the best judgment and talent that any lawyers we have in this House can bring to bear upon it as well as the ability and talents of any international lawyers that we have here and those who are versed in the history of treaties, in the universal history of the world, and in negotiations between nations. All these talents and all this knowledge will come into play if	we wish to ' effectively, properly
and intelligently deal with this question.
I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that we have a great many men of that class- in this .House, speaking with all due respect. We have men in this House who have had largely to deal with the various matters of life, who have not specialized on any one of these subjects, and for that reason we are able to bring to bear on this question only such knowledge as we have gained in the different walks of life in which we endeavour to make our living.
We cannot too often refer to the position which Canada has occupied in connection with this war. It may be possible that sometime we are apt in the hurly burly and haste of life to be willing to get away quickly from all thoughts of the war and think no more about the part we took in it as a Parliament, or the part that our sons and daughters took in it both in Canada
and overseas. That should not be. Our connection with this war, its effect upon this country and its effect upon the world are landmarks in the history of the world that should not be forgotten. It has brought Canada to a proud position in connection with the affairs of the world that we should not forget and that we should take care to refer to whenever the proper occasion presents itself. We have an example of this among the great men of the neighbouring republic. They always take care, and properly so, to refer to the milestones in the history of that great country and such references enable them to keep in mind the facts of which they have reason to be proud. In like manner, I am sure, that, in the days to come, now and forever while we live as a nation, we shall always he proud to keep fresh in our memories the honour of those who have won for us the proud position which Canada today occupies in connection with this war and with the peace which we are now about to consummate, if it is not consummated already.
We are, of course, two parties in this House-perhaps three now-at all events we are two parties. In most things we differ, in most things there is a controversy between us, but in connection with this treaty I do not think it is a party question and as far as I and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are concerned, we shall give this important document fair and honest consideration, bringing to the notice of the Canadian people its salient points and the points that should receive careful attention. I do not think that any person in this House, or any Liberal in this country proposes to take any party advantage of this situation.
I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister is not able to be in his seat to-day. He is slightly indisposed, which we all regret, and I am sure we all join in the hope that his illness will prove to be very slight and that he will soon be back in his place. I would be pleased indeed if he were present to-day so that he might hear for himself any references which I may make to the very able speech which he delivered in the House a few days ago. He was asked on that occasion by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) what would happen if we did not ratify this treaty. Among other things which the right hon. gentleman said that a change of Government would result as an effect or product of the refusal of the House to>
ratify this treaty. I do not think

that the right hon. gentleman should have taken that position. I do not think that it was a proper position for him to take. If the right hon. gentleman was looking for reasons why his Government should go out of office, it would not be necessary for him to cross the Atlantic to find them. The' country is full of reasons, any one of which could be taken as a good and sufficient reason why the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues should come to the conclusion that the day has arrived when they should pass the reins of Government over to, we hope,- more capable hands.
But the right hon. gentleman has thought proper to say that if ratification were not [DOT] given to this Treaty it would be a good and sufficient cause for the resignation of the Government and for the Governor General to look for other advisers. This conclusion, Sir, was not, in my judgment, logical or well-founded. The causing of the war was not brought about by the Government of Canada. Therefore, it had no responsibility for the starting of the trouble which was the basis for this Treaty. The Canadian Government did not make this peace, it is not in any way responsible for the making of it-except that the representatives of Canada were at the Peace Conference looking on and helping by way of looking on, and perhaps advancing a slight suggestion .here or there. But this Treaty cannot be said to be the product of the brain of the Canadian Government, and whether it is right or wrong, whether it is a good Treaty or not, it would be, I think, highly improper and an insane deduction for the Canadian people to say that this Government should be turned out of power because the King and his counsellors thought proper to put His Majesty's signature to this document. I repeat the Canadian Government is not responsible for the Treaty, and the failure on the part of this Parliament to ratify it is not in any -way, as I understand it, a reason why the Canadian Government should go out of power. I can only understand the position taken by the Prime Minister in one way, and that is he is anxious to make a party question out of the matter, a question that is entirely free from partisan politics as far as we on this side of the House understand it.
It is important to us, Mr. Speaker, to see whether or not the status of Canada having regard to the past, the present, and the future, is in any way affected by this bargain. We are proud, Sir, of the position which we have held in the past, we are

proud of the position which we occupy now, and we hope that we shall continue to conduct the affairs of this country and our relations with the Mother Country and the Empire in such a way that ourselves and our children will have reason to be satisfied, contented and happy, and so that we may look forward with confidence to the future.
Now, Sir, in the past such statesmen as Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, Hon. George Brown, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., Sir Oliver Mowat, Hon. Edward Blake, Sir John S. D. Thompson, and Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were proud of the position this country has occupied ever since Confederation. Sir John Macdonald, for example, was perfectly satisfied with the status of Canada and her .relations with the Empire and her usefulness to it, without the Dominion being committed to taking part in any outside wars at all. That, Sir, as I understand it,' was the position always taken by that great Canadian statesman, who, with perhaps the single exception of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, filled a bigger place in the hearts and minds of our people than any other Canadian statesman. We occupied an important position in our relations with the rest of the Empire before we ever participated in European or foreign wars. It is true that we have moved forward. We first took part in the South African War. From that we grew and developed into participating in the war which is novf closed and with which we have to deal more especially to-day. On both occasions we acted upon our own initiative, on. both occasions we acted entirely upon the absolute free will of the Canadian people as expressed by this Parliament. I submit, Sir, that a decision* of that kind-the exercising of our own will in that way in respect to the directions that' we may give to our sons and our daughters as to the attitude they may take in connection with any European or foreign wars being in the hands of our own. Parliament, it is the most satisfactory condition in whicn we can find ourselves.
One of the questions which this House has to consider is, are we, by implication or otherwise, giving our assent to a document which materially changes our position in that respect? Henceforth, is it going t->
be by the free will of the Canadian Parliament, the free will of the Canadian people, that we shall take any part in troubles between other nations, or are we going to be bound simply to do what we are called upon

to do and what we must do-or at all events what we are in honour bound to do-under the terms of this document? I submit, Sir, that it is the intention of this Treaty, it is the intenion of the signatories who represented Canada when this document was signed, if I properly gather the effect of their \york-it is their intention that henceforth any action we snail take shall not be the free will of the Canadian people, but tnat it will be a compliance with the terms of the Treaty, whatever those may be. Those terms are to be from time to time interpreted by a Council which will sit in Geneva, which w'ill deal with certain facts and make certain findings, and on which Council we are not likely to be represented. I think I am safe in saying that on that Council we shall not be represented at all as far as Canada is concerned. I presume that the British Empire will be represented, but there is no certainty that this Dominion will have representatives upon that Council. Therefore, Mr, Speaker, the condition of things shall be that henceforth and forever the action or part which Canada shall take in any foreign wars will be decided by that Council,'a memo, of their decision will be sent to us, and we will simply be called upon to perform the will and wish of that Council whether we like it or not. I jlo not agree myself with the idea of Canada signing this document as a separate and distinct nation, because despite whatever we may say, or whatever ambitions we may attempt to put forward in the line of being a nation we are not a nation in the true sense of the term. We are part of a great Empire of which we are proud, and we are nothing else. I fully agree with the representatives of Canada who took every possible part in the deliberations, as far as the Empire was concerned, that the Canadian plenipotentiaries should sit in the Council as the plenipotentiaries of the Empire, and that whatever conclusions should be reached should be conclusions on behalf of the whole Empire.
I am not to be understood, Mr. Speaker, as saying that I do not attach any importr ance to Canada being represented on those Councils-I do say that we cannot be too strongly represented on those bodies-but at the same time I maintain that it is not a strength but a weakness for us to put ourselves to one side, to separate ourselves from the rest of the Empire, and attempt to become a separate nation, or a separate part of the Empire as far as those obligations are concerned.'
That, Sir, is the position which I take as far as those deliberations are concerned, and I submit that as jong as we are not a nation, and cannot under international law be regarded as a nation, that it' is better, ir. any negotiations that may take place, for us to maintain to the full the proud position which we occupy as a part and parcel of the British Empire.
I said that we were not a nation in the sense of being able to deal exclusively with other nations; wre are not. I wish to quote in that regard an authority on international law. Although a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I do not profess that anything I might say on the point would be regarded as authoritative, and therefore I quote from Halleck, a recognized authority on international law. At pages 70 and 71 of the first volume it is laid down as follows:
The sovereignty of a State has reference to its political character, rather than to the nature of its territorial possessions. The territory of some States is in one compact body, like Belgium and Mexico, while the territory of other States, like that of Great Britain, consists of detached parts situate in every quarter of the habitable globe. Under the general appellation of State are included all the possessions of a nation, wheresoever situated, so that a colony, however distant, is, in the eye of international law, as much a part of the State which establishes it as is a city or a province belonging to its most ancient territory. By a sovereign State is meant a community, or number of persons, permanently organized under a sovereign government of their own; and by a sovereign government is meant a government, however constituted, which exercises the power of making and enforcing the law within a community, and is not itself subject to any superior government.
I want hon. gentlemen to note particularly that essential to a nation, that it must have a parliament which can make laws and which is not subject to any superior government.
These two factors, one positive, the other hegative-the exercise of power and the absence of superior control-compose the notion of sovereignty, and are essential to it.
As a colony, a possession or a dependency constitutes only a part of the State, it cannot in itself be regarded, in international law, as a distinct political organization. Hence, any public or private corporation, created by, and deriving its authority from, a. State, cannot of itself constitute a separate and independent sovereignty.
According to that authority I do not think it can be questioned that it is useless for us to say that we are an independent nation. We comply with all of this definition. The Parliament of Great Britain created this confederation, and that parliament in , many respects still has control over any legislation of ours. If hon

gentlemen choose to look at section 56 of the British North America Act, they will find that any legislation we may pass may be Vetoed at any time within two years by the King in Council. If it were only by the King it might be said: Well, we have to recognize the authority of the King. But it is not by the King alone that Canadian legislation can be vetoed at any time within two years; it is by the King in Council. Therefore members of the British House of Commons, and possibly members of the House of Lords, can get together and advise the King that our legislation should not be approved. Consequently we are not an independent nation because our legislation is at all points subject to the control of members of the British House of Commons as they may be from time to time advisers of His Majesty. Therefore we come within the definition given by this authority, that we are not an independent parliament, and that our legislation is not absolutely within our own control.
If hon. gentlemen will look at section 132 of the British North America Act I think they will agree that it is easily dedu-cible from that section that it was never the intention that we would ever in the making of treaties have to deal with any foreign country. That section says:
The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper few performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.
I think it is perfectly clear, Sir, that the intention of the framers of the Act of Confederation was that treaties would be made between the Empire and foreign nations, in which treaties we would be involved and in respect of, which certain duties would fall upon us not as a separate part, but as an integral part of the body politic of the great empire to which we belong. [DOT]
Therefore, I submit, Sir, that our professing to make a treaty or to call ourselves a nation, and as a nation to become a member of the League of Nations, is absolutely impossible and cannot be carried out, and that in attempting to do so this Parliament and thio Government have undertaken responsibilities which they are not in a position to carry out. We are not in a position to declare war, we are not in a position to declare peace. How can any nation be said to be a member of this League of Nations, which league has largely to do with the imposition of conditions which will prevent war or which will bring about peace? We are not in a position to do any of those

things, and therefore, Sir, I think we are attempting to do what is not within our power.
I purpose to refer to only a very few of the articles of this very lengthy and very important treaty. Article VIII provides:
The members of the League recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest poipt consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several governments.
Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years.
After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. .
The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions' and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.	,
The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.
Mr. Speaker,- that Article involves maintenance by Canada of a standing army, a navy and an air force, and we are binding ourselves, with the other parties to the League, to lay before those other powers from year to year full information with regard to our various war materials, our war implements, our war preparations, and so on. I submit that that is not desirable. It is not the wish of the Canadian people that they should be forced into a condition of this kind; that they should be required to maintain a standing army, a navy and an air force. We are willing and we have always been willing to take our part side by side with the Mother Country whenever that was neces'sary; we have always been willing to stand by the flag. But I do not think it is consistent with the feeling of the Canadian people that they should be called upon, for instance, to enter into some petty quarrel between any of the new kingdoms of republics that are being formed in Europe, or to intervene in some trouble that may exist between Mexico and any of the minor republics of South America. Under this Article, when this Council, in which we have no representation, calls upon us to do so, we are bound to take a part in such

quarrels as I have mentioned. I submit that we can only do consistently and constitute nally what we agree to do under and by virtue of the machinery provided by and for the British Empire, of which we are a component part.
Of course, this agreement is already ratified. I do not think it is good politics or very high statesmanship-nor do I think it is necessary-to tell the people and Parliament that we must ratify this Treaty. The Treaty is already ratified; we are not called upon to ratify it. My authority for this assertion may be questioned, but if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to read the speech made by the Right Hon. Lloyd George when he introduced the Bill concerning the Treaty, they will find that Lloyd George told the members of the Imperial Parliament simply that they were to pass a Bill enabling the Government to furnish the necessary means and money and appoint the necessary officers to carry out the provisions of the Treaty. The purport of his speech was that he was introducing a .measure to provide the necessary funds and the necessary power to implement the Treaty. He says, in distinct English-any person can see it in the English Hansard-that the Treaty itself does not require ratification. I am indebted to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) for a copy of the English Hansard in which the Right Hon. Lloyd George's speech may be found. I quote:
The Prime Minister (!Mr. Lloyd George) (whose rising was the subject of a general ovation, members standing and cheering) : I have to lay on the Table of the House, and to ask the leave of the House to introduce two Bills to enforce the most momentous document to which the British Empire has ever affixed its seal. There are two Bills which I shall have to ask the leave of the House to introduce. It is unnecessary to obtain the ratification of Parliament to a Treaty, except in one or two particulars. The ratification is for the Crown, but there are certain provisions in the Treaty of Peace, signed last Saturday, which it is necessary to obtain an Act of Parliament in order to enforce.
There were two treaties, one the Peace Treaty, which we are dealing with here; the other an agreement, which may or may not come before us, entered into between Great Britain, United States and France. In that agreement there was a specific provision that its ratification by the Parliaments of the countries concerned was necessary. Bills respecting both these Treaties were introduced at the same time by the Right Hon. Lloyd George, and he specifically said that the Peace Treaty proper
had already been signed by the King and did not require ratification.
There is no authority or justification for saying that our ratifying or not ratifying the Peace Treaty will have any general effect upon it or interfere with it one way or the other.


William Findlay Maclean: Did Mr. Lloyd
George ask this Government to submit the Treaty to the Canadian Parliament for ratification?	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: ' There is nothing in his speech about it. I have read the whole of his speech.


William Findlay Maclean: Has not the
statement been made in this House that we are asked by Mr. Lloyd George to ratify the Treaty?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I very closely followed' the remarks of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and as I understood him he did not mention Lloyd George. He said- Hansard will show that he said it-that we made a promise-I think that was the language of the Prime Minister-we promised or undertook that this Treaty would be submitted to the Canadian Parliament. At all events, that was the effect of the Prime Minister's statement. I understand that to mean that our representatives promised the King or his advisers that this Treaty would be submitted to the Canadian Parliament, and that they are now carrying out that promise. Our ratification of the Treaty does not involve any international negotiations, does not have any international effect, does not change it in the slightest degree. I suppose our representatives said to themselves. It is better; it is better politics, to submit this Treaty to the Canadian Parliament; it may please the Canadian people; it may tickle the fancy of members of Parliament to be asked to deliberate upon it. That is all it means. The Treaty is absolutely obligatory upon us now; whatever we may say. about it will not change the situation in the slightest degree. Indeed, we have already signed it. I may be wrong in my assertion, but I do not think the plenipotentiaries from Ottawa received their power from us; I think they received their commissions from the King; I think they were appointed on the other side of the water. In that way, although hailing and saying that they were from Canada, they were simply plenipotentiaries of and directly representing His Majesty the King, and as such they signed the Treaty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite true the plenipotentiaries were plenipotentiaries named by the King, but upon an Order in Council of the Government of Canada recommending such nomination.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Anything else would be inconceivable to me. I could not conceive that His Majesty in Council would undertake to name representatives from any self-governing colony like Canada without consulting the Government of that colony in regard to the matter, and it was only a matter of propriety and politeness and well-sustained practice that the King in Council would ask this Government to suggest who should be the plenipotentiaries for Canada at this conference. That is all it was, and once that was done, they were no more Canadian plenipotentiaries than Lloyd George himself or the Right Hon. Mr. Balfour, or any other representatives of the British Empire. They were all in the high and honourable position of representing the Empire,and as such high and honourable representatives they signed the Treaty, and that is the end of the matter. That they are laying the Treaty before us now does not make the slightest difference one way or the other.
Speaking, however, entirely for myself and having nothing to support me but mv own opinion, I believe that the position might be different as regards the League of Nations. By what is known in law as the doctrine of estoppel, if we want to insist upon our rights as a member of the League of Nations, other powers might be estopped from denying our ability to become a part of that league if any advantage were to accrue to Canada from it. We might say to them: You cannot now deprive us of any benefit we might derive from being a member of the League of Nations, because you have accepted us and as a matter of * law this doctrine of estoppel might apply. But beyond the fact that other nations might be estopped from refusing to grant us the status of a nation, because they have recognized us as such, I do not think that by signing the League of Nations covenant and calling ourselves a nation, we derive any advantage or by any means change our constitution.
There is, however, another point in which our position in connection with the League of Nations differs from our position in connection with the general treaty. I think that by signing the League as a separate nation we would be in honour bound to recognize the decision of that General Council which is to meet at Geneva and which is

to allocate to the different powers the parts they have to take in any war.
4 p.m. If we reserve to ourselves the right to say whether or not we shall recognize that Council, we shall be very much as we were before, following the lead of the Mother Country and taking such part in the wars of the future as the honour, standing and importance of this country may demand and require. If we reserve to ourselves the right of staying just where we were before so far as that Council is concerned I do not think we shall be in any very different position from what we would be in if our plenipotentiaries had not signed as representing a separate nation. As far as I understand the matter, that is the position.	.
As regards section 10, we are undertaking for all time to come to be policemen, so to speak, along the lines dividing any countries in the world who are parties to this League. We are binding ourselves to go down to South America at any time that there may be trouble between any of the score of small republics there, which almost every month are to be found in a revolution of some kind or another. By this covenant we are binding ourselves that, if we are asked by this Council to go down and take part in those fights we shall obey its behest.
There is in section 16 another extraordinary condition of things, namely, that we put ourselves in the position of possibly being in arms against the Mother Country. It is quite possible that some trouble might arise, say, for instance, between Great Britain and the little republic of Uruguay. I mention Uruguay because some years ago we had with that republic some trouble which was very effectively aired in this House, and we were obliged to send a Canadian commissioner down there to try to settle the trouble which ultimately was settled. Supposing another such trouble arises and Great Britain finds it necessary to send a warship there and to declare war upon Uruguay, what is our position? We undertake to say that if Great Britain goes to war without consulting and getting the consent of the whole League of Nations, and if she asserts her right by the power of her warship, we shall cut off further relations of any kind by trade or otherwise with the British people and furnish whatever means we can to fight Great Britain in her trouble with Uruguay. Hon. gentlemen may smile, but that is the position.
In section 16 we say that we shall refuse to have any intercourse with any member of

the League that goes to war or raises any trouble without our consent or the consent of the whole League. We undertake to be a separate member of that League. Our plenipotentiaries undertook to say that they signed that Covenant separately and apart from Great Britain, and we cannot blow hot and blow cold. We cannot say one minute that we are a nation and apart by ourselves and then when obligations arise that may embarrass us, take shelter under the wings of the Mother Country, and say: We are not a nation; we were only playing that; we did not mean it, and we will not take any part in this affair at all. It is for us to consider carefully those three articles, 8, 10 and 16 which, to my mind, are the most important as regards the League of Nations. I ask hon. gentlemen who are responsible for their position in this House, whether or not we should carefully consider them and get the fullest possible explanation from hon. gentlemen of the Government, particularly from the plenipotentiaries who represented us at Paris, as to what effect those three articles have upon Canada.
I wish to refer to the Bill that was introduced by .the Prime Minister of Great Britain when this Treaty was under consideration. The language of that Bill will indicate that nothing was done in connection with ratification; and except for the necessary change to make our Bill a Canadian instead of an English Bill, there is not one particle of difference .between this one and the Bill which was given its third reading there. I shall read the English Bill, which is not very long:
Whereas, at Versailles, on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a Treaty of Peace (including a protocol annexed thereto), a copy of which has been laid before each House of Parliament, was signed on behalf of His Majesty, and it is expedient that His Majesty should have power to do all such things as may be proper and expedient for giving .effect to the said Treaty ;
Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
1. (1) His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of ths provisions of the said Treaty.
(2) Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and Shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may he varied or revoked by a
subsequent Order in Council and shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
(3) Any expenses incurred in carrying out the said Treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
2. This Act may be cited as the Treaty of Peace Act. 1919.
That is the whole of the Act, and hon. gentlemen who have obtained a copy of our own Act will find that it is practically the same, word for word. There is not a word about ratification of the Treaty in the English Act and not a word about it in our own Act. We are therefore admitting, at any rate by implication and by our actions, that the Treaty is already ratified, and we are simply passing an enabling Act to provide for such actions as may be necessary in connection with the operation of the Treaty.
There are many other things that should be said on the subject, but I realize that there are several members who will no doubt wish to express their views in connection with the Treaty. The time at' our disposal for its discussion is limited and for this reason I do not think that I should speak much longer. Let me say in conclusion that so far as party feeling in connection with this question is concerned, there was never in this House from the beginning of the war up to the present day anything but the greatest unanimity in doing whatever was necessary to carry on the war successfully. We all remember very well our meeting in the old House on the 19th day 6f August, 1914. You will recall, Sir, that on that occasion our great chieftain the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the declaration that whatever would be necessary or whatever could be done by the Liberal party or by himself and those who followed him would be done until Victory was won, and truth, justice, and liberty were fully assured. That, Mr. Speaker, was the position which was taken by him at that time as a Liberal, and it was also the position that was taken by the great leader of the Liberal party in the Old Land. The words of the Right Hon. Mr. Herbert Asquith when he was Prime Minister have frequently been quoted and it will do no harm to have them repeated in Hansard. Mr. Asquith, speaking in regard to the objects for which we entered tthe war, made this memorable statement:
We shall never sheathe the sword which we have not lightly drawn*until Belgium recovers in full measure all land more than all that she has sacrificed, until Prance is adequately secured against the menace of oppression, until



the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domination of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed.
That was the position taken by the great Liberal leader of Grekt Britain, and it is no stronger than the position taken by the equally great Liberal leader of Canada. Now, Sir, some people may think that we had differences about the war. True, there were differences of opinion as to the way in which the war should be carried on, but there was never any difference as to whether Canada should do her best and utmost to win the fight, and I am sure it is the privilege of independent thinking men to have their own. views as to how such matters should be conducted. Invariably men fail to see things in exactly the same light and there were some differences as to how the war should be managed; but that Canada should participate was a question on which there was absolutely but one heart, one soul, one mind, and one purpose from start to finish; a common determination to stand by the Mother Country with every man, with every dollar and with every resource. That being the case, all of us, Liberal or Conservative, irrespective of our political affiliations, can. equally rejoice to-day in the happy condition in which we find ourselves as regards the consummaton of the agreement that brings this awful conflict to a peaceful and satisfactory end.


Hon. A. L. SIFTON (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I regret exceedingly that there are a few things in connection with the eloquent address of the leader of the Opposition with which I must differ-
. not with his closing sentiments, but with some of the constitutional aspects of the question. Although possibly it may not be pleasing to the hon. member that I should disagree with him, I will at least give him the added knowledge and credit that in his constitutional arguments he agrees absolutely with the most conservative representative of the Government of Great Britain, and the representative of the most conservative people in Great Britain; that they are better able to look after this matter than are the people of Canada. It might be nice for the leader of the Opposition to know that so far as that is concerned he has the assistance in his argument of one of the most eminent men in Great Britain. As regards the ratification of this Treaty, there' is no statement in connection with the matter which the hon. member has read that shows that the
	,
Treaty has been ratified at all. Up to date, so far as I have heard, there has been no ratification of the Treaty by Great Britain. It certainly had not been ratified on the date on which this Bill passed in the House of Commons, because it was after that I left Great Britain; and- it is not ratified yet. One of the principal arguments in regard to the matter of ratification was as to whether the British Dominions would have the power to advise the King, because the House of Commons of Great Britain has not had the privilege that the House of Commons of Canada has, for this is the first occasion within the confines of the British Empire on which any Parliament has been asked to approve a Treaty. Great Britain has never done so; Canada has the advantage, at least from a democratic standpoint, of being the first Government which has ever submitted a question of this kind to the Parliament of its country.
This Treaty is going to be ratified, when it is ratified, by the King of England on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It is going to be ratified by him on the advice of their government. When it is ratified on behalf of Canada it is going to be ratified by the King of the British Empire upon the advice of the Government of Canada. The promise that was referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) was not a promise by Lloyd: George to the Government of Canada but it was a promise to this Parliament last session made by the Prime Minister of Canada that before ratifying this Treaty he would submit it to this Parliament and' that for the first time in the history of the-world it would be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion on such a matter.. There is no question in the motion of ratifying the Treaty. It is a motion to approve as a whole or disapprove of the Treaty. I am not going to discuss this afternoon the details of this Treaty. This Parliament has a perfect right to discuss these details if it sees fit but it only can accomplish anything by either approving or disapproving of the Treaty as a whole, and that is the motion that is brought before us to-day.. We are not here to deal with one or two little things in the Treaty but we are here to deal with it as a whole and it is for Parliament to either approve of it or disapprove of it. '
There have been those, I am told, in Canada who say that there should be no change in the constitution of Canada without a vote of the people. I agree with that in one respect; I believe that there should

be no change for the worse in the constitution of Canada without the consent of the people. But any one who has taken the former point of view has studied to very little effect the constitution of the British Empire, or the constitution of that portion of it that we have the pleasure of living in. The constitution of the British Empire has gone on improving from day to day, from year to year, slowly, no doubt, but to-day we have an example of the most radical change in the constitution of this portion of the empire in the submission to Parliament of this treaty which the Government, under the British constitution, might have ratified by Order in Council as soon as they had a copy of the Treaty presented to them in Ottawa. That would have been a constitutional way of doing it but instead of doing that we have submitted it to Parliament, That is a radical change in constitution but it is a change which I think the members of this House will, approve of and I have no doubt the people of Canada also will approve of that kind of radical change in the constitution.
There are people no doubt who think that the statesmen of Great Britain can legislate for Canada better than we ourselves can. Possibly they can but that has not been the feeling of most Canadians in the past. The feeling has been that matters that affect the interest of Canada, whether for better or worse, should be looked after by the people of Canada. The people of Canada have the idea that they prefer not to revert to the old Crown Colony conditions but to look after their welfare themselves.
The powers that were given by the King to the plenipotentiaries were not powers to act for the British Empire as a whole, but powers to sign treaties for the Dominion of Canada. The question has been asked as to what difference it would make whether we ratified or did not ratify this Treaty. I regret to see that the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has misunderstood the position in regard to that matter, but the answer was given that this motion was submitted to Parliament and if the motion did not carry, the Government, having submitted it as a Government motion, would be defeated and would resign. That is the natural consequence. They did not submit the Treaty; they submitted a motion and if that motion is defeated the constitutional course would be for the Government to resign. I hope the Government will not make another amendment to the constitution and endeavour to hold on to office for any further length of time if this Parliament thinks they 61 '
are not carrying out their duty in submitting this motion.
In connection with the Treaty, there are certain matters that may possibly be of interest. When people, the representatives of Canada, have been away for seven or eight months dealing with matters of such transcendent importance, whether the recital is dreary or not, I think that some information as to what they have been doing should be laid before the House.
The Parliament of Canada will recognize the fact that Canada, in going into this war, occupied an absolutely different position from almost all the other allied and associated powers. Canada had no special interest to serve. No attack had been made on Canada, and no special objection had been raised by the people of Canada to the conduct of Germany up to that time. Canada entered this war for various reasons, one of which would be for the purpose, as an integral part of the British Empire, of assisting the Empire. Another object was the purpose of seeing that democratic institutions were kept alive. For these two reasons, among others, the people of Canada went into the war, but in so far as this war was concerned there was no particular right of theirs attacked and she had no interest peculiar to herself to serve. In that respect the people of Canada differed from almost all. the other nations and from a number of the British dominions which had German colonies close to them and which had material interests which were endangered. We were in the war because we thought it was our duty, and when we went to the Peace Conference we went there on a different basis from most of the other nations which had special interests to defend. Canada was interested in the fact that she had taken part in the war and she was interested in seeing that there should be a good treaty made, in that respect there being no difference between her and the other nations. But, in so far as the actual Treaty was concerned, aside from the League of Nations and the labour provisions, Canada had no special interest in connection with this Treaty except to see that the best possible treaty was made. In that respect the delegates from Canada and from the other British dominions gave every possible assistance. The first question that arose after the delegates left here in November last and during their two months' stay in the city of London was as to, representation of the Dominions at the Peace Conference. The claim was made by the Prime Minister of Canada, on behalf of Canada, and the

claim was made by other Dominions, that having taken part in the war, having spent their hundreds of millions of dollars, and having sacrificed their hundreds of thousands of lives, they had a right to be present when the Treaty of Peace was negotiated. If it was going to affect their interests in any respect, as it afterwards did in respect to these two matters which I have mentioned, they insisted that they had a right to participate.
There was a long discussion in regard to that and I would say in my opinion there was an absolute impossibility that it ever would have been granted if those delegates had not been there during those two months fighting for the rights of Canada and of the other British Dominions to be represented, and to at least express their opinions so far as circumstances might render it necessary to express them. We do not claim that we negotiated this Peace Treaty. We do not claim that it is the result of the efforts of the people of Canada or the peoples of the other British Dominions; the Peace Treaty is very largely the result of the efforts that were made by the representatives of the five Great Powers, and any one who was present will recognize the fact that these five Great Powers were doing the bulk of the work and the bulk of the deciding. I do say, however, that so far as the British Dominions were concerned the circumstances were such that their representatives occupied perhaps a much more important position than the representatives of any of the smaller nations or powers that were there, the reason for that being that the British Parliament was in session at the time, and it was absolutely impossible for British Ministers to be there. The five British delegates were not able to be present, only three members of the British Government were able to attend continually in regard to these matters, and it was absolutely essential, a great portion of the time being taken up with other matters, and it was a great assistance to them, that the chief Ministers from the various British Dominions, with some practical experience at least, should be there to work. And undoubtedly they did work. In conjunction with the permanent officials of the British Government in respect to all these matters, they worked hard six months, for the purpose of assisting in the formation of & treaty that would be to the advantage of Great Britain, to the advantage of the British Empire, and, ,so far as possible, a fair and honourable treaty for the world at large. That work was performed in connection 
with what I may call the Peace Treaty proper.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Without wishing to interrupt the hon. gentleman, would he give further light upon his statement? What particular nation objected to Canada taking part in the Peace Conference? The hon. gentleman has said there was considerable difficulty in getting Canada represented, and the Bight Hon. the Prime Minister made the same statement a few days ago. Can the minister say from whom the opposition came to Canada being represented.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: From all of the five powers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Including Great
Britain?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: Some of their people. I could give the hon. gentleman the names at another time.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would not ask the Minister to disclose what might be regarded as secret information.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That would not be secret information. It is only a question as to whether the disclosing of the information might not create trouble in the rest of the world and result in setting one nation against another.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By all means, let us have peace.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That very considerable work was performed by the delegates from Canada and elsewhere, is demonstrated by the voluminous book which has been published. The manner in which this work was done, and it probably could not have been carried out otherwise, was that probably hundreds of committees, largely international committees composed of representatives of all the allied delegates, sat for the purpose of going into various matters and made reports. Each of these international committees had sub-committees. France had sub-committees, Great Britain had sub-committees, also Italy, Japan and United States. Each of these sub-committees worked and prepared and presented reports upon the various items which are included in the Peace Treaty. I happen to have a trunk full of documents, the preparation of which was necessary, to say nothing of several other loads that were destroyed. These were compiled in connection with reports made upon points that were finally crystallized into the Treaty. These reports were gone over from time to time, referred back to committee, and finally in completed form

presented to the Council of the five Great Powers for the purpose of being finally passed. Nothing was ever considered there except objections that had been raised and dealt with previously, and over-ruled in the international committees, and were submitted to the Council for final arbitration. In that way it was possible to carry out the enormous amount of work that was performed by the representatives of the various countries during that time. As it happened, the formal meetings of the Peace Conference were not at all meetings for discussion, bus meetings for the purpose of registering the decrees that were practically completed before they got to the Conference, except upon- one notable occasion when the Prime Minister of Canada held the Conference up for a few minutes for the purpose of getting a motion passed in connection with the rights of Canada. Upon the larger questions no discussion took place among the delegates assembled at the general Peace Conference, everything practically having been agreed upon before the questions were submitted for the final registration of the Conference.
As to the work of the Canadian delegates, apart from that of the delegates of the other British Dominions, I do not wish to enter into details further than to say that Sir Robert Borden, on behalf of Canada, -wrote and circulated a memorandum in regard to the League of Nations which exercised very considerable influence upon the final arrangements in that regard.
The leader of the Opposition contends that we can take no part in the League of Nations. Let me say that Mr. Clemen-ceau, President Woodrow Wilson, and Mr. Lloyd George disagree absolutely with the hon. gentleman in that contention-. I quote the following:
The question having been raised as to the meaning of Article IV of the League of Nations Covenant, we have been requested by Sir Robert Borden to state whether we concur in his view, that upon the true construction of the first and second paragraphs of that Article, representatives of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire may be selected or named as members of the Council. We have no hesitation in expressing our entire concurrence in this view. If there were any doubt it would toe entirely removed by the fact that the Articles of the Covenant are not subject to a narrow of technical construction.
(Signed) G. Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson D. Lloyd George.
Dated at the Quai d'Orsay,
Paris, the sixth day of
May, 1919.
So far as that is concerned, I am quite-satisfied, Mr. Speaker, to leave it, as those gentlemen will probably all be present at the first meeting of the League of Nations,-and if Sir Robert Borden happens to be there with their letter, there will probably be very little discussion as to the true meaning of this clause.
The only other point in connection with the Treaty is the Labour Convention. Possibly thousands of people agree with the leader of the Opposition that this and the League of Nations Covenant might better have been dealt with separately and disassociated from the Treaty of Peace proper. I am not prepared to argue that there is not a great deal to be said in support of that contention; but the fact of the matter is that it was absolutely impossible to negotiate the Treaty unless the League of Nations Covenant and the Labour Convention were associated therewith, and the delegation would have broken up absolutely' without accomplishing what they were attempting to do. It was only by the association of the three documents that they were able to get the final unanimous consent of the Allied and Associated Powers to what was done during those six months. If there had not been a League of Nations to come into existence for the purpose of guaranteeing some of the important considerations of the Treaty, it would have been necessary to continue' to occupy Germany with a big standing army for the next thirty years until all the regulations were carried out. That was the reason why these three " documents were joined together, and it was the only reason why a great many of the representatives consented to associate themselves either in the League of Nations or in the Labour Convention. But those who were there on behalf of the Dominion of Canada took the position that if it was absolutely necessary for the making of an honourable peace that there should be a League of Nations and a Labour -Convention. They thought, with the labour conditions in Canada so far superior to the labour conditions in many other countries, that it was proper for them to join in any international union that was absolutely essential for securing the peace of the world.
In connection with this labour question, I may say, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in my life while I was over-seas I assumed the duties of the Minister of Labour in his absence and took a special interest in this matter. I did this the first day that I saw the report of the Inter-

national Labour Convention, which was prepared for the purpose of being submitted, without change, to the Peace Conference. I found that so far as that Convention was concerned the' gentleman who drafted it thoroughly agreed with the leader of the Opposition-they thought that the delegates of the British Government could better look after the labour interests of the Dominion of Canada than we could; and it contained a special clause to the effect that a member with its self-governing Dominions should only have certain representation upon that governing body, and under no circumstances could there be any other. So far as I was concerned, Mr. Speaker, although I would have been willing to sacrifice many things in connection with the matter, I said that that was not in the interests of the Dominion of Canada, and that the fight would be kept up until the last minute before I would ever consent to a document of that kind under which the labour men of Canada, who were so proud of their International Union, would have to go to the city of Washington on a footing inferior to that of the negroes of Liberia. I kept up the fight, and Sir Robert Borden kept up the fight and made it stronger perhaps, and finally, only the day before the Peace Treaty was presented to the Germans, those clauses were struck out and the Dominions received exactly the same recognition in regard to that International Labour Convention that was accorded to any of the thirty-two Allied and Associated Powers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having detained the House long enough in regard to this matter, I would in closing just like to say what a vote does mean as to whether we approve or disapprove of this Treaty. I cannot go so far as to answer the question, what would be the result of not approving the Treaty, further'than it was answered the other day, because the result depends upon other people. But we know some things that might happen. If the Government of * Great 'Britain advised the [DOT] King to ratify this Treaty, for the British Empire, regardless of whether or not it was thrown out by this Parliament, then it would be for the people and the Government of Canada to decide what should be done next. If the Government of Great Britain decided to ratify it on behalf of the United Kingdom and leave out Canada, then the question remains, whether Canada is still, technically, at war with Germany. To such a question the most abstruse study would have to be given by the Government and the Parliament of Canada. Therefore I think that in the in-

terests of the Dominion of Canada and in the interests of the British Empire it is not well to raise a question of that kind. If the leader of the Opposition still thinks the Treaty is already ratified, then there is no reason for raising the question. We, who think it is not ratified do not desire to raise the question. The Government desire to take the position that the Dominion has up to date done everything it could for the purpose of assisting and keeping within the British Commonwealth, and we have no desire to raise any question of that .kind at this stage of our history. Neither is there any object in raising such a question when, as the hon. leader of the Opposition has stated, there is no political interest in connection with it. We will have lots of opportunities to quarrel in the future-human nature is not going to change materially, even though we have a League of Nations-and the political feelings of the people will remain very similar to what they have been in the past. But I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this House, as representing the Dominion, should upon this one occasion set aside all personal bickerings or political differences in connection with this matter and unitedly say that, as a whole, it is better for the Dominion that they should approve of this Treaty as the eve of a horrible war and the dawn of what we hope and pray is an honourable and lasting peace.
Hon. HENRI SEVERIN BELAND (Beauce); Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the wish expresssed so eloquently by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sifton) I want to assure you that my intention in rising to speak this afternoon is not to approach the subject before the House in a party spirit or in a spirit of hostility.
The subject is such as to impose upon all members of this House the necessity of forgetting their party affiliations m whatever observations they deem it proper to offer. It is in that frame of mind that I venture to present to the House a few remarks, which, I hope, will not be prolonged.
The Peace Treaty bf 1919 Is certainly the most momentous event in the history of the world. It throws in the shade, as it were, treaties like that of Westphalia and Utrecht, the Congress of Vienna, the Treaty of Paris of 1763, and the Congress of Berlin. For Canada this Treaty is full of possibilities and of far-reaching consequences and it is incumbent upon all the members of the House to give to it a few moments

at least of their earnest, honest, and undivided attention.
The Treaty is a striking evidence of the fact that the war which for four years devastated humanity has, so far as the Allied nations are concerned, reached a victorious and a happy conclusion. Canada, which of its own volition, in the full independence of its Parliament, took such a conspicuous part in the war and contributed so much to the downfall of imperialistic Germany and of the powers associated with Germany, has every reason to rejoice in the result achieved. The provisions of the Treaty point out in an unmistakable manner that the instigators of the war have received at the hands of the Conference of Versailles the treatment they deserve. As one who for over four years was the constant witness and in many cases the victim of Prussian methods and of pan-German aspirations, a perusal of a large number of the clauses of the Treaty affords me deep satisfaction.
The plea so repeatedly made that the war had been imposed on Germany, that theirs had been a war of defence, was with the object of galvanizing at first the attacking power, and later the power of the German nation to resist and endure. This plea, of course, is false and deceptive. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, before I deal more fully with the Treaty itself, to refer to one or two events that developed during the early period of the war in connection with the pretended disclosure of certain documents by Germany -in Belgium. The particular event to which I want to refer has not been given as much publicity in the press of the Allied nations as it has, I assume, in the press of Germany.	_
On many occasions, as the House is undoubtedly aware, the extreme Socialists have in the Reichstag -attempted 'to secure from the German Government a straight declaration of renunciation to the territory of Belgium and -to the political and military subjection of that country, 'but they failed always to secure a satisfactory answer. The German press, obviously inspired by the military authorities, carried on a campaign the chief argument in connection with which was that Belgium had failed before the war to observe certain responsibilities -and obligations imposed upon her by the Treaty of 1839. A few months after the occupation of Brussels, the semi-official organ of the German Government, The Nord Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung published what purported to be a secret understanding between the military -authorities of England and the military authorities of Belgium in connection with the landing
of troops on the Belgian coast. The publication of this document, as one would surmise, -excited -a good deal of sentiment in Germany and in Belgium, as I was able to find out then and later. In this connection, however, the Germans failed to bring out prominently before their people a stipulation which appeared in the margin of this document to the effect that the landing of English troops in Belgium -should not take place before the German troops had invaded Belgium. A similar arrangement, for all w-e know, might bav-e been entered into by Belgium with Germany. The only logical conclusion of it all is that Belgium was determined to protect her neutrality, against all comers with all and by all honourable means.
But there is more than that. The Nord Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, with an evident desire to justify the invasion of Belgium on the first of August, 1914, added a semi-official declaration to the -effect that the document to which I have referred was known to the competent authority in Germany before the war. One can readily see that it is here attempted to give a reason and a justification for the invasion of Belgium. But let us go one step further and witness the sitting of the Reichstag which took place on the fourth of August, 1914, when the then German Imperial Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, made, in substance, the following declaration; "Our troops"-meaning the German troops-"are at the present m-om-ent on the territory of Belgium; it is against the rights of peoples; it is against international law; but necessity knows no law, and Germany undertakes *to restore Belgium to her independence and to recompense her for all damages caused to her civilian population or to her property as soon as Germany shall have attained her military ends."
If we take this declaration in conjunction with the statement of the German semiofficial organ that the famous document was known to the competent authorities before the war, we have sufficient indication that the German Chancellor did not consider that Belgium had failed in the least degree in the discharge of her international obligations. The varying, incomplete, unsatisfactory and in many cases, nebulous statements made during the long years of the war by the successive chancellors of Germany, Baron Von Bethmann-Hcllweg, Von Michaelis and Hertling, reveal only too clearly the well-considered intention of the German Government at all times to annex Belgium in toto or par-

tially had the fortunes of war been favourable to them.
Their treatment of Poland is also marked with an ill-design of exercising their peculiar gifts of domination over that country. From the day that the German Emperor proclaimed the Kingdom of Poland, (I think in the month of December, 1916), one would have believed that all the Polish prisoners in Germany would have secured their release. But the corridors and cells of the prisons of Berlin continued to be flooded, so to speak, with prisoners of Polish nationality, and those prisoners were gradually, by processes which I do not care to describe, converted into labourers for the munition factories, each of those prisoners thus releasing a German soldier for the front. Those who refused to work in the German factories were tendered another bait; they were asked to join the Royal Polish army, created for the purpose, as it was claimed, of protecting the independence of Poland, but that army, as the House knows, was under the high command of German generals. In Courland, Lithuania, Esthonia and Livonia skilful canvassing of the population by the creatures of the German Government was devised to bring over them the rule of the Hohenzollern sceptre.
It is in a retrospective glance of the mind, when all these machinations appear anew, that the various clauses of the Treaty, severe arid drastic as they might appear, seem only too just. The lust of conquest, and the desire for domination have received a decisive check. The acquisitions of territory by Germany, in the East, the West, and the South, achieved in some , cases in violation of solemn treaties, and in all cases in complete disregard and utter disdain of the laws' of humanity, have been reversed against their authors. To the Conference of Versailles, that is, to an imposing array of victorious nations assembled for the purpose, has devolved the task of rectification and settlement in a general sense. The task is now done.
We are now asked, not as a sovereign nation-we are not and we could not he considered as a sovereign nation-but as a British dependency, to give our approval to the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, this Treaty which deals not only with matters pertaining solely to the settlement of the war, but with matters bearing upon social subjects and also having relation, as in the case of the Covenant, to the autonomy of some of the nations.
It may be that some reservation should be made here. The Minister of Public 
AVorks (Mr. Sifton) has in his remarks referred extensively to labour, and for my part I have no objection to offer to the provisions of the Treaty that deal with labour. It is eminently proper that a whole chapter should be devoted to the organization of labour and to the principles whiclj apply to its diversified aspects. This particular feature of the Treaty 5 p.,m. is highly commendable, and the nine methods and principles enumerated in section 2 of that chapter will and may well be considered as the Nine Commandments of labour. Taken all in all, and even with the imperfections pointed out by some critics, chapter 13 ot the Treaty dealing'with labour is as perfect a document as could be devised and may well be regarded as a sure foundation on which satisfactory industrial relations will in future be established.
The chapters which deal with the delimitation of the boundaries of Germany and other European, Asiatic, and African nations; with the limitation of armaments, naval and military of Germany; with transportation by land and sea, and commercial problems; with reparation, by financial and economic means; with the. general subject of colonies and the mandatory system- these chapters, although open to much criticism and likely to give rise to friction in the future, ought to be unreservedly endorsed by this Parliament, if the action of this Parliament were in any degree necessary to give them' any validity which they would not otherwise have.
A feature of the Treaty of Peace, and one which is very important and which -calls for special attention, is the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Peace Conference has been persuaded into accepting this proposal, conceived and laid before it by the President of the United States, Mr. Woodrow Wilson. Constituted by no less than twenty-seven different powers, it has for its object and task to administer justice in the world, and, in doing so, to endeavour to maintain peace. What more noble role could be assigned to a body of powerful nations, especially after the iniquities and atrocities committed without number, and the bitter sufferings and mournings accumulated during the fifty-two months of the war! This League of Nations is devised to give that peaceful era for which the world longs. There is on the part of the desolate and devastated world to-day an ardent thirst for peace and rest, a thirst which is a thousand times more ardent than was felt after the Napoleonic wars.

The Covenant of the League of Nations forms an integral part of the Treaty. It is its first chapter. Whether it is subscribed to by a sufficient number of nations to give it efficacy, a number of nations powerful enough to enforce its decisions, remains to be seen, and the future only can tell. But' at this moment the League of Nations fills with hope the hearts and the souls of many millions of people who have been torn from their homes and daily occupation and hurled into war for the sole purpose of vindicating certain principles heretofore considered essential and fundamental by civilized nations. So far as I am concerned, I wish God speed to the League of Nations.
But one cannot fail to recognize the fact that, for the first time in the history of Canada, Canadian representatives have attached their names as signatories to a Treaty of Peace. We have here the spectacle of twenty-eight sovereign powers, of which nine are kingdoms or empires and nineteen are republics, affixing their signatures to a document, and together with them appear 'the signatures of five dependent nations, all of them bearing allegiance to the same Sovereign power, England. These dependent nations are: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. Are we, representatives of the Canadian people, given to understand that we are asked to approve of the Treaty because the political status of Canada in the world has undergone a change? Are we to understand that if the Canadian Parliament should refuse to ratify the action of our delegates, the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. A. L. Sifton) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Doherty), who signed for Canada, the signatures given on behalf of the British Empire by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Balfour, and Lord Milner, would be questioned or impaired? My impression, nay, my conviction, is that no consequence of any importance to Canada, nationally or internationally, would result from our abstention, any more than if India's approval failed to be given. The clock of the world would continue to strike the hours and half hours as before. We are assured, however, by the Government, and by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in particular, that we have gained in political status, and what the new status of Canada will be is to be decided at a conference which is shortly to be held. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that Canada is gradually assuming more and more international obligations without any corresponding international status. A fever of imperialism, the main symptom of which is a blind desire
to centralize in London the administration of Canadian affairs, is haunting the mind of some of our public men. In the interests of the solidarity and the permanence of the British Empire, and of the happiness and prosperity of its component parts, it is the duty of the Canadian Parliament to resist this tendency. Imperial Federation is considered by some as a forward step politically, but I have no hesitation in saying that in my humble opinion it is a retrograde movement. Pending some more definite information from the Prime Minister we are bound to come to the conclusion that Canada, as a result of the establishment of the League of Nations, has assumed obligations and responsibilities of tremendous dimensions without corresponding political advantages. Not being a Sovereign State, Canada could very well have left it to the representatives of Great Britain to enter the League of Nations. In such an event, ipso facto Canada, as an integral part of the British Empire, would have been a member of the League and would have shared in its benefits without being exposed to most difficult and dangerous situations politically and militarily. Let no hon. gentleman construe my words as the expression of a sentiment of selfishness and egotism. I lay claim to being as true a Canadian as anyone of those who from the housetops make pretentious declarations of their Canadian-ism. Had Canada been a sovereign nation like Belgium, Portugal, or the United States, my advice would have been to join the League of Nations. Mr. Wilson, in his speech delivered the day before yesterday, said that the League of Nations was impossible without the concurrence of the United States. That is perfectly true, and we can agree with the President of the United States in this contention. But if Canada were not a member of the League of Nations the British Empire would remain in the League, with whose proper existence nothing done toy this .country could interfere. But Canada is not a sovereign state. It has, I confess, many of the features that distinguish independent nations; but the domain of its political action has its limitations and restrictions, and those limitations and restrictions are numerous and important. I may be told that there are precious compensations ; there are precious privileges; there are precious powers that are granted Canada by the British North America Act. That I admit. By the British North America Act in particular, and by subsequent legislation adopted by th.e Canadian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament alone

lias the power to dispose of the Canadian militia either in this country or out of it. Without any interference, without any coercion from outside, it has been exercised on many occasions, and on no occasion with more glory and more brilliant results than during the last five years. But if this Parliament approves without a single reservation that part of the Peace Treaty which is called the Covenant of the League of Nations it ties its hands. It surrenders to a council of nine men sitting in Geneva the right to dispose of Canadian troops to quell any eventual disorder in any of the five continents, or to carry on any war, great or small, on the surface of the earth. Everyone remembers the Siberian expedition, and confesses that it was unpopular. It was a great blunder politically and militarily. But there Was a redeeming feature about the Siberian expedition in the fact that it was entered into by the independent, or at any rate the seemingly independent, action of the Canadian Government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not the Parliament.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is true Parliament was noE consulted. It was one of the numerous mistakes that were made by the Government. Can any one picture to himself what the result would be if, after the League of Nations is duly constituted, a council of nine men in Geneva should order 5,000 Canadian soldiers to the Antipodes? The dissatisfaction, I venture to say, in Canada would be so great as to border on revolution. My contention is that it is not making for the consolidation of the British Empire but rather for its disintegration.
But there is more than that, Mr. Speaker. The various clauses of the covenant vest in the Council of Nine the most extensive powers. Let us see how_ this Council of Nine will be composed or 'constituted. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) in. his eloquent remarks a few minutes ago, pointed out that there was nothing in the Covenant of the League of Nations that prevented Canada from being represented on the Council of Nine. Technically we must agree with the minister, but how is the Council to be constituted ? It will be constituted of nine men, five of whom will be representatives of one of the five big powers-Great Britain, the United States, France, Italy, Japan.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I see the hon. gentleman has made a mistake; it is the British Empire, not Great Britain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, I should have said the British Empire, because it carries out my view more effectively. The British Empire is exactly what I had in mind. That is the reason why, in the selection of the four other members, the 27 other sovereign and independent nations will never select another member from the British Empire. The British Empire is already represented, ipso facto as France, the United States, Italy and Japan are. Would any one for one moment contend that the 27 other nations, having to select four members, will resort to the selection of one member from the British Empire? No; the four other members will be selected from the other nations from amongst themselves and Canada will not be represented on the Council of Nine.
We have the Council of !Nine. Now, I will go one step further than my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in reference to this particular feature that I want to draw the attention of the House to. Let us suppose that a dispute arises between England and Italy over a strip of territory in Africa and that war is threatened. The final decision being in the Council of Nine, such decision is binding on all the members of the League if it is unanimous, but in an instance like this the two parties to the dispute have no vote; the decision rests with seven members of the Council. Let us suppose that the decision of the seven not interested in the dispute is against England and in favour of Italy, and that England, in spite of the decision, chooses to resort to war; will any one kindly tell me what exactly the position of Canada then will be? Will Canada, bound by the signatures of those gentlemen who were there feel under an obligation to side with Italy against the mother country? That is a question. I may be told that these are remote possibilities. I admit they are remote possibilities, but they only illustrate the futility, if not the absurdity of the contention that Canada of its own status becomes a real member of the League of Nations. The Minister of Public Works, in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) said that all the five big powers objected to Canada joining the League of Nations.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I do not mean that Great Britain objected; they were making a fight for us.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I had anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that we would have this admis-

sion on the floor of the House. It is very important. I myself believe that England would rather hot have Canada join the League of Nations. Great Britain is satisfied that whenever her interests, or the interests of the British Empire are threatened, she . can count upon the hearty and generous cooperation of this leading dominion of hers -Canada. I understand, though I do not approve of the sentiments of pride

of personal pride-which must have expanded the breasts of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister when they returned to Canada. Having landed here with this Covenant of the League of Nations, they seemed to say to every one who cast his eyes in their direction "We are it; we are responsible for this marvellous feat." On many occasions ' we have said and repeated that Canada enjoyed almost complete autonomy. That was true in many respects and may it remain true.
I surmise-and I think I am right in surmising-that the representatives of Canada at the conference at Versailles made serious and persistent objections to some proposals. We have been unable so far to detect what those objections were. But one of the proposals to which they must have objected very persistently was that of making the Covenant of the League of Nations a part of the Treaty of Peace. They have been overruled if they have objected. We all know how, steadfast, how persistent and how persevering was the President of the United States in this opinion of his that the Covenant of the League of Nations should be one and the same document with the Treaty of Peace proper.
The next proposal to which, I presume, they must have objected or taken exception to is undoubtedly that embodied in Article X and part of Article XVI of the Covenant. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works smiling. It is a smile of approbation. These articles fail to establish any distinction between sovereign powers and dependent nations in regard to contributions in armed forces to carry out in any part of the world the decisions of the Council of Nine.
I assume that our delegates then realized that by those clauses Canada surrendered the right of Parliament to decide the question of sending troops out of Canada. Our delegates have signed the Treaty, and unless this Parliament attaches a reservation to it we are committed completely, and, as long as we remain members of the League
of Nations, irrevocably. A reservation, Mr. Speaker, does not necessarily imply blame of our delegates, does not necessarily imply blame of the Government. A reservation does not affect the existence of the League. A reservation does not mean that we intend to shirk any responsibility or any duty. We have only to take as an illustration what has happened during the last four or five years; and in spite of the fact that our endorsation affords no validity to the Peace Treaty, and the Covenant of the League, which is a part of the Treaty, if the Government insists upon having the opinion of the House in an academic resolution I submit that with such a reservation Parliament should approve of the Treaty.
I submit equally, Mr. Speaker, that we should approve of the Treaty of Poland which, I understand, is going to be submitted equally for our endorsation, although our representatives did not sign it.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They did sign it? Then I do not understand a remark that was made by the leader of the Government in the Senate the other day in reply to a question put to him by the Hon. Mr. Dan-durand. Referring to the Treaty of Poland, Mr. Dandurand said:
Although it does not seem to have been signed by the representatives of Canada.
Hon. Sir James Lougheed: No, by the representatives of the British Empire; and the British Empire has been treated in the Treaty as being made up of Great Britain and the overseas dominions.
Perhaps I do not rightly construe the words of Sir James Lougheed, but it is immaterial. There is before me a copy of the Treaty and I notice that in the preamble to it the British Empire is designated as in the other Treaty. I was under the impression, though it was so designated, that the representatives of Canada had not been asked to sign it. I say that we should approve of the Treaty of Poland. We cannot read this remarkable document without feeling deeply gratified at seeing this unhappy nation at last restored to her independence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We all rejoice in it. The mistakes the sufferings, the injustices, and the cruelties of a long era, are blotted out and Poland is conveyed to the table of nations, as it were, to start to write history in common with all the free nations of the world. But before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I beg the privilege of

requesting all my colleagues, and for that matter all Canadians, to devotea little attention to one clause in the Treaty of Poland, and I ibeg them to read that clause carefully. It is clause 9 which 'provides for the protection of all minorities, racial, religious, linguistic. It sets forth that in towns and districts where a considerable proportion of Polish nationals of other than Polish speech are residents, adequate facilities are provided for insuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Polish nationals through the medium of their own language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. iBELAND:	It also provides that all
public funds under the State, municipal, or other budget, for educational, religious or , charitable purposes, be equitably distributed.
. Mr. ARCHAMBAULT: Which was signed by the representatives of Canada.


Henri Sévérin Béland: complete to this extent: that individuals and states may quarrel; 'but it is incomplete to this extent: that as between States there has not been in the past a court to which states could appeal, -coupled with the power to enforce the verdict of that court. True, there has been arbitration, but 'arbitration has been only partially successful because there has been nothing to compel the parties, to carry out the verdict of the court of arbitration. The League of Nations comes before us now with a court for the trial of cases and with an agreement to provide the necessary power to enforce the verdicts of the court.
In the past iwe have experienced many unscientific methods for dealing with common ailments. Well-meaning people have sought to deal with the question of the liquor traffic, the 'question of venereal disease, without taking into consideration the factors of human nature, without calling science to their aid, without dealing with these matters logically. Some attempts have been made to put an end to war. The most common proposal to end war is not to prepare for war. We have followed out that policy-which is still strongly advocated-but it has not kept war away from us. On the other hand, we have had our wars; we have gone into most of them ill-prepared, and we have had to pay, in the lives of our young men and in a tremendous expenditure of money, to -a larger extent than would have been necessary had we been prepared. So that it would seem to be of no particular advantage to be unprepared.
The proposal which we have before us may not end war, but it is a logical and reasonable proposal whereby war may be made more difficult, if not altogether avoidable. Consider for a moment the history of the social state. The development of the man who went out and took vengeance with a club brings him into the community. There private war is forbidden; his quarrels must go to the head of his clan for settlement. Then comes the formation of the state, made up of these communities. Private war is again forbidden, but war still remains as between states. What is more logical and more reasonable than that states should now join together for the purpose of forbidding war between themselves, at the same time providing that court to which they may resort and that force or power which is necessary to enforce the verdicts of the court? That is what we are face to face with in the League of Nations-
(Mr. Griesbach.]
a court to which quarrels may be carried, and that power to enforce the verdicts of the court which has been lacking in our previous arbitration treaties.
Now, there are two points for consideration: first, will this League prevent all war, and, second, ought we to participate?
I can see at once the war to enforce the verdicts of the court. If the League is a failure, we shall be back to where we were before.
Then, ought we to participate? We have participated in this war, and it logically follows that if we would secure the peace which we struggled for, we should now participate in this League in order to ensure the carrying out the terms of the Treaty. Without the League there will not be fulfilment of the Treaty, and, as I said a moment ago, the blood and treasure which has been shed will be largely in vain.
What are our obligations? Our obligations are, according to our strength, to march with the free and liberal nations of the world to the suppression or the punishment of the outlaw nation. I do not fear that obligation, because, in the first place, we shall probably march in a just cause; and, in the second pltfce, we shall have the previous deliberation and discussion through our representation in the League which is essential to the waging of a just war. In the past there has not been, so far as we are concerned, that previous discussion, that previous consideration in connection with wars in which we have par- * ticipated. That is a state of affairs which ought not and cannot continue; it is a state of affairs which is dealt with by this League-. We are given a representation; we are given an interest; we are given the opportunity of discussion and of deciding upon the justness and wisdom of the proposal which is made which brings us into a war.
We enter this League as a sovereign State. The Prime Minister very eloquently put that aspect of the case before us in the speech which he made the other day. from which I should like to quote in this connection. He said:
That in this, the greatest of all wars, in which the world's liberty, the world's justice, in short the world's future destiny were at stake, Canada had led the democracies of 'both the American continents. Her resolve had given inspiration, her sacrifices had -been conspicuous, her effort was unabated to the end. The same indomitable spirit which made her capable of that effort and sacrifice made her equally incapable of accepting at the Peace Conference, in the League of Nations, or elsewhere a status inferior to that acoorded to nations less ad-

vaneed in their development, less amply endowed in wealth, resources and population, no more complete in their sovereignty and far less conspicuous in their sacrifice.
That, in my judgment, supplies the most complete argument in favour of our belief that we ought to enter-that, as a matter of fact, we have entered-this League of Nations as a sovereign State.
It is true that many of the incidents and attributes of sovereignty are absent from our status. 'That is so because of the peculiar relations which exist between ourselves and the rest of the Empire. The League of Nations and the world1 must take us as they find us; they must have regard for the conditions under which we live. They must accept us and realize that we are a nation and a company of nations with a common Sovereign and a common flag, and that we have no desire to alter that, and that, I think, is the spirit of the League.
Throughout the drafting of this document there is the evidence of British statesmanship. It has studied vagueness in order that it will be capable of that evolution which has brought the British constitution to the point where it now is, and the League recognizes and the world must recognize that the great Empire to which we belong is still in process of evolution and that that evolution must continue. This document makes us a world power in law and promotes us from the condition of a colony or dependency to that of sovereign status. It confers upon us rights and obligations which startle us with their magnitude and far-reaching consequences. But after all we are asked to do only a formal thing, namely, to make legal that which already exists in fact. By the solidarity and determination of our people in waging this war to a triumphant conclusion, by the splendid efficiency and unquenchable courage of our troops in the field, we have won our place in the world, and no document which we may be called upon to sign, can add to or take from the place that is ours, for it is written in the hearts and minds of our people and upon the bloodiest fields of France and Flanders.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight oclock.


Mr. P. MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, the magnificent speech delivered this afternoon has fairly well covered the ground for us. If I were possessed of the information which the
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) has and which he did not give to us, and if I knew what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows, and has not so far told us, I am sure my remarks would be quite interesting. The speech from the Throne which was delivered on the first of September contains the statement that our participation in the war " has involved heavy burdens and vast sacrifices which the people have borne with an unflinching spirit;" and, further, that "the labours of reconstruction may be difficult and even painful." These words were uttered in view of the subject now under consideration. The ratification of the Treaty by the Dominion Parliament has no importance whatever for us except for the fact that we, the representatives of the Canadian people, are asked to approve in a direct way what already the British Crown and the Canadian delegates have duly signed, in the name of the British Empire. I am not satisfied with the manner in which we are asked to deal with such an important question as that which we are now considering. We, as" a young people having to meet the financial obligations that have arisen during the war and having borne great sacrifices in men, are not only called upon to-day to carry a heavy burden and bear a vast sacrifice but are also asked to endorse without delay the Peace Treaty, including section 10 which reads:
The members of the League undertake to-respect and observe as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all the members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of feny threat or danger of such aggression, the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
I believe this is too strong an obligation on the part of the Canadian people, for it pledges them to the world for the future. For my .part I do not wish to undertake more than we can do. At present there is no one in Canada who can say what would become of this country, with our two billion dollars of debts, with the great unrest in the different parts of Canada, the strikes, the high cost of living, the interest due on war loans, the pensions to disabled soldiers, and the pensions to widows. I say in all sincerity that before plunging into unforeseen undertakings in future wars in Europe we should carefully weigh the circumstances and be circumspect in our actions. If in the name of humanity we were again called upon to send an expedition to fight the Bol-sheviki in Russia, would we be ready at this moment to do so? What would you, Mr. Speaker, think of being called

upon to join an army for service in Armenia or Serbia, for instance, during the coming winter? The British Crown has pledged Canada, with the consent of its delegates, and now whether or not we ratify the Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations, the League will carry on its business as though we were not a nation. The Crown has already done for us what it expected us to do in regard to the League of Nations and the covenants of the Treaty. I learn from the papers that Germany is aiding the "Beds" to give Poland trouble, and is still helping the Russian army; that Boumania makes a threat to pass the Bed menace on and says it will not oppo.se the Bolsheviki if the Allies disregard her claims. What does all this mean to the Canadian people? It means that more men will be sent to the battlefield; it means more money out of the treasury and it means that there will be more widows and orphans. It means more sacrifice. I am of the o.pinion that this country at the opening of the present session was entitled to a balance sheet well prepared by the Department of Finance, and that a balance should have been struck showing where we stand financially. Before pledging ourselves deeper in enormous expense in connection with future wars in Europe or Asia we should put ourselves in a better position at home. Reconstruction and re-establishment at the present hour are matters that should particularly occupy our attention. We owe not only a debt of gratitude to our soldiers; we owe them our support and help. We owe a living to the widows and orphans whose position the war has made extremely difficult. In the speech from the Throne there is not a word of praise to the soldiers or widows. Great Britain and the Allies called upon the Canadian people for help during the war and we responded beyond their expectations. Surely, then, we can be trusted in future, whenever in our judgment our action is necessary, to do all we can when called upon to defend the weak from the strong, and prove ourselves again, as we have done in the past, true and loyal to the Mother Country. Why a written guarantee on the part of the people of Canada when the Treaty has already been ratified? Have we not a better proof than any written guarantee in the 400,000 soldiers who voluntarily enlisted to help the Motherland? Have we not a better proof in the number of widows and orphans we have at home? Have we not a better proof in the large number of Canadian women who crossed the ocean to take care of the wound-
ed soldiers? These facts, to my mind, are a better pledge to the League of Nations of Canada's righteousness than our ratification of this Treaty. Let the Mother Country trust us, for we are still the same young and vigorous people who did not lose the opportunity of showing our readiness to join a good cause when called upon to do so. Mr. Speaker, allow me to read in French a statement made lately in Europe as regards the result of the war and what we should do:
(Translation). Humanity is paying the price of the unprecedented effort that it has just put forth. Having struggled 'beyond its strength, it now needs rest, that It may relax its musales, soothe its nerves, recover possession of its will to live, by turning away from visions of death.


Mr.  H. M. MOW AT@Parkdale: I agree that in discussing the question which we are privileged, to debate to-night, opinions should not necessarily be shadowed by the position in which members sit in the House. However, as the debate proceeds it is increasingly evident that those who are not in favour of the Treaty axe on one side of the House and those who are more enthusiastic for it are on the other. Perhaps this is a result of our political way of doing things in Canada, but whether that is so or not and in any event, I am sure that we have heard nothing here this afternoon or to-night which transgresses the courteous course of the debates which have characterized this House, and I shall try not to offend. At the same time, in regard to opinions expressed on the opposite side, it seems to me that we might divide them- not to speak offensively-into those who are pessimistic about the result of the Treaty and our joining in it, and those, on the other hand, who seem to be anti-imperialistic, as they would like to call themselves, but whose position I regard rather as one of standoffishness. In the first group of these I think we must put the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) who is gallantly and unselfishly occupying his vicarious and somewhat delicate position in a manner which should gain for him the gratitude of his own followers and which, I assure him, has the admiration of members on this side. He is the leader of those who might be called the pessimistic school. He minimizes everything. His speech to-day throughout minimized the efforts of the Canadian statesmen who were plenipotentiaries in Europe; he minimized the position of Canada. He might be called- I see he has just come in-the leader of the

Little Canadian party, if there is such a thing. He seems to idealize or embody that feeling which is of the shrinking, shivering kind, typified in people who do not like to see Canada emerge from the position which it has hitherto held, do not like to see Canada make progress, and are afraid that any step made in a new direction may land her in trouble and tribulation. I venture to say, however, that the people of Canada are mot of that build. We have built ourselves up from something very small and tottering, a small nationhood at the beginning but gradually growing. And I am surprised, as indeed we must all be surprised at this new attitude of my hon. friend the leader- of the Opposition and some of his followers, because he was not taught thus in the last few years of political life in this country. There is one man in Canada whom we all admired to a great extent, and that is the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I admired and followed him until he failed us in a great crisis in which it [DOT]was impossible to continue under his leadership.
If Sir Wilfrid Laurier did one thing more than another to accentuate his leadership of the Canadian people, it was to teach them to realize that they had become a nation, and when he used that expression on art important occasion it created an enthusiastic feeling on the part of the people of Canada, a feeling which had never before entered their breasts. Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke of the nation. He spoike of the twentieth century being Canada's century, and he continued with all the ability and acumen that he possessed to urge his fellow- _ citizens towards greater and bigger things. Yet, we find his supposed followers coming into the House to-day and taking an entirely opposite position. Hot one cheerful word, not one word of optimism has 'been uttered that I can recollect but rather have we heard words of fear and pessimism. Is this really the feeling of those who are on the other side, is it really the feeling of many in Canada; or is it just the old fashioned way we have got into of presenting acute political differences and accentuating party ideas? If these ideas are not held so strongly as is indicated, there is still hope for us.
Canada, I contend, is a nation, not because somebody says so but .because it has gradually emerged into a position of strength and vitality and is being recognized by the world as a nation. I do not care for the British North America Act-
Mr. iMOWAT:	Wait until I say it and
then I will give you a chance for applause. I do not care for the British North America Act because it deals with legal matters, questions of jurisdiction and extent of jurisdiction. Section 56 provides that within two years an Act of this Dominion may be annulled and not ratified. Seldom has anything of that kind occurred; in fact scarcely within our memory has an Act been annulled, We are not bound by the clauses of the British North America Act which is our charter, when we begin to have national aspirations. I venture to say that.no Parliament in the United Kingdom would fail, on the slightest reason being presented, to modify the British North America Act if it was found to be coercive or restrictive of our national ideals. We are too closely in touch in spirit with British statesmen and the British people component of the British Parliament to have an obstacle like that thrown in our way.
Canada has asserted its claim to nationhood for many years. In 1878 the right to set up its 'own tariff walls; it was felt in 1878 to/be a grievous thing towards the tradesmen in England. There was exasperation expressed. The opinion was expressed by prominent lawyers that the fixing of tariffs, which is one of the greatest causes of war and differences between nations, was not competent to Canada because she wa3 a colony. Canada held to her lines rightly or wrongly on the matter of free trade and protection or anything of that sort, and contended for the right of the Government and the majority in this Parliament to pass restrictive high-tariff legislation. Then the feeling in Great Britain subsided. They said: "All right, if you are going in for nationhood, we are not going to put anything in your way." We had that tariff for many years.
Again, in 1893, the Liberal party came to the conclusion that we should have a preference in favour of British goods as against those of foreign countries, and when they came into power in 1896 they did enact a preferential tariff which brought about a feeling of codiality between the Mother Country and ourselves that has prevailed to the present day. Mr. Kipling, who was looked upon as the greatest poet in so far as national affairs and aspirations are concerned, wrote some verses which were accepted in the Old Country and this as significant of the change which had taken place in the status of Canada. They ran thus:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh. 7



A nation spoke to a nation ;
A queen sent word to a throne;
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
Mine the gates to open;
Mine the gates to close ;
But I abide by my mother's house
Said our Bady of the Snows.
What was said by Kipling-"a nation spoke to a nation"-was accepted by ns. That is many years ago, and it is altogether too late now for ns to he arguing or debating in this House upon the question or to attempt to change the flow of Canadian thought so as to minimize our position in the world.
But none of these things was entirely sufficient to put us in the position we are in now-neither the enactment of the high tariff nor the change in the tariff, nor the mere calling of this country a nation. None of these was sufficient to bring us to a full realization of all that we really are. But to-day, fortunately, we have the sturdy action of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) at this very Peace Conference which we are discussing. We know the difficulties he had and they were natural difficulties. No one wonders at other countries feeling that the Mother Country was thoroughly competent to legislate for the whole Empire and the Mother Country itself may have had doubts as to the propriety of our entering as a full-fledged nation. They might have anticipated difficulties with other countries as a result of sponsoring the claim of the right hon. the Prime Minister that we should be recognized as a nation. But he had his way and when it was known that we were recognized by the world as a nation there was nothing that could have thrilled the people of Canada more or. caused them to look forward with greater confidence and hope to the future than the struggle which he made.
Then, besides the pessimists and the minimizers, and the Little Canadians whose views have been expressed through their representatives to-day, there are those who want to stand off from any closer relations with the Empire. Many on this side do not understand that attitude but we are quite ready to listen in order to appreciate if possible what is said in that connection. I was surprised, I must say, to find my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers), whose speech gave great pleasure on this side of the House, setting a bad example by calling Canada a colony. I am unable to appreciate why it is that anybody wishes to minimize the position of Canada instead of giving her the position

which her importance merits. The word "colony" was also used by the Leader of the Opposition.
That may be effective in debate but I venture to say again that it does not express the real feeling of the people of Canada at the present time. We have the strength of a nation, we have the robust and virile people to make a nation, we have all the natural resources which a rich and powerful nation should have. And if we are to be a nation when we have a population of eighty millions why should we not be a nation now, why not so arrange and adapt things that we will be ready with a population of eight millions for the time when we become a nation of eighty millions? There is no time like the present.
I also suspect my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe)-although I did not have the pleasure of hearing his remarks, I read his speech-of having what I might call a scunner towards closer relations with the Empire. But we must remember that we form part of the British Empire, and that Empire is not a state but a nation. There is this difference between a nation and a state: nationality means the getting together, by accident, conquest, or other reason, of people of the same ideas who wish to live together, to understand each other, and to be left alone. That constitutes nationality, but a state is something more than that. It is having all these feelings, or perhaps not having them, but having the machinery or organization to get the peoples together. Now surely, belonging as we do to the British Empire, there is no one in this House or this country who does not deem it important that we should be as close as we can to the different component parts of that Empire. The British Empire may be likened to a wheel or rather the hub of a wheel with many different coloured spokes running out, if I may use as illustration the vari-coloured advertisement which we all see in the streets. And when we speak of an Englishspeaking 'Canadian or a French-speaking Canadian, or an immigrant Canadian, a Maori, an Australian, a Boer, or a New Zealander, they are all from the same hub. But remember, as we get nearer to the hub of that wheel we are all ourselves drawn closer together. That is my idea of what the component parts of the British Empire are to-day. It is my belief that there is nothing to-day in the world in the way of nationality or government that has done more for the world than the British Empire, with

its sense of justice, with its vigour, and with its ability to improve the countries which it peacefully incorporates. There is nothing which has contributed more to civilization than the British Empire. Of course, we are all proud of the British Empire, and proud of belonging to it and for that reason we should endeavour ^.0 strengthen it wherever we can.
I hope that my hon. friends opposite who have this feeling about shrinking against what they call centralizing things in London will not take that position with regard to this Treaty. Why, what is going on is the very reverse of centralizing in London. When we are asked to approve of this Treaty, not to ratify it, but approve of it, we are doing it independently. As was said to-day before, we are the first Parliament or legislators in the British Empire that has discussed the matter, and there is no centralizing in London unless we are prepared to give that centralization. My idea of Canada is that it is the biggest, the richest, and the greatest component nation of the British Empire, and with proper feeling there is no reason why all, no matter what may be the nationality of this country, should not go on and help towards that result. We must needs refrain from saying exasperating things of each other and try to understand each other's point of view. There is no reason why we should not think of Canada in the words of a robust Canadian, Charles Mair. I do not know whether he is living yet, but he was alive a few years ago and was liviing near Calgary. It is Charles Mair who gave us this ideal:
Hake Canada a home of generous life Of ample freedom, slowly won.
Of modest maid and faithful wife.
Of honest love 'twixt sire and son.
First feel throughout the throbbing land A nation's pulse, a nation's pride.
The independent life. Then stand Erect, unbound, at Britain's side.
I think we might all agree upon the sentiments in those verses.
Now, to deal with the question of the Constitution before I finish. It does not seem to me that we can settle this question or bring this debate to any good conclusion by carping or being too critical of the constitutional elements which surround the question. We cannot settle the question of the nationality of Canada by taking a detached sentence from Halleck's International Law, as was attempted here to-day, in order to prove a point-it cannot be done. Halleck had not this particular state of affairs in his mind. I doubt if he had Canada in his mind; he was thinking more of the 74
European nations. We are beyond the ordinary international law, or constitutional law, as it is generally understood in Europe. We cannot be so circumscribed by it. The British constitution is an extraordinary erection in that it has come on bit by bit, liberty upon liberty, line upon line. Nobody can tell you how it has been made, but it suits our purpose. It is in no way like the' American constitution where you have a formal agreement entered into and which requires specially voted amendments. We govern well and satisfy the people of the British Empire because of the elasticity of our Constitution, and we hope nothing will be done to restrict it or make it less elastic. It is not a written constitution; it has been built up by word of mouth and by the sane, proper and patriotic action of the Parliaments which go to make up the British Empire.
This League of Nations is not a new thing. It is not a new proposition that we have to discuss, except that it has new features. Leagues of nations have been made before. In 1815 there was the Treaty of Vienna which provided for the internationalization of the River Danube by an agreement between the powers. In 1856 there was the Treaty, or the Declaration, of Paris, made after the Crimean War, in which the practices of maritime warfare were discussed and settled' upon between the different nations meeting at the time. Then there is the Red Cross Agreement of Geneva, made in 1864, for the treatment of the wounded; and in 1874 the Treaty of Agreement of Brussels, by which the methods of warfare on land were discussed and which were mainly, as I understand it, the basis, of the subsequent Hague convention. But, the trouble with all these agreements and treaties was that there was no enforcing power, and history having taught us the fact that agreements without the enforcing power were futile and scarcely worth the paper they were written on-barring the Red Cross Treaty which, with the excep tion of one country, has been carried out by the nations of the world-not being able to enforce these treaties they lacked an essential quality when they were entered into. So we come to the present League of Nations which means simply that the civilized nations of the world shall do the policing of the world. If there is an invasion of the integrity or the territory of one of the nations composing it, we must go to her rescue-we bind ourselves to do it. Such a thing was never incorporated in

any previous treaty, but we are bound to do that because we are turning ourselves for the good of the world into international policemen. Let me give a very ordinary illustration: In every well-constituted town there is a police force which has certain regions and certain beats, and on the whistle of one constable or roundsman, the others will come to his aid if he is being attacked, and no police force is worth anything unless there is this co-operation and instant rushing to help the belaboured man. What would Canada be able to say if, as a result of the action of this Parliament, we should stand aloof and say: " We do not want to get mixed up in any European country's affairs, which do not concern us at all; this is our beat and we do not want to go outside to help anybody else; we are afraid of the results that might follow"? So by this Treaty, the most important in the history o,f the world, the civilized nations have agreed to do the policing of the world, and it would ill become Canada churlishly or shrinkingly or fearingly to excuse herself from participating in a work which must, it seems to me, redound to the good of the world. The Treaty contains an enforcing clause. My hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, asked: Does the approving of the Treaty take away our liberty of choice as to entering into a European war? Yes, it does. And I thank Heaven that it does, because if we were left without the obligation which we have voluntarily taken upon ourselves, and if, owing to the politics of the times, any nation could divorce itself from the general action of the associated nations, then the League of Nations would not be worth the paper it is written on. Of course we are bound together, and we will he proud to do our small part in enforcing generally upon recalcitrant nations that peace which will redound to the good of the world.
We say, perhaps: We do not want to mix ourselves up in foreign affairs. But has it never occurred to some, Mr. Speaker, that Canada may need protection of such a league in a very few yeare to come? It wias declared here to-day, when the Minister of Public Works was interrogated as to who said 'this ot that, that it would be improper to mention names. I think it was a wise declaration on his part, and therefore I am not going to mention names-what is the use? But as anybody with any sense must see, there are elements at work which may leave us open to attacks from well constituted maritime powers which may become

dissatisfied. It may be that we will be the first country to need the protective force of thite clause 10 of the League of Nations, and it would be a pitiable thing if we were to discard it simply because we have a shrinking dislike to enter into European troubles.
Here for the first time we have real internationalism, not mere pious agreements which have no force-not Hague conventions which anybody may break, and which nations did break in the late war-but we have internationalism reduced to a definite and Obligatory basis. Let us see hoiw it is going to work, this agreement between the best nations of the world to do certain things and to refrain from doing certain other things. I say it would be a pity to send this Treaty back with a stab of disapproval. It must not be forgotten that we are going to be a respected nation in the League. We sent over five hundred thousand men, most of them voluntarily, to a war which they believed had to be fought for the sake of humanity. Do you suppose that has not had its effect upon the peoples of the world? We know it has, and we have had many a tribute of admiration and praise that we, so far from the battleground, and with our extensive territory stretching from the Yukon to the Atlantic coast, could send men from every quarter of our Dominion to enter into this war. It was a glorious thing to do, and oiir Allies have acknowledged the value of our contribution to the victory which crowned our united efforts. We won the respect of the world, and let us not now be laggard in doing our share for the success of the world's greatest Treaty-a Treaty which may become the greatest boon that mankind has ever experienced.


Mr. LUCIEN TUEOOTTE PACATJD (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, in availing myself of this opportunity of discussing the Treaty of Peace, it seems hardly needful for me to say that I fully recognize and appreciate not only the vastness of the problems involved, but also the far-reaching consequences which they will ultimately have on the future of Canada. Laying aside for the time being the reservations and the criticisms which a perusal of this document may suggest to one, I feel prompted at the very outset of my remarks to recall the magnitude of the task of those whose mission was to draft this Treaty, to pacify a world which had, during four years of war, suffered the greatest carnage known in history. I could not better illustrate the thought which I wish to convey, Mr. Speaker, than by citing

the word of a great French writer and statesman: That during the seven months which preceded, the signing of this Treaty it was as if humanity had been placed on the dissecting table so as to better discover the mystery of its new organism and of its new life, to detect and to stamp out from its very soul the venom which had poisoned it in the past and nearly brought it to its downfall. This was the lofty purpose which the representatives of the great powers had in view, and to what extent their efforts were crowned with success a study of the document which is now the subject of this debate can alone enlighten us.
A Treaty, Sir, which has for its object the re-modelling of a whole world, when presented for ratification to this Parliament -though I strongly hold, as others have done before me, that this ratification is alike dangerous and unnecessary-should not at least have prompted the Government to pursue the course which they had intended to pursue-to snatch from any individual member of this House the time and opportunity to study this Treaty with the care and attention which the interests of this country demand. Such hasty action, Sir, as it was intended to impose upon us was not justified, in my opinion, on any ground of reasoning, and furthermore, may I add, it was in direct contradiction of the attitude which had been taken by the governments of France, of Great Britain and of the United States where the statesmen seem to respect more clearly the privileges and the rights of Parliament than the genr tlemen who for the time being are occupying the treasury benches of this House.
Wishing, Mr. Speaker, to curtail my remarks as much as possible, I will endeavour as briefly and as clearly as I can to lay before the House the general conclusions which I have reached and which will explain the vote I intend to cast on this most important matter. It is a fact that this Treaty has been severely criticised and in some quarters unmercifully assailed by men of outstanding character and reputation in all the allied countries. Let us not be surprised at this divergence of view on the part of men who are not responsible for the framing of this instrument, when we recall that the Treaty itself is but the result of a compromise between those who had the responsibility of drafting it.
Bearing this thought in mind, what do we find in this Treaty? We find features which will assuredly have the hearty support of the interested people. We find clauses which do not live up to our expectations;
we find others, again, which seem to shatter the very hopes of those who have sacrificed so much, by endangering the safety and future freedom of action of the countries which they indirectly affect.
iSir, what appeals to me most strongly in this Treaty is that in it are to be found, though modified and amended, the principles which prompted and inspired the famous fourteen articles of President Wilson, which at the time of their pronouncement on the 8th of January, 1918, stirred the Allied world, and commanded its hearty and enthusiastic support. What are these principles? Could they not, when considered in their last analysis, be reduced to the following three political axioms:
1.	That each part of the final settlement should be based on justice, under reserve of dispositions the most proper to guarantee permanent peace.
2.	That no territorial settlement should be made that does not comply with the interests and advantages of the populations involved in the said settlement.
3.	That each well-defined nationality should see its aspirations realized in the fullest measure.
Mr. Speaker, looking over this Treaty from cover to cover, though we may perceive that these axioms were not always rigorously adhered to, can we not proclaim that it is through the instrumentality of these principles that new nations have come to life, endowed with the blessings of freedom, at last delivered from the yoke of oppression? Unfortunately, Sir, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that great as has been the advance in the right direction, there are still many flaws in this Treaty, regrettable omissions which we may hope soon to see remedied and adjusted. I am frank to admit that for myself I should have liked at this moment, when we are witnessing the births of nations, the resurrection of Poland, the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to its rightful owners, to see also the final settlement of the Irish question. I only hope and pray that the bitterness engendered through centuries of struggle in that country may soon disappear through the influence of freedom, generously accorded to her people.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the three considerations which the study of this Treaty from its larger aspect have suggested to me.
I now come to the last and most important point which I wish to raise, as many others have done who preceded me. Is it necessary for this Parliament to ratify this Treaty? What would be the consequence of our ratification or of our .abstaining from ratify-

mg the Treaty? In what direction lies the surest safeguard of Canadian interests, which we are here to protect? These questions have been raised and fully discussed in the course of, this debate. I unhesitatingly range myself with those who have argued, to my mind so well and so conclusively, that ratification by this Parliament is unnecessary and that whatever may be our action in this House, the Treaty will remain unaffected. No amount of sophistry, from whatever quarter it is launched, can, in my opinion, effectively veil this truth: that in the authority within the British Empire to which belongs exclusively the right to declare war in the name of the Empire-the King and his constitutional advisers-is alone vested the power to make peace for that Empire. What, therefore, are the motives that have prompted this Government to such hasty action-to the calling of a special session to ratify a Treaty that needs no ratification by us? It is in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and especially in Article X, that we may find a reason for their action.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to he understood as being opposed to the principle of the League of Nations. I strongly believe that permanent peace cannot be hoped for without the closest co-operation between the democratic nations of the world. These nations are called upon to protect and to defend two principles: the principle of justice inherent in the aspirations of their people, and the principle, too often forgotten, of mutual respect among all nationalities. In the defence of these principles, and to better assure that peace and justice may in the future triumph in the world, we are now erecting a new organism representing alike nationalities and democracies-an organism which is embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations. But, Sir, could we not have attained this same high purpose through other means than by those which bind this country in the future to abide by the decision of a Council in which we shall not be represented-a decision which may be so far-reaching in its consequences as to have the effect of dragging us into a war, of conscripting our young manhood and our wealth for the purpose of protecting the territorial integrity of other nations, and this without giving to our Parliament the right to deliberate and to decide on the merits of the case?
The Government, by forcing us to ratify a Treaty though no good can be derived from such action and though no necessity is apparent for it, are only taking advan-

tage of the reluctance that a member may have to reject it on general grounds, in order that they may better pursue their old policy of imperialism in disguise-always ready to raise an altar to Canadian autonomy, but never failing to undermine in action what they so highly praise and proclaim in words.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the situation as it presents itself to me. It is grave and critical, endangering, as it does our future freedom of action. By the adoption of Article X we are stripping this Parliament of its most valued prerogative; we are placing the Canadian people at the beck and call of a Council not responsible to the nation for its actions. By one stroke of the pen we are mortgaging our freedom, receiving practically nothing in return.
Our prospects under this arrangement are not bright. Let us at least comfort ourselves with the hope that the prophecy of President Poincare of France may yet be realized, when he said that "real and permanent peace will not emerge from any single instrument of peace, but will be the outcome of a never-ceasing and collective effort on the part of the allied and associated powers."
Mr. FRANK B. STACEY (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, as I recall the words of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) in his opening remarks this afternoon, with regard to what should he the characteristics and qualifications of those who take part in this debate, I assure you that it is with the greatest hesitation that I rise to offer any observations whatever upon the subject which is occupying the attention of this House.
When Parliament assembled a week ago I had no intention of making any remarks upon this subject. I mistakenly assumed that the language of the document which we are now considering would be couched in legal and technical phraseology and that an ordinary man would have difficulty in understanding it and should, perhaps be silent when the time for discussion came.
But I found that what is, to my mind, the very heart of the document was capable of interpretation by an ordinary layman or workingman like myself. While I do not presume to discuss the question from the standpoint of its constitutionality, I purpose offering some observations as to the Treaty, especially that part of it called the Covenant of the League of Nations, as it appeals to the ordinary man, to the .man in the street, to the man who is not versed in the technicalities of legal inspection and

discussion, But as it is, I believe, regarded by the great majority of ordinary men and women who are interested in knowing something about the real, practical meaning of this Covenant of the League of Nations. I shall not pretend nor attempt to speak respecting the Treaty of Peace itself.
It strikes me-and I believe it appeals in this way to hundreds of thousands of our citizens-that after five years of agony, heartaches, carnage and immeasurable destruction, the allied nations conceived an idea, that grew into a plan, which was finally formulated into a document, which gives greater promise and 'hope of a lasting peace in this world than has ever before been seen or known by men in the long and chequered history of humanity. The preamble itself is a remarkable and striking statement, a tribute alike to the high spirit of the signatories, and, under the circumstances, to their magnanimity as victors.
I shall presume to offer a few remarks on the article that has been referred to so frequently, not only this evening, but on previous occasions, namely, Article 10. As I have intimated, I have not had a legal training. I do not pretend to read into this Treaty possible difficulties; I do not pretend to be able to discuss the constitutional difficulties which may arise, which are possibly real and genuine and which this nation may have to face in the future. But I remember this, that objection has1 been taken to Article 10 by hon. gentlemen opposite because its .provisions may involve us in conflicts in some far-away section of Europe, or in some distant portion of South America. We must not forget to-day that the world is very small, so small that Jules Verne's book has long since been thrown into the bonfire, and it is quite possible that there are within this Chamber hon. gentlemen who themselves may voyage around the world in less than eight days. All those manifestations and conditions which obtained a generation ago are changed. If distance is to be measured by time, the Atlantic ocean is not any larger than some of our great Canadian lakes used to be. Why should not Canada have a place in the League of Nations? During half a century or more we have grown out of a national infancy and childhood and youth into a young manhood; we have been under the protection of the great Mother Country, and there is, I am sure, no disposition on the part of any one to-day to 9 p.m. break with England. She has, in *a sense, led us by the hand until now, reaching the stage of manhood, we
are, I trust, prepared to take our place beside her, shoulder to shoulder, in every great plan which looks towards the peace, prosperity and happiness of the world. Hon. members opposite have to-day been searching the pages o.f history to ascertain some precedent for the action that is now proposed to be taken. As I see it, we are not reviewing history, we are making history; we are not following precedents, we are establishing precedents. And, why should we not, as a self-governing nation, be prepared, at this stage in our history, to assume our place and take our full measure of responsibility at this critical time in the history of the world?
In my province, which province by the way sent more than 10 per cent of her total population to the front, there were, during the course of the war-I regret to say this, but I want to be honest-a few men who apparently did not realize the duties of citizenship. True they claimed and desired all the privileges of citizenship in my province; they claimed the right to the franchise; they sought the protection of the British navy and also, the protection of the allied forces, including the protection of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. But for one reason or another they did not enlist. Sometimes they had a fluttering around the heart; sometimes they thought they had a flatfoot, and occasionally we found them obsessed with the idea that they needed a change of climate. For the benefit of their health or for the advantage of their pocket, they concluded that a trip across the line to the 'south would be of advantage to them, and so they went. At any late, they failed to join up, and we had in our province a few men who, while they desired all the privileges of citizenship, refused to assume the responsibilities of citizenship.
I fear lest there may be some spirit akin to the foregoing in the action of those gentlemen here or elsewhere who would like to have the full protection afforded this country by the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, including the League of Nations and including Article X-who would like to have all the advantages and all the privileges, without assuming the responsibilities and obligations which are embodied in that article. It was very aptly pointed out by the hon. member for Megan-tic (Mr. Pacaud), if I mistake not, that this proposition is the application of the idea and principle of co-operation-national co-operation. This is true. I cannot conceive of the Canadian Parliament or the

Canadian people refusing to approve of the Treaty of Peace, especially with regard to this Covenant of the League of Nations. The preamble, I may say, is a marvellous introduction to a state paper that will take its place by the side of any state paper in the annals of human history. I shall read two or three sentences:
In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security -by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war.
I call attention to the three succeeding clauses:
By the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations; by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments; and by the maintenance of justice and the scrupulous respect of all Treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, these three last clauses that I have read contain the very reasons which led 32,000 of our young men five years ago to rush to Val-cartier. These three clauses give the reason why, a little later in the dark and awful days of the four years that followed, over half a million more of their brothers and sisters went to their aid. The reason is found in this preamble. There is no additional reason to be ascertained; it lies here and here alone. But the words of this preamble are words and only words. They are great words; they will be historic words, and will ever be read as an expression of high statesmanship and of splendid ideas.; but they are words only. The essence, the acid test of this preamble, is found in Article X. You cannot make use of the preamble legitimately, reasonably, logically, without also accepting Article X. 1 believe in my heart, Sir, that it would be an example of the very personification of audacity for any man or any Parliament to say: "We refuse to approve of Article X," and then have the nerve to proceed to approve of the remaining two hundred pages. In the days of. the future should the storm break over our heads or over the head of some other small nation, we are united in our aim to speedily bring the struggle to an end and protect the weaker nation. I claim that there is a greater probability, amounting almost to a certainty, of actual peace than could possibly be secured without the provisions of Article X. And should the storm break and troubles come, then we are prepared to do our share. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that Article X of this Covenant means in 
substance, in commonplace phraseology stripped of all legal technicalities, that we believe in peace and want peace. It means that we want peace ourselves and want peace for all nations of the world; and because we want it and because we bate war, we are willing to co-operate with other nations in keeping the world's peace so far as may be humanly possible. Is it not reasonable and sane, iand comparatively sure, that with these provisions and with these ideas there is greater probability of peace than if we and all others refused to say "We shall bind ourselves together in the joint interests of humanity." Moreover, is it not a laudable aim for any young nation just entering upon its maturity to ally itself with the very highest civilization of the globe in its determination to be, in a very broad sense, the safeguard and advocate of the peace and prosperity and liberty of the world?
There is one view of this question that has not been presented to this House. It may not, strictly speaking, be involved in the letter of the Treaty, indeed, I am willing to admit, that it is not; but it appears to me to be a question of very great and serious import. And not only in my humbly judgment but, I believe, in the judgment of the great bulk of the citizens of Canada the question is agitating their minds: They are thinking and speaking about the matter which I am going to venture to introduce to this- House now.
I shall assume that this Parliament will ratify the Treaty of Peace; I shall assume that otir country is entering upon a new era, upon a new and larger life. She has won by the valour of her sons upon the battle field and by the statesmanship of her legislators in the councils of the nations a very high place in the world's record of great deeds. The world over the magic word Canada" upon the shoulder straps of every Canadian soldier from the humblest private to General Sir Arthur Currie, has been both the pride of the wearer and the admiration, if not indeed the envy, of every observer. With these facts and results behind us, and with a future that one can hardly overestimate ahead of us, and entering now upon a larger national life my problem is: How shall we the Canadian people so relate ourselves to the new conditions and to the new national life to ensure that our country will become not merely great in population or in wealth, but in all those higher attributes of mind and spirit which alone are the assured factors in national prosperity? This, Sir, is the question that has been in my mind and

which is in the minds, I have reason to believe, of our best citizens and I believe also, although not expressed as yet, in the minds of the members of this House.
Where is the Canadian citizen who has not been thrilled, who has not even been moved to tears at the recital of deeds of unparalleled heroism by our soldiers overseas? And of equal courage and matchless devotion of our daughters as they have taken their places in ministering to the needs of those who have been wounded? How can we, I repeat, in view of all these things, so relate ourselves to the future that we shall be equal to the increased responsibilities and obligations which are resting upon us as a nation? If there is any phrase or single sentence that better embodies or suggests the answer to my query than another, it is this: The character and the development of our Canadian citizenship. I am well aware of the fact that this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that question at length, but I shall venture to give a few moments to it because of the reasons I have assigned.
If I might express in the most general terms my appreciation of the character and the qualities suggested in the term " Canadian citizenship " I would do it by referring to four main factors which contribute to such a true and desirable Canadian citizenship. First, in our homes we shall be compelled through youthful inquiries in the future to lay greater emphasis upon patriotic principles and the relation of the family to national life than we found it necessary to do prior to 1914.
Then there is the Canadian press. I suppose that in referring to it I am treading upon sacred ground-or otherwise.. I cannot help but feel that, notwithstanding the very efficient service rendered by the Canadian press to Canadian ideals and to the true spirit of Canadian citizenship, there is one thing that I would fain see changed and changed for the better. I do not think that the cynical spirit sometimes continued almost to exaggeration by the press is conducive to the development of the highest type of Canadian citizenship and ideals. I come to another factor that enters vitally into the character and development of our Canadian citizenship and that. Sir, is found in our school system. We are coming to a day of change. The best citizens behind our public schools realize . that mistakes have been made in the past and that some change is necessary. Throughout this land there is an idea that the day is not far distant when the passing of an examination
will not be regarded as the be-all and end-all of our public school life. Greater attention must be given to the expression of the individual as a factor in our national life. But speaking of our educational work as a great factor in our national life, I place special emphasis upon the opportunities and obligations of our Canadian colleges.
I do riot now refer to the technical institution which furnishes our country with experts either industrial, economic, professional or scientific. I have in mind the college of liberal arts whether for ladies exclusively or the university course for both sexes leading to the Bachelor's degree. These institutions are in the main turning out not professors or scientific or economic experts but citizens who will take their place in the ordinary ranks of domestic or commercial life, but who, by reason of their extraordinary educational advantages, should be more than ordinary citizens. That is to say, the main objective of the college of liberal arts should not be scholarship but citizenship. The latter must become the goal, the former, a means of reaching it. Our country's future will be largely determined by the ideals of citizenship inspiring our people. The great opportunity and business of the college and university is to project upon society broadminded, or rather spacious-minded, men and women, well-balanced and sane, who will become big citizens. Our country's supreme need to-day, to-morrow and for all time, is not so much bright scholars as big citizens. We need more bigger, broader, better citizens, and the college system or curriculum which fails to produce the goods must either be changed or ultimately go to the scrap heap. The citizen does not exist for the college, but the college for the citizen. Education is of real value only as it qualifies for, and results in, good citizenship. Many a good citizen has never had a college life, but a good citizen is always a truly educated man, nevertheless. Perhaps I can best explain my meaning by the following illustration:	A
few weeks ago I ran across a man in my province who, from the standpoint of the schools, would be called an uneducated man. In fact, Sir, he himself claimed to be an uneducated man and deplored the fact most sincerely and heartily. But I found that he could give me the name and the characteristics of every plant that grew in that district. He could tell me the names and describe the uses of all the trees in that section of the country. If a bird flew by or alighted upon a tree he could

tell me its name and give me all its characteristics. If he saw the footprint of an animal on the ground he could tell me its name and describe its habits-in fact, he was a reliable authority on the entire flora and fauna of that district, and yet he claimed to be an uneducated man. As I said, from the standpoint of the schools, he was uneducated. He knew little of mathematics, less of literature, I doubt if he could spell the word "philosophy," and he thought he knew nothing of science. Moreover, Sir, he was a good citizen, inasmuch as he took his part in the great war faithfully and well. And last June, when the whole of the West between the Bed river and the Pacific was threatened with an incipient Soviet revolution resulting in some of its leaders being imprisoned and not, as the hon. the leader of the Opposition described the other day as being driven to prison because they were labour leaders-far from it, and let me say that the records of the courts have vindicated the position I took here last June and take here to-night-during that unsettled month this man acted as a steadying force in the community. He counselled against rocking the boat. He was a sort of moral and social anchor during the troublous times of last June. He counselled quietness, and steadiness, while some so-called scholars counselled otherwise. That man, Sir, was a good citizen, and from the standpoint of Canadian citizenship well-educated, although from the viewpoint of the schools, he would not perhaps, in the past at least, be so designated. My argument comes to this point: that our university life must so shape itself to meet the demands of the coming generation that the great aim of every college of liberal art in this Dominion, from ocean to ocean, would be nothing less than to turn out the very highest type of Canadian citizenship that can be produced within its walls. This man to whom I refer, I think, illustrated better than any one I have ever met the thought that was given expression to by John Milton two hundred and fifty years ago, and I doubt if his definition has ever been excelled, when he said:
I call therefore a complete and generous education that which enables a man to perform justly, skilfully, and magnanimously, all the offices, public and private, both in peace and war.
Now, I come to discuss, for a few moments only, another factor, another great force, in the creation of a right ideal of Canadian citizenship. I have briefly

touched upon the home, more briefly upon the press, and perhaps at greater length upon the college. But, Sir, there is still another factor which plays a most important part in the development of that type of citizenship which will enable us as a people and as a nation to take our place and maintain it in the days to come through the new relations that are put upon us. I refer, Sir, to the influence, and the power, and the work of the church. The college man says a good citizen must be an educated citizen. I agree with him, I accept his statement. The church-man will say a good citizen must be a Christian citizen. I do not deny the statement, I am inclined to agree with him. iBut, Sir, I believe this country has come to realize that notwithstanding all they have done in the past the churches of this land must lay more stress, more time, and more energy, upon those means which tend towards the development of a high ideal of Christian citizenship. That church, individual or denominational, will take its place in the Canadian life which, in the largest degree promotes a true and strong citizenship, and not very much longer will there attach to the cloth as such any special recognition or any inherent authority in the social world.
The churches of our realm have done a grand work for the Empire during the past four or five years; but they have a greater work to do from ocean to ocean in seeking upon all occasions to inject into the minds of their people the paramount importance of Canadian citizenship. I said a few moments ago that the college existed for the citizen, and not the citizen for the college. I go further and say that the church exists for the citizen, and not the citizen for the church. That church will take its place and do its work that sets before its people the highest type of true Canadian citizenship. It is not the cut or the colour of the leader's garb that to-day has or to-morrow will have any influence along the line of real leadership. It is not what is below a man's collar that makes for citizenship, but what is above it. What is above it is of prime importance; what is below vit is of very minor importance.
The ratification of this Treaty of Peace, including the Covenant of the League, of Nations, Mr. Speaker, will take place, I believe. That means that we are entering upon a new era with a new and a larger life. Our responsibilities are great, our obligations are heavy, but our resources are

almost boundless. With faith in our future and with confidence in one another and with a sincere purpose to give the very-best that is in us to our country and to posterity, I believe that we can and will not only take our place but maintain that position in the world's great League of Nations.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
Tuesday, September 9, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey) moved:: That the following members of Parliament, to wit: Sir Sam Hughes, Messrs. Kay, Boivin, and Arthurs, be appointed a special committee to act with a like committee of the Senate, to confer and act with the members of the Senate and House of Commons who have in charge the building and arrangement of the new Parliament Buildings, for the purpose of considering and reporting upon the form of the memorial to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, M.P., for Brome, to be erected in the said building; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot say that the Government has figured out what the expectation will be. Hon. members have before them the provisions of the Treaty which determine the method under which the total amount of the indemnity is to be arrived at and fixed. Hon. gentlemen will also have observed that when the sum of the indemnity is established the treaty provides that it
is to be distributed amongst the allied and associated powers under an agreement to be reached and upon equitable terms which no doubt will involve some distribution proportionate to the losses established by each of the countries. I do not know what material Mr. Massey had at his disposal for establishing that particular figure for New Zealand, but I do not think there will be any advantage gained through our endeavouring to arrive at an estimate at the present moment when the amount has to be determined in the manner I have indicated.



THE PEACE TREATY.


William Stevens Fielding: As a motion for a return would involve a very considerable delay, might I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be desirable if he should bring down forthwith copies of the correspondence which may have taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments on two branches of the subjects; first in regard to the representation of Canada at the Peace Conference, and, second, as to the steps that might be deemed necessary for the ratification or approval of the treaty? It is very desirable before the House comes to a vote on this question that the correspondence should be laid before it, and I hope the Government will see the desirability of producing it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware that there is correspondence upon either of these two subjects. I, however, will be glad to consult with the Prime Minister and ascertain if there be.



PRIVILEGE.-MR. GAUVREAU.

Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It is very seldom that I bother about attacks coming from the newspapers but I cannot allow this one to pass without a protest. I hild in my hand a copy of the paper La Minerve of Montreal (a very respectable paper sixty years ago) whose chief editor is Mr. Sauve, the Conservative leader of three members of the Opposition in Quebec. Dealing with the question in regard to defaulters that I have placed on the Order Paper of this House, here is what he says, speaking about myself:
What has he not said against England? What has he not said against Englishmen in this country? What has he not said against this Government?

If it is a crime, Mr. Speaker, to speak against the Government in this House or out of it, I plead guilty; but as to the other accusation, I say it is totally unfounded, malicious, and untrue. The best proof of that which I can give is the fact that I have had six elections in a riding where there are numbers of English speaking people who have voted for me. If Mr. Sauve, in the next issue of his paper, cannot give proof of what he has stated in this article, I think I will be entitled to brand him as a low, common, cowardly liar.


Mr. BE  LAND@: Have you not a son in the Imperial navy?	[DOT]


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Two.



GREAT WAR VETERANS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. iC. G. POWER (Quebec South):	I
would like to inquire of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Mewburn), or the hon. the Minister of Justice whether or not any protests have been received by the ministers or by any members of the Government relating to the refusal of the Prime Minister to grant to the Great War Veterans a commission to inquire into the proposed bonus of an undefined sum of money which the Great War Veterans have requested them to grant.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The Minister of Militia informs me that he has received no such protest, and I am not aware of the receipt of any by the other members of the Government.



WINNIPEG STRIKE LEADERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I wish to call the attention of the Government to a despatch which was recently published in the press containing a statement made by Mr. J. B. MacLachlan, secretary of the United Mine Workers. The despatch in question which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of September 5, reads:
Unless the Winnipeg strike leaders now imprisoned in the West are released on bail before the 17th of this month Canada will be tied up from coast to coast by a gigantic strike embracing every industry under union control according to a statement made to the Canadian Press to-day by J. B. MacLachlan, United Mine Workers district secretary.
MacLachlan represented the situation as serious in the extreme unless the authorities grant the Winnipeg men bail. The threatened strike will tie up the coal mines in this district and practically close down the industry in Sydney. 
I would like to know if the Government is aware of this despatch, and if so what steps it intends to take in the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that the Government has had its attention specially called to the statement, but I might observe that the court refused to grant bail in this case. I doubt very much if the court would look upon a threat of that kind as an argument which would justify its altering its decision.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear .


Joseph Archambault: Even if that was the decision of the court, we may be threatened with a repetition of the events which happened a few months ago.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has put his question and received an answer.



CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.


John Alexander Macdonald Armstrong: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia if his attention has been called to an article which appeared in this morning's edition of the Ottawa papers, emanating apparently from Wing-ham, Ontario, in which Mr. McMillan of Seaforth, who, according to the press of last week, made certain charges against that department, as to the padding of pay lists, has repeated the charge and gone further and stated that he had obtained his information from a pamphlet which had been public property for some time, and he adds that he is willing to come to Ottawa at any time he is needed. In view of the very patriotic stand that this bucolic figure has taken, I would ask whether or not it is possible for the Government to provide him with a pass and bring him to Ottawa? If it is not, whether the Government would have any objection-I am a poor man myself-to buying a ticket for him to bring him here so that he may have the opportunity of proving whether or not the statement he has made is true or false. I think the people of this country have a right to know whether the pay lists of the boys overseas have been padded to the extent of 30,000 names, and whether or not, according to Mr. McMillan's statement, this country has wrongfully paid out $30,000,000?


Major General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia):: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) a few days ago brought to my attention the statement of Mr. McMillan.
I stated then that I intended to have a

letter sent to him asking him to give me any information on which an investigation could be based. I sent the letter to Mr. McMillan, and I have had no reply. My attention has not been drawn to the article to which the hon. member now refers. I have no personal knowledge of the pamphlet alluded to, but the matter will certainly not, be allowed to rest where it is at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.



MILITARY POLICE AND THE USE OP FIRE-ARMS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AUGUSTE T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.): I desire to ask the Minister of Justice a question. It seems that members of the military police force throughout Canada, and especially in some parts of the Maritime Provinces, are using fire-arms very freely. I know of one or two, or more, instances where such officers have fired revolvers against pretended defaulters, and wounded them. My question is,'have the military police the right to use firearms in the performance of their duties?
Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon, gentleman would have to give more details of the circumstances he has referred to before his question could be answered. It is difficult to answer a general question of the kind. I think there are circumstances under which it might be desirable, and even necessary, for a police officer, in the performance of his duty, to have firearms and possibly to use them. I do not think I can give a, general abstract answer as to whether or not under any conditions he has a right to do so. I should say that there are conditions under which it might be the right of the officer to do so.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask if there are any general regulations as to the use of fire-arms by these police officers in the discharge of their duties, and if so will they be laid upon the table of the House for the information of members?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into the matter and if there are such regulations they will be brought down.


Jacques Bureau: If there are no such regulations, shall we be informed of the fact?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there are none, it will be eo stated.



THE PEACE TREATY.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the following proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden, adjourned from September 8:
That it'is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the members dn this side of the House have been crittieised for having requested la short delay for ithe purpose of acquainting themselves with the provisions of the Peace Treaty before giving their decision on the most important resolution now submitted to them. May I say that I do not offer any apology for the oourse I have followed and fox having refused to be a mere registering machine to record the will of any man, even the distinguished Prime Minister of this country. Nor should any criticism of the provisions, or some of the provisions, of the Treaty, be branded as party politics. The real danger to Canada lies in the action of those seemingly irresponsible persons who are ready to approve without knowing, or to promise without acquainting themselves with what they are promising. If what the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has suggested is right, and that our adoption of the proposed resolution is necessary to the validity and the coming into force of the Peace Treaty, this would perhaps be the most important session of Parliament held since Confederation. We would be called upon to take a decision tbait might effect the lives, happiness, fortunes, and security of the sons Of Canada for many years to come. Surely, therefore, it is our imperative duty to inform ourselves thoroughly as to what we are about to do and to give this matter a mast careful scrutiny.
I may say, however, that in my humble opinion the resolution now before the House will not influence one iota the proceedings with regard to the Treaty or its coming into force, and that under our constitution we shall be bound by its provisions.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given the other day by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to my hon. friend

the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) that I am not living in the past, but that I am a Canadian of 1919, claiming for my country all the rights she is entitled to and desirous to see her go forward and occupy amongst the nations of the world the place she deserves. But the mere assertion of an illusion or a dream as being a fact does not make it so. I have no hesitation in stating that the Treaty will be binding upon us regardless of the resolution now before this House. The Government press is deceiving its readers by asserting that we are called upon to ratify the Peace Treaty. I have here a sample of that deception taken from the Toronto Times:
The British and New Zealand Governments have ratified the Peace Treaty; the other selfgoverning: dominions are proceeding to do so. When Sir Robert Borden moves for ratification at Ottawa, Mr. Fielding raises objections. He wants to know what difference it will make if Parliament refuses to act. In so doing he sneers at Canada's new national status which the Prime Minister rescued from the Peace Conference.
That, Sir, is a mistake. Parliament is not called upon to ratify the Treaty. I see that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) is nodding his assent to my contention, but in case there should be any further misapprehension on the point I will take the liberty of quoting constitutional authorities to bear me out. My first authority is Todd's Parliamentary Government in England under the heading of "The Right of making Treaties:"
It is a peculiar function of sovereignty to make treaties, leagues, and alliances with foreign states or princes; and by the law of nations it is essential to the validity of a treaty that it be made by the sovereign power, for then it binds the whole community.
In the British Empire this sovereign power is vested exclusively in the crown, acting under the advice of its responsible ministers.
Whatever engagements or contracts the sovereign enters into, no other power within the kingdom can legally delay, resist or annul; although the king's ministers are responsible to Parliament for their participation in the conclusion of any treaty derogatory to tile honour and interests of the nation.
And further:
The constitutional power appertaining to Parliament in respect to treaties is limited. It doe* not require their formal sanction or ratification by Parliament, as a condition of their validity.
And further:
But while Parliament may refuse to agree to measures submitted to them for the purpose of giving effect to any treaty, they have no power to change or modify, in any way, a treaty itself.
My other authority is Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution. He states:
['Mr. E. Lapointe.]
When a treaty is concluded it is signed and sealed in duplicate by the ministers representing their respective countries with their- own seals. If the treaty contains, as is usual, a clause providing that it shall be ratified and ratifications exchanged at some future date and specified place, then until ratification neither side is bound by it. If there is no such clause, the treaty takes effect in accordance with the terms therein contained. The power to ratify or reject is vested in different parts of the Sovereign power, according to the constitution of different countries, in a popular assembly, as the Cortes in Portugal; in a second chamber, as the Senate in the United States; in the Executive, as the Crown in England.
It would appear that the Government of Great Britain did not want this House or my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to be under any misapprehension as to that. Mr. Lloyd George did not move a resolution in the British House of Commons ratifying or approving the Peace Treaty; all he did was to introduce -a Bill, similar to that which has been introduced here, to give effect to some provisions of the Treaty for the appointment of officers and other purposes. He even took the trouble to say that the Treaty did not require any ratification. On introducing the Bill he spoke as follows :
There are two Bills which I shall have to ask the leave of the House to introduce. It is unnecessary to obtain the ratification of Parliament to the Treaty except in one or two particulars.
And the leader of the Government in the House of Lords also took the trouble to state the position in these words:
My Lords, this Bill to which I have the honour to ask Tour Lordships to give a second reading is not, for the reasons which I explained ' the other day, a Bill ratifying the Treaty of Peace that has been concluded between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, but it is a Bill giving power for the execution of the Treaty in certain respects for which Parliamentary sanction is required.
Will any hon. gentleman say that the Canadian Parliament has more power with regard to the ratifying of treaties- than the Parliament of the Mother Country? If it has, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is right in saying that we have made an important step forward. Indeed, we have gone so fast that the citizens of the United Kingdom cannot keep pace with us and are not aware of our rapid advance.
But let us not delude onrselves, Mr. Speaker. We have absolutely no right to change, alter, or modify this Treaty in any way. We cannot change one line of it; we cannot dot one "i", we cannot cross one "t"; and whatever we may presume to do we shall nevertheless be bound by its provisions. The fact that the representatives

of Canada added their signatures to those of the British representatives does not change our constitutional position. It will he noticed that the first lines of the Treaty describe who are the parties to it. Twenty-iseven powers-not thirty-two-are mentioned on the part of the Allies, of which five are described as the principal Allied and Associated powers, being the United. States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan. The other twenty-two powers are then enumerated, and they do not include Canada. Obviously Canada is there as part of the British Empire and has no separate entity.
Then, on page 2 and following pages are given the names of the representatives of the various powers or high contracting parties, as follows:
The President of The United States of America, by:
The Honourable Woodrow Wilson, President of The United States ;
The Honourable Robert Lansing;
The Honourable Henry White ;
The Honourable Edward M. House;
General Tasker H. Bliss.
Then, the second one is:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, by:
The Right Honourable David Lloyd George;
The Right Honourable Andrew Bonar Law;
The Right Honourable Viscount Milner;
The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour ;
The Right Honourable George Nicoll Barnes.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that it is clearly and unmistakably stated that His Majesty is so represented for all purposes by these gentlemen; he is not represented in a restricted way. Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bonar Law and the other British plenipotentiaries are not described as representing His Majesty for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; they represent him for the British Empire at large. Then follow the words:	.
And for the Dominion of Canada, by:
The Honourable Charles Joseph Doherty;
The Honourable Arthur Lewis Sifton.
For the Commonwealth of Australia, by:
The Right Honourable William Morris Hughes;
The Right Honourable Sir Joseph Cook.
For the Union of South Africa, by:
General the Right Honourable Louis Botha;
Lieutenant General the Right Honourable Jan Christian Smuts.
For the Dominion of New Zealand, by:
The Right Honourable William Ferguson Massey.
For India, by:
The Right Honourable Edwin Samuel Montagu ;
Major-General His Highness Maharaja Sir Ganga Singh Bahadur.
So that whatever step we have taken towards nationhood by signing the Treaty has also been taken by India-and nobody in this House will suggest that India has approached the stage of nationhood; she does not even enjoy responsible government.
I am glad, indeed, that we had representatives at the Peace Conference. I do not share the opinion of those who claim that we had. no business to be there. My criticism is rather in the opposite direction; my complaint is that our representatives were not there on a basis of perfect equality with those of the Mother Country.
The Prime Minister said the other day, in his speech on the resolution which is now before us, that Canada had been consulted prior to. the Peace Conference, through the *medium of the Imperial War Cabinet, with regard to the conditions of peace which should be imposed upon Germany. I accept this statement, though there is evidence to qualify it. On November 5, 1918, representatives of the Allied Governments gathered at Versailles for the purpose of dictating the terms of peace to be complied with by Germany prior to an armistice. On that occasion they issued the following declaration:
The Allied Governments have given careful consideration to the correspondence -which has passed between the President of the United States and the German Government. Subject to the qualifications which follow, they declare their willingness to make terms with the Government of Germany on the terms of Peace laid down in the President's address to Congress of January, 191'8, and the principles of settlement enumerated In his subsequent addresses.
These were the " Fourteen Points " of President Wilson. That declaration was sent to Germany and Germany asked for an armistice, which was granted under those conditions. That declaration having been made, there remained, as President Wilson said to Congress, only the " interpretation and application " of the specified terms. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. W. M. Hughes, was in London before Mr. Lloyd George left for Versailles. Everybody understood that the object of the conference was to arrange the terms of an armistice. Mr. Hughes had no idea that terms of peace were to be discussed; no intimation to that effect was given to him. Three days after the meeting, in an address to the Australasian Club in London, he entered a vigorous protest against what had been done. He spoke as follows:
In the settlement of the Terms of Peace the Dominions have not been consulted. They have *been informed of those terms, as indeed, has every other citizen throughout the Empire, but

have had no share in shaping them. I am1 not going to say more on that point than to express regret that the Dominions have not had an opportunity of stating their views before the terms of Peace were decided. It may be said that the Dominions will have an opportunity of expressing their opinions at the Peace Conference. It may be that this will he so, hut it is .perfectly clear that the deliberations of the delegates at the Peace Conference will he limited by the terms of Peace already settled. Beyond this they cannot go. They can neither take from nor add to these.
He followed liis speech by a letter in the London Times, in which he said:
I have remained here at my Government's request for the purpose of setting forth its views -with which, I need hardly say, I agree-before any terms of peace were definitely settled. But no opportunity has been given me to do this. I was not even informed that the peace terms were being discussed at the Versailles Conference, which I had presumed was engaged in settling the terms of the armistice with Germany as it had done in the case of Austria. The first intimation I received that the terms of peace had been discussed at Versailles was conveyed in the document which notified me that they had been definitely settled.
Mr. Bonar Law was asked in the House oi Commons whether the Dominions had been requested to attend the Conference, and he dodged the question by saying that all the Dominions could not have been represented. When asked why Mr. Hughes, who was in England at the time, had not been invited to attend, he replied:	" I really do not
think we can go into details." This shows conclusively that this Dominion, as well as the other sister nations of the Empire, had not been consulted in a very extensive way with regard to the conditions of peace which were to be required of Germany.
Indeed, it was quite proper that Canada should be invited to the Peace Conference. The glorious part she played in the war and the sacrifices made by her heroic soldiers entitled her to at least an honourable and courteous recognition. But as part of the British Empire, Canada, as well as India- having regard to the constitutional relations existing, as 'between the Dominions and the Mother Country-was and is bound by the signature of the representatives ol the British Empire and the ratification oi the Crown. The Treaty is made between the British Empire and the other powers, and whether we approve of it or not, it binds the whole of the British Empire, including the Dominion of Canada.
A proclamation .by this Parliament that we refuse to be bound by this Treaty and to acknowledge the right of the British representatives to sign this Treaty for us would be tantamount to a declaration of independence and a formal separation from [Mr .E. Lapointe.]
the Empire. It is useless and idle for hon. gentlemen to wax eloquent about our achievement towards full and complete nationhood, as the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) did last session, and as I fully expect he will do to-day, and to become intoxicated with the flavour of his own magnifying words.


Jacques Bureau: That is the only intoxication he can have.
Mr. .LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):	I beg
my hon. friend's pardon, I should have used another word. I will substitute " overexcited."


William Findlay Maclean: Inebriated.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Do not talk prohibition.	.


Ernest Lapointe: A necessary attribute of full sovereignty from the, standpoint of international law is the independence of . a state of every other state in the matter of its international rights	as well as in the
matter of its domestic policies. The Prime Minister described our membership in the League of Nations as a further manifestation of our new status. May I say again, that we share that honour with India, which I am sure does not claim to have reached nationhood as the result of such membership. But even there we are made members of the League by no act of our own, but by the high contracting parties, of which Canada is not one except as part of the British Empire. We were contracted into the League of Nations.
But the fact that we are designated in the League of Nations as a separate entity creates nevertheless an anomalous and equivocal situation. We are going to have separate representatives in the assembly of the League. We have even the right to be represented on the Council by one of the four representatives of the small nations, if the assembly chooses to elect or appoint one Canadian representative as one of those four delegates on the Council. I expect, however, that this is not likely to occur and that the British Empire, having permanent representation on the Council of the League, the other nations will not appoint a representative of Canada as one of the four representatives of the small nations. According to the Covenant, whenever a dispute is submitted to the League, the nations that are parties to the dispute do not vote. If a dispute intervenes between Great Britain-I mean between the United Kingdom-and, for instance, the United

States, will Canada, as a separate member of the League, have the right to vote, or shall we be considered as a party to the dispute by reason of the fact that we are part of the British Empire? I should like the President of the Council who, I expect, is going to speak this afternoon, to answer this question. But Mr. Woodrow Wilson has already ariswered the question from his point of view, and I should, indeed, like to know whether his point of view coincides with that of our representative in the League. Mr. Wilson, in the course of a conference between himself and a committee of the United States Senate, made this declaration which is taken from page 4284 of the Congressional Record "of the present month:
Senator Brandegee:	Supposing there were a
dispute between- the United States and that portion of the British Empire known as the United Kingdom-England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales-as to some right of one of our ships to enter an English port, for instance, and that dispute should come before the Council, and, upon the request of Great Britain, it should be removed to the assembly. The article I have just read provides for a report concurred in " exclusive in each case of the representatives of the parties to the dispute."
The President:	Yes.
Senator Brandegee : Now, all the self-governing, colonies of England, or at least five of them, have a vote in the assembly, and the British Empire also has a vote. I assume in the case of the dispute which I have supposed ,of course, the United States would be excluded from voting, as being a party to the dispute; and I assume the British Empire would be excluded, but I am not sure.
The President:	Yes, sir; that is what I assume.
Senator Brandegee: Do you assume also that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and India would be excluded?
The President:	They are parts of the British
Empire.
Senator Brandegee:	They are parts of the
British Empire, but are they parties to the dispute which I have supposed to have arisen between us and England?
The President:	1 admit. Senator, that that
is a complicated question; but my judgment about it is quite clear. I think I can give one instead of three answers.
Senator Brandegee:	Yes.
The President:	Disputes can arise only
through the Government which have international representation. In other words, diplomatically speaking, there is only one " British Empire." The parts of it are but pieces of the whole. The dispute, therefore, in the case you have supposed, would be between the United States as a diplomatic unit and .the British Empire as a diplomatic unit. That is the only ground upon which the two nations could deal with one another, whether by way of dispute or agreement. Therefore, I have assumed and confidently assume that the representatives of all parts of the British Empire would be excluded.
Senator Knox:	But the fact that you give
representation to Canada and Australia and New
Zealand and other autonomous self-governing British colonies rather contradicts the idea, does it not, that they are one Government?
The President:	I think not, sir, because in
making up the constitution of the Council, it was provided, to speak with technical accuracy, that the five principal allied or associated governments should each have one representative in the League; and in the opening paragraph of the Treaty itself those powers are enumerated, and among others is the British Empire. "The Empire of Great Britain," I think, is the technical term. Therefore, their unity is established by their representation in the Council.
I should like my hon. friend to say if he concurs in this expression of opinion of Mr. Wilson, one of the fathers of the League. We are facing an unavoidable dilemma. If the opinion of President Wilson is correct, we are not enjoying a full and separate membership in the League; we are a mere addition to the voting power of the British Empire when questions in which the Empire has no concern are discussed and decided upon. On the other hand, if that opinion is erroneous, if we are for all purposes separate and distinct members of the League what would be our position in case of a conflict ' between Great Britain and another member of the League, in which the executive of the League should decide against Great Britain and a war ensue? Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads as follows:
Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League, which hereby undertake Immediately to subject It to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking state, and the prevention of all financial commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the League or not.
It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenant of the League.
The consequence therefore would be, il we are to be considered as a separate entity in the League, that we would have to keep our pledge, redeem out obligations, and *side with the other members of the League against Great Britain, and thereby cease to remain in the Empire, ot else we would disregard and break our pledges under the Treaty and take sides with Great Britain. We would have to violate either the Treaty or the constitution of Canada; either the one or the other. All this is the consequence of our present constitutional relations; it is the inescapable logic of our



international situation. Most assuredly the position is anomalous and abnormal. The right hon. the Prime Minister fully recognizes that. He emphatically states that a change must be made. Let me quote his very words (Hansard, September 2, 1919, p. 23):
The future relationship of the nations of the Empire must he determined in accordance with the will of the Mother Country and each Dominion in a constitutional conference to be summoned in the not distant future. Undoubtedly it will be based upon equality of nationhood. Each nation must preserve unimpaired its absolute autonomy, but it must likewise have its voice as to those external relations which involve the issue of peace or of war. So that the Britannic Commonwealth is in itself a community or league of nations which may serve as an exemplar to that world-wide League of Nations which was founded in Paris on the 28th of last June.
So the Prime Minister of Canada commits himself in emphatic words to the claim of full equality of nationhood at this proposed conference. It will indeed mean a radical change, and I sincerely hope that this aim is possible of attainment. The party with which I am associated has always taken and held advanced ground on this most important question, but I desire to say to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that if I would favour an association of the various nations of the Empire on the basis of full equality, I am strongly opposed, and I believe the people of Canada
4 p.m. are opposed, to all schemes of centralization by which Canadian policies would be framed and decided upon outside of Canada by any body of men in which Canada would have only one representative out of twelve. Canada will never agree to be ruled or governed from any place other than Ottawa. Canada is a nation, wants to be a nation, and she never, never, will become a province.
The right hon. the Prime Minister spoke in laudatory terms of the Imperial War Cabinet. He may be assured that any such representation or voice as Canada had in that body will not satisfy the Canadian people. His words of last year that the Imperial War Cabinet was a cabinet of governments were grandiloquent words, and nothing else. There is no such thing as a cabinet of governments. There cannot be a cabinet unless there is also a parliament to which such cabinet is directly responsible. Even in Great Britain the functions of that cabinet were not understood or defined. I find in the Hansard of the British House of Commons the following illuminating question and answer:

P. E. Morrell, M.P.: If the Imperial War Cabinet is executive what is its relation to the War Cabinet of five?
Mr. Bonar Law:	It is difficult and not very
advisable to define the relation.
I quite understand that answer.


Jacques Bureau: Very diplomatic.


Ernest Lapointe: Any such body as the Imperial War Cabinet will not satisfy the aspirations of the people of Canada. I hope, Sir, that in any schemes which may be contemplated the truly Canadian position will be adopted and maintained. A famous French statesman was once asked his advice as to the best constitution for France. "It is France itself," was his answer. I believe it would be well to apply the same principle to Canada, and say that the best constitution for Canada is Canada. Our national peace and harmony proceed, from natural laws which must toe ascertained by the application of scientific methods. Greatest among those laws is that of descent and heredity, which it is useless to try to supersede. Consequences invariably proceed tfrom antecedents.
I also desire to tell the Government that any proposed changes should be submitted to Parliament before Canadian representatives agree to such changes. For the Canadian ministers to go to London, agree to a proposition and come back to this Parliament with a cut-and-dried arrangement is not treating the Parliament of Canada fairly. We must be consulted before, not after. When the pact of Confederation was entered into-and at that time it was a great constitutional change in this country -the first step was the introduction and the adoption of a resolution by the Parliament of United Canada. And. Sir, such precedent niurt be followed in any other constitutional changes that may be devised for this country. I also submit that no important changes should be effected without a referendum to the people of Canada which is the supreme master of its destinies. I was Surprised yesterday to hear my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifbon) say that it is all very well to submit a change to the people of Canada when that change is in the wrong direction but that is not necessary when the change is in the right direction. That is good Conservative, Tory doctrine. Let me remind my honv friend that all arbitrary rulers, all privileged classes, all selfish interests, have always contended that they were working in the

right direction. With all deference to my hon. Mend, it is not the Minister of Public Works or bis colleagues who should judge o.r decide what is best for the people of Canada. lit is for the people of Canada themselves to say. I have said that the question should be decided by .a referendum and not by a general election because in a general election there are so many other questions and considerations >as to becloud the issue. We cannot-we must not- gamble with the .future destinies of our country.
I shall now say a few words about the Peace Treaty itself. It has been stated in the papers and it has been stated in speeches from the other side of the House that this involves a constitutional change, a remarkable step. I have taken the trouble to inquire what that ohange iis and how that step has been taken. Holding the vieiw I do and being .convinced that anything I may say, or even any vote I may give on the resolution, would have no effect whatever on the validity or binding power of the Treaty, I shall not attempt to enter very extensively into the discussion of what I consider to be Tather an. academic resolution. This Treaty was obviously a compromise between various interests and although some features of 'the agreement are objectionable, I am free to state that in a general way the statesmen who participated in its preparation deserve a good deal of credit. Germany has been made to pay a severe penalty for her brutal and criminal actions. Militarism is hopelessly broken. She i.s left without a general staff, without conscription, without universal military training, with a strictly limited amount of light artillery, with no. air service, no fleet, no domestic basis in the way of raw material for armament manufacture and with her whole western border fifty kilometers east of 'the Rhine unfortified and demilitarized. New natibns are created preserving generally, if not invariably, national aspirations and racial lines. A very unfortunate exception is made in the case of Shantung which in many respects constitutes a rank injustice.
Principles of natural law and morality in dealing with racial and national minorities in each country are enunciated and sanctioned by the great powers of the world. May I be permitted to quote Article VIII of the Treaty with Poland which embodies the general principles asserted in the Peace Treaty?
Polish Nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the
si
same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Polish Nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.
Article IX was quoted yesterday by my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland). This is not to he wondered at. Poland has agreed to that most willingly because Poland Oaiew what coercion meant in these matters. As was pointed out in an article in the Montreal Gazette this morning, the three powerful governments of three great empires adopted a policy of one flag, one school, and one language for their Polish provinces. The governments have gone, the flags have gone, the Polish language remains. It has outlived the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, and the Romanoffs. I would advise some of the public men of Canada to read this clause, think it over carefully and forever banish from their ' minds the Prussian idea of proscribing anywhere in this country the language of its discoverers and first settlers. Surely the laws of morality and natural justice must apply equally to the victorious nations as to the countries which they have created.
Finally, and this is from my point of view the most important part of the Treaty, there is the creation of a League of Nations. In principle there is no stronger admirer or partisan of the establishment of such a league than I am. The war that has been fought was a war to end all wars and wars cannot be ended unless the old system is changed. The fact that the Turkish State, a disgrace to civilization, had to be1 maintained to ensure what was called the balance of power, is to my mind a sufficient reason to discredit the old system. When the great project of a League of Nations was launched, the democracy of the world rallied to its support. But I am afraid that the true Mends of the League are not satisfied with the body which is created by the Peace Treaty and the various articles of the Covenant which shall govern its functions. Certain statesmen in sympathy with the old order, the most distinguished of whom is Mr. Clemenoeau, the Prime Minister, never concealed their hostility to the new proposal and I fear that their influence was felt in such a strong manner that what is called the League of Nations in the Treaty does not differ much from the old balance of power.

The first object of the League of Nations in the minds of its first advocates was to abolish militarism and to secure general disarmament. Nobody thought that this meant disarmament for Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, and a race for armaments between the members of the League. Yet no one will deny that this is the present condition of things.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Wait a minute. The United States propose to increase their military strength four times what it was prior to the war-who- says " not at all and proceed also to the building up of a powerful navy. Great Britain is considering a new scheme of naval power, and Admiral Jellicoe has left on a pilgrimage to the various British Dominions to offer them free and generous advice as to what they should do in the matter of organizing and maintaining a navy, or contributing to the Imperial navy. May I suggest that when the noble lord reaches this country he should be granted a most cordial welcome, but at the same time made to understand that it would be more appropriate for him to wait until he is called upon to do so by the people of Canada before offering his advice? In the meantime, our own peaceful country has doubled the number of men who compose the permanent militia. Indeed, the nations which are members of the League do not display much confidence in their own creature as to maintaining the peace of the world. I sincerely hope that militarism will be crushed not only in Germany, but everywhere. I am glad the League, will see to it that no military force shall be maintained except what is absolutely necessary for police protection.
Another condition which is essential to the success of the League is that it must be a League of all the nations and not an alliance of some nations as against the others. Even Germany must be admitted to membership in the League. Lord Robert Cecil, the strongest friend and supporter of the League in England, has just written a very important article advocating general disarmament and admission of the enemy countries to the League as the two necessary conditions to its ultimate success.
As to the famous Article X of the Covenant, I admit that my objections to that article are not, perhaps, so strong as they were before I studied the various provisions of the Covenant and before I read the explanation given by President Wilson a few days ago to [Mr. E. Lapointe. I
the United States senators. But I would like to know whether Mr. Wilson's interpretation of the articles of the Covenant coincides with the opinion of our own Government as to the meaning of that clause. The President, as reported at page 4284 of the Congressional Record, says:
In order to answer that question I must go a little hit afield. In the first place, I understand that article to mean that no nation is at liberty to invade the territorial integrity of another. That does not mean to invade for purposes of warfare, but to impair the territorial integrity of another nation. Its territorial integrity is not destroyed by armed intervention ; it is destroyed by the retention of territory, by taking territory away from' it; that impairs its territorial integrity. I understand the Covenant to mean that that is in no case permissible by the action of a single nation against another; that there is only one permissible method and that is, if territorial arrangements are unsatisfactory, that they should be brought to the attention ot the world through the League and that then the League should exercise such rights as it may be able to exercise for a readjustment of boundaries.	-
I believe that territorial aggression, in the sense of territorial capture, is, by the wording of the Act, made illegitimate.
Senator Brandegee:	The words are not
" territorial aggression," but " external aggression."
The President:	But it says the preservation
of its territorial integrity against internal aggression.
Senator Brandegee:	Suppose the external
aggressor, having gotten within the territory of the aggressee, stays there?
The President:	Then that impairs the territorial integrity.
Senator Brandegee: Certainly ; and then on a call by the council for us to perform our international contract under article 10, if Congress does not favour performing it you think we would not be subject to criticism by the othej members,of the League?
The President:	Oh, we might be subject to
criticism; but I think Congress would be at liberty to form its own judgment as to the circumstances
Senator Brandegee: I agree with you entirely, and under our constitution Congress would have to do so.
The President:	Yes; that is understood by
all.
As to what each member of the League would be obliged to do, that would be following a recommendation by the Council of the League, and here are Mr. Wilson's words, and I would ask my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) to say also whether his own opinion coincides with Mr. Wilson's interpretation. I am now quoting from page 4271 of the Congressional Record:
Article 10 is in no respect of doubtful meaning when read in the light of the Covenant as a whole. The Council of the League can only '[DOT]advise upon" the means by which the obligations of that great article are to be given effect to. Unless the United States is a party to the policy or action in question, her own affirmative

vote in the Council is necessary .before any advice can be given, for a unanimous vote of the council is required. If she is a party, the trouble is hers anyhow. And the unanimous vote of the council is only advice in any case. Each government is free to reject it if it pleases. Nothing could have been made more clear to the conference than the right of our Congress under our Constitution to exercise its independent judgment in all matters of peace and war. No attempt was made to question or limit that right.
I would like the Government of thi& country to give us the same interpretation of Article X of the Covenant as the President of the United States has given to the United States Senate.
Another question which was rather difficult was that concerning our right to withdraw from the League. The Covenant gives that right to all members of the League, provided they have fulfilled their international obligations and given two years' notice of withdrawal. I was afraid that it would be the Council of the League that would judge as to whether a member asking for withdrawal had fulfilled its international obligations, but here again President Wilson gives another interpretation. Here is what he has to say:
The United States was by no means the only Government interested in the explicit adoption of this provision, and there is no doubt in the mind of any authoritative student of international law that such matters as immigration, tariffs, and naturalization are incontestably domestic questions with which no international body could deal without express authority to do so. No enumeration of domestic questions was undertaken because to undertake it, even by sample, would have involved the danger of seeming to exclude those not mentioned.
The right of any sovereign State to withdraw had been taken for granted, but no objection was made to making it explicit. Indeed, so soon as the views expressed at the White House Conference were laid before the commission it was at once conceded that it was best not to leave the answer to so important a question to inference. No proposal was made to set up any tribunal to pass judgment upon the question whether a withdrawing nation had in fact fulfilled " all its international obligations and all its obligations under the covenant." It was recognized that that question must be left to be resolved by the conscience of the nation proposing to withdraw.
Here again I would like to know whether this is the interpretation given by the representatives of Canada.
Sir, we must make sure that the supreme power of the Parliament of Canada will be asserted and maintained. We have been told very often that our soldiers fought to keep Canada free. We must see to it that our public men do not undo their work and bind Canada in any dangerous way. I would certainly favour an amendment or reservation clearly stating that our approval of the Treaty .shall in no way impair or take away the rights and privileges of the Parliament of Canada. At least, our responsible ministers should make this clear and give their interpretation of the Covenant, so that no danger will lie ahead of us. It must be made perfectly clear that no Canadian soldiers can ever be ordered to fight any where except by the authority of this Parliament. The lives of Canadian citizens must never be sacrificed except by *the will of the Canadian people expressed through their representatives in this House.
In conclusion, &ir, let me join those who have already spoken in expressing the hope that this Treaty will establish permanent peace in the world. I sincerely trust that iwhen this Treaty comes into force the bugle shall sound the truce of God to the whole world forever.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the address of my hon. friend the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), but I am quite sure the House could not but contrast the viewpoint presented by my hon. friend with that presented yesterday by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie)-two views of Canada's status about as far apart as possible.
My hon. friend in opening spoke of the importance of the question now before us and suggested that this session was the most momentous since Confederation. With the exception of the session of 1914, when Canada decided to throw her whole energy into the world struggle, I think what my hon. friend has said is true-that the question now before this House is the most important this country. has been called upon to consider.
My hon. friend spoke of the time required for consideration of the Treaty, and I agree with him that the matters dealt with in it are of so great moment, not only to Canada, but to all other portions of the British Empire and to the world, that every deliberative assembly owes it to itself, to the country which it represents, and to posterity, to give the gravest consideration to the problems presented. I regret, however, that the consideration which my hon. friend has given to those problems has not enabled him to accomplish some things which I think might have been of real benefit to the House. In the first place, it apparently has not enabled him to appreciate the resolution now under consideration. My hon. friend is an exceedingly able

lawyer and he spent some time in arguing that the ratification of the Treaty was an executive act of the Crown, and that therefore action by this Parliament was of no moment. There is no resolution before this House for the ratification of the Treaty. Let me read the resolution so that we may have the issue clearly before us. It is in this form:
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
There is not a word about ratification in that resolution. (My hon. friend need not quote constitutional authorities to show that it is not the function of Parliament to ratify treaties. Ratification is an executive Act by the head of . the State-in this case by the 'Sovereign. The Sovereign ratifies upon the advice of his constiutional advisers. But the view of the Government of Canada is, that while they had the right by executive act to advise His Majesty to ratify this Treaty with respect to 'Canada, yet having regard to the importance of this Treaty and its 'bearing upon the future history ol Canada, it was the duty of the Government to submit it to this Parliament and ask their approval before they took the responsibility of advising ratification. It is well, Mr. Speaker, that we should keep clear the issue that is before us.
My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) suggested yesterday, and it has also been suggested by other hon. members, that any action of ours is of no effect, that the Treaty is already in force so far as Canada is concerned by virtue of its ratification by Great Britain. That, again, is an entire misunderstanding of the situation. The Treaty has not been ratified by Great Britain. The British Parliament has passed the Act referred to, which, in giving power to the British Government to execute the Treaty, is, in effect, an approval of the Treaty by the British Parliament. But the British Parliament has not ratified it.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend says that Parliament does not have to ratify it.


Mr. ROWELL:: Parliament does not have to ratify it; it is an executive act.
[Mr. Rowell. 1


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that
the Parliament of Great Britain have not ratified the Treaty. But they do not have to ratify it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They have, in effect, approved it by passing that legislation. Let us clearly understand the situation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister
make clear to this House what is the difference, so far as the action of our plenipotentiaries is concerned, between our approving what they did and our ratifying what they did?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will try to answer my hon. frieend's question by stating the difference between " signing " and " ratification." Signing and ratification are two entirely different executive acts. One finally settles the terms of the Treaty-and once the Treaty is signed it cannot be amended; it is quite true that an " i " cannot be dotted or a "t " crossed, any more than one party to an agreement can dot an " i " or cross a " t '' or change the agreement in any way after it is signed, without the consent of the other party.
It is not anomalous that this Treaty should be brought before the House and that the House should not be in a position to amend it. When the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) brought down the reciprocity agreement some few years ago-an understanding arrived at in the form of correspondence between two Governments-this Parliament could not dot an " i " or cross a " t "-could not change the agreement in any way-without the consent of the other party to it. Was that any reason why the Parliament of Canada should not pass upon it? No, in that case Parliament was given an opportunity to pass upon the agreement.


Jacques Bureau: They could reject it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: And so can the Parliament of Canada reject this resolution to-day if it is unwise enough to take such action; but I do not think it is.


Jacques Bureau: What would be the effect of its doing so, then?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will come to that in time; let me first answer the leader of the Opposition. I point out these two distinct things: the executive act of signing, which settles the terms of the Treaty, and the executive act of ratification, which gives it legal effect. It does not become binding or effective until ratified. And what is the

reason? Take the case of United States as an illustration: the assent of the Senate of the United States is necessary before the Treaty can be ratified. As has been pointed out, in some other countries the assent of some governing body is necessary before the Treaty can be ratified. But between the date of signing and the date of ratification any nation has the legal right to refuse to proceed further with the treaty. In that case the Treaty fails for want of ratification.
As the leader of the Opposition has raised the question, let me give him one or two authorities on the subject. Yesterday he quoted from Halleok's International Law; I can do no better than submit a paragraph on this point from Halleck, for my hon. friend's information. I quote:
The question how far, under the positive law of nations, ratification by the State in whose name the treaty is made, by its duly authorized minister or diplomatic agent, furnished with full power, is essential to the validity of the treaty, was at one time the subject of much doubt and discussion. But it is now the settled usage to require such ratification, even where this pre-requisite is not reserved by the express terms of the treaty itself. The municipal constitution of the State determines in whom the power of ratification resides. By the constitution of the United States of America, treaties are negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President, but the advice and consent of the Senate is essential to enable him to pledge the national faith, by making a treaty the supreme law of the land.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend thinks that he is informing me, I may assure him that I am thoroughly familiar with those terms.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend is familiar with the terms I do not see why he asked what was the difference between ratification and approval.
On the question why there is a difference between signing and ratification, I quote from Oppenheim's International Law, second edition:
The rationale for the institution of ratification is another argument for the contention that the conclusion of the Treaty by the representatives is to be distinguished from the confirmation given by the respective States through ratification. The reason is that States want to have ai) opportunity of re-examining not the single stipulations, but the whole effect of the Treaty upon their interests. These interests may be of various kinds. They may undergo a change immediately after the signing of the Treaty by the representatives. They may appear to public opinion in a different light from that in which they appear to the governments, so that the latter want to reconsider the matter. Another reason is that treaties on many important matters, are, according to the Constitutional Law of most States, not valid without some kind
of consent of Parliaments. Governments must, therefore, have an opportunity of withdrawing from a Treaty in case Parliaments refuse their recognition. These two reasons have made, and still make, the institution of ratification a necessity for International Law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the situation is this: The Treaty has been signed; its terms are settled and concluded. It has not been ratified, and before His Majesty does ratify it, this Parliament is asked to express an opinion on the question whether it should be approved or not.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it not a fact that the Treaty has been ratified by His Majesty and that the only thing lacking now is the deposit of the ratification in Paris?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, my hon. friend is mistaken; it has not been ratified by His Majesty. All that has been done is this: The Imperial Parliament has passed an Act authorizing the British Government to take all action necessary to carry the Treaty into effect.


Jacques Bureau: Has it been signed by His Majesty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Act has been signed, but that has no more effect upon ratification, except as indicating the* attitude of the British Parliament, than has my hon. friend's question here to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: The Act would follow
ratification, to carry out its terms; it would not necessarily precede it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is quite correct. The Act need not necessarily precede ratification, but in this case it has preceded ratification. So far as this Parliament is concerned, we are submitting here a resolution calling for approval, upon which ratification will be based, and that will be followed by the Act asking authority to carry the Treaty into effect.
I trust that I have made clear to hon. members the difference between these two executive acts, signatures and ratification.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman has explained the difference between approval and ratification, not between signing and ratification.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thought I had made it clear in my earlier remarks that the Government, before recommending that His Majesty ratify, requested the approval of this Parliament as a basis for the Act.
A good deal of criticism has been made in this House and in the country with respect to the Government passing Orders

in Council. All the Orders passed since Union - Government was formed would not have one tithe as great an effect upon Canada and her future history as the passing of an Order in Council approving of this Treaty in order that it might be ratified by His Majesty. It was the bounden duty of the Government of Canada, having regard to the gravity of the issue involved, to submit this Treaty to Parliament and to ask its approval before the act of ratification took place.
Ahow pie to direct attention to the terms of the Treaty itself. The Treaty provides that it shall not come into effect until ratified. It expressly provides that it due- not go into effect until ratified by three great powers, and one of the urgent reasons for prompt action by this House is because His Majesty will not ratify the Treaty until the Parliaments of the Dominions have passed upon it, and His Majesty is exceedingly anxious that the British ratification should be deposited at the earliest possible date. The Treaty goes into effect with reference to the three great powers, and Germany, when this first certificate of ratification, is deposited. It goes into effect with reference to the other powers when they deposit their respective certificates of ratification; it does not affect any of the other powers until they make their deposit. 'Some hon. gentleman has suggested, that, the war was over when the Treaty was signed. Such is not the case. On page 8 of the Treaty it is expressly provided :
From the coming- into force of the present treaty the state of war will terminate.
Not only has the Treaty not yet been ratified, but the war with Germany will not be legally terminated until the Treaty is ratified by three of the great powers. My hon. friends have asked why this Treaty should be aubmitted to Parliament, and have suggested that there is no necessity for such a course being taken. On a number of occasions the Government of the day have submitted treaties to Parliament for approval. On two or three occasions at least that has been done, and I have copies of the Acts here. In other cases, treaties have been submitted for the purpose of securing the necessary legislation to carry them into effect. The Washington Treaty of 1888 was approved by this House before ratification. It did not finally go into effect because of the failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty. The Treaty with reference to pelagic sealing was not submitted to the House for approval before the Act

was passed, but the then Government oi Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed an Order in Council approving of the ratification of the Treaty by His Majesty. That Order in Council was transmitted to England, and His Majesty approved and ratified the Treaty with the advice, consent and approval of his Canadian advisers. Then, when the treaty was ratified, the necessary legislation was passed. We are, in this case, adopting the proper constitutional course. The difference is that we are going further than, any Government has gone up to this time by submitting the broad question of approval to the House for ratification-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My bon. frien-ds have used the word so often that I unconsciously used it. The difference is that we are going further than any Government -has gone up to this time by submitting the Treaty to the House for approval before the ratification is made.
I must say that I could hardly believe my ears yesterday when I heard 'the language of the leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) will pardon me if, for a moment ot two, I turn to the -argument of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), because, let me tell the House in confidence, my hon. friend's address yesterday kept me awake for two- or three hours last night.


Jacques Bureau: That is -pretty good.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to the statement of my -hon. friend yesterday with [DOT] reference to Canada's status as part of the British Empire and her relation to the other nations of the^ world. My hon. fni-end said that Canada was not a nation; that Canada did not possess the rights of sovereignty; that all her legislation might, under the terms of the British North America Act, be vetoed by the Imperial 'Government. * I felt perfectly sure that there was, nothing in the history of the Liberal party or Liberal Administration, from which my hon. friend could have gathered any such views as he presented to the House in reference to the status of Canada. I am more familiar with Liberal history and traditions than I am with Conservative history and traditions.


Jacques Bureau: It is coming quick.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend says: "It is coming quick." I am going to study it 'to see -if I cannot find some more precedents -away back fifty or sixty years ago for the present attitude of some of my hon. friends.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quoted section 56 of the British North America Act. If that does not justify my position, I was wrong.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will deal with that in a moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You had better.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I knew there was in the [DOT]history and traditions of the Liberal party, nothing that would justify the attitude of [DOT]the leader of the Opposition, so I thought I would make a study of the history of the Conservative party to see if I could find there anything that would justify his attitude. I thought the best place to search would be in some of the speeches and addresses of the greatest leader of the Conservative party in Canada, the father of the modern Conservative party, Sir John Macdonald, and I found in his speech introducing the resolutions in favour of Confederation, that one of the arguments he used in support of it was that it meant the founding of a great new nationality on this half of the North American continent; that he looked upon Canada as a nation, true, he said, dependent; and he pictured the national ideal that stood out before us in the splendid address which he delivered in support of those resolutions. That was in 1863 or 1864. I thought I would go a little further back. In 1858, certain legislation, which was passed by the then Parliament of Canada with reference to the tariff, *affected the people of Great Britain. Let us bear in mind that the leader of the Opposition said yesterday that Great Britain had the right to veto all legislation passed by this Parliament. My hon. friend fails to distinguish between legal authority [DOT]and constitutional right. His Majesty, the King, has a legal authority to ratify this Treaty irrespective of any of his advisers, but he has no constitutional right to do so. The Imperial Parliament has the legal authority to repeal the British North America Act to-morrow, to conscript our men for their armies, to levy taxes upon the people-


Mr. VIEN:: That shows that we are not a nation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -but Great Britain has no constitutional right to do so, and it is because the British constitution has been-a growth and development, because it can be so changed and is changed to meet the growing needs of a growing nation and Empire that it has proved such a magnificent instrument of government. The strength of the British Empire to-day rests
upon the constitutional rights which have been granted to different portions of the Empire, and the British Government would no more think of interfering with our constitutional rights and freedom than they would think of recommending that His Majesty should sign his own death warrant, although they might claim they had a legal right to recommend him to do so. In 1858, when this Act was passed, which imposed certain duties against the British people, the merchants of Great Britain protested against it and demanded its disallowance. They wanted the Act disallowed. Great Britain had the legal right to disallow it, and a communication was sent out to the Government of Canada to find out what they would say about it. Let me read the answer of the Government of Canada, given not by a Liberal Government, but by a Conservative Government, by the Cartier-Macdonald Government:
Self government would be utterly annihilated if the views of the Imperial Government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is therefore the duty of the present Government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in 'the way they deem best, even should it unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval of the Imperial minister. Her Majesty cannot be allowed to disallow such acts unless her advisers are prepared to assume the administration of the colony, irrespective of the views of its inhabitants.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the doctrine which my hon. friend. quotes from 1858, how does he explain that in 1867 the power was vested in the Imperial Government and Her Majesty to veto our legislation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because the Imperial Government at that time still retained the [DOT]legal right to do it, but Canada denied [DOT]their constitutional right to interfere in [DOT]our domestic affairs. I say that my hon. friend has failed to distinguish between the two, and you have to go back of anything in the history of either political party for more than sixty years to find as unprogressive a view of Canada's status and of the British constitution as my hon. friend has presented to this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quoting the law absolutely, and my hon. friend is simply giving us his usual theories.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is not much theory in it, in face of the statement of the Canadian Government in 1858 and the policy pursued ever since. I am going to recommend to my hon. friend in all seriousness, and in the best of good feeling, that he

give up his Rip Van Winkle attitude towards Canada's status in the Empire. The 'Only difference is that Rip Van Winkle was asleep only twenty years whereas my hon. friend has been asleep for more than 6ixty years.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: You do not want to lose any more sleep yourself.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I feel some compensation in view of what I discovered; it was very interesting. The position which the Government takes to-day is this: That His Majesty in ratifying this Treaty with respect to Canada should act upon the advice of his advisers in Canada. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says it was not necessary that we should be there at all, not necessary that Canada should take any action at all, that we should leave it wholly to the Government of Great Britain to deal with the matter for us.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where does my hon. friend find any such statement? I wish he would quote it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think I am fairly stating the general trend of my hon. friend's argument.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing of the kind. My statement was directly to the contrary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Did not my hon. friend say we might leave it to Great Britain?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing of the kind. I said that I was very anxious that we should be represented there, but simply with the other representatives of Great Britain, all together.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will try and find my hon. friend's remarks before I am through. My recollection is that that was the general trend of his statement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I made no such statement.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I accept my hon. friend's statement. I will turn up Hansard later and see just what he said. His general attitude, which I think I am fairly interpreting, was that we should leave this question of ratification to His Majesty as advised by His' Majesty's advisers in Great Britain. There, again, that is directly contrary to the whole history and tradition of the party which my hon. friend professes to lead. So far back as 1882, the Hon. Edward Blake, then leader of the Liberal party in this House, moved a resolution demanding the right on behalf of Canada to negotiate her own treaties;

that is, that Her Majesty should act on the advice of her Canadian ministers. That was followed. by another resolution in 1889 moved by Sir Richard Cartwright, when the party was under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That was followed in 1892, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was still leader, by another resolution moved by Hon. David Mills, and upon which Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke. Let me just give a short extract from his speech:
-but I say that Canada is not always to remain a colony.	.
My hon. friend referred yesterday to Canada, as h colony.
Light as our dependence may be on the Mother Country, that dependence is not to remain for ever. If we were to admit that, if we were to say that we were always to remain in a dependent condition we would, be the scorn of the world, and it would be scorn well deserved.
The fact is, Canada's status has been improving during all this period. Our rights of self-government have been steadily enlarged from year to year.
My hon. friend from Kaanouraska (Mr. Lapointe) speaks of submitting changes in the constitution to a vote. He is too keen a student of the British constitution not to know that the most important changes in the constitution have not been by any sudden act, by any decision on some particular matter that involved a great change. It has been a gradual change, a steady growth to meet new conditions as ithey have arisen,


Ernest Lapointe: What about the revolution?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There was one great question that was jfeettled by arms, not by referendum, and my hon. friend and I both agree that there should be some better method than that of bringing about radical changes.
Just a word as to Canada's present status, to which my hon. friend from Kamouraska has referred. His complaint was not that Canada was represented at the Conference, but that her representatives there did not stand on an equality with the representatives of Great Britain. Then may I ask my hon. friend this: Would he be good enough to tell us what he thinks the Government should have done that it did not do in reference to the status of Canada's representatives at the Conference?


Ernest Lapointe: I said that it was the result of our present anomalous and abnormal constitutional position.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Will my hon. friend tell me what change, if any, he thinks should be made in our present constitutional position.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my hon. friend goes as a representative of Canada to the proposed Constitutional Conference I shall be very glad to give him my advice.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I really thought that as my hon. friend had submitted so many questions to me to answer this afternoon, and had discussed this question at such length and had apparently given a good deal of study to it, he would be prepared to inform the House and the country what constitutional changes should, in his opinion, be made.


Jacques Bureau: That is up to you to explain. You have been acting.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is one view-I do not know whether any hon. friend entertains it or not-and that is that 'Canada should cut the tie that binds her to Great Britain and become an independent nation. I do not know whether my hon. friend means that or not when he speaks of our representative not being on an equality with the representatives of Great Britain. If he does mean that, then I beg to express my complete dissent from that position. The other view was the view presented yes-5 p.m. terday by the leader of the Opposition, practically relegating Canada back to her colonial status. Neither the one view nor the other represents sound Canadianism, the patriotic sentiments of the people of this country. The people of this country are determined, on the one hand, to maintain their connection with the Motherland; they are determined, on the other hand, to exercise the powers of a nation within the Empire.
My hon. friend has referred to the Constitutional Conference which the Prime Minister mentioned. That Constitutional Conference was decided on at the Imperial War Conference in the year 1917. The terms of the resolution deciding on that Conference have been submitted to this House on a number of occasions.
The resolution was submitted to this House in 1917, wheniSir Wilfrid Laurier was here leading the Liberal party, and, as far as I can recall the facts, he offered no objection whatever to the terms of this resolution. I do not think there is any serious objection to its terms on the part of our citizens. It indicates the basis along which our constitutional development should proceed. That was before the election and it was before the people. I never heard any criticism from any source of the resolution then adopted, or of the principles laid down in that resolution. Let me just draw my hon. friend's attention to it:
The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the %var, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.
My hon. friend wants to know what is the basis of the constitutional conference to be 'held following the war. The basis set out in this resolution which has been before this Parliament for two or three years. My hon. friend need not be in doubt as to the ideas or policy of the Government in so far !as this matter is concerned. ' Then my hon. friend questioned somewhat the status of Canada at the Peace Conference. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition questioned it from another angle. The leader of the Opposition stated that we had not the rights of sovereignty. Technically that may be the fact under the British North America Act. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens, while speaking last session, questioned our position at the conference and while he did not compare our position to that of the United States, he recited an imaginary dialogue between Lloyd George and President Wilson, in which a comparison was drawn between our position and that of the United States. He asked if the state of New York requested representation at the conference, would the state of New York get representation? What was the situation in reference to the war? In the United States they have one Government that raised troops, that levied taxation, that waged war upon an enemy. His Majesty has at least five governments that exercise these sovereign functions. There is no comparison whatever between the situations of the two. It was with the free

will of the Canadian Parliament and with the sanction of the people that the Government of Canada raised the troops and levied the necessary taxation to send them across the sea to take part in this war. His Majesty acted on the advice of his advisers in Great Britain in raising troops in Great Britain and in dispatching them across the sea to take part in the war. His Majesty acted on the advice of his Canadian advisers in raising troops in Canada, and in sending them across the sea to take part in this war. It was the same with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. For the purpose of waging war against Germany there was not only one government in the British Empire, there were at least five governments, His Majesty was the King of all, and all acknowledging allegiance to him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister say that if the Imperial Parliament did not declare war Canada could raise and send troops?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Imperial Government did declare war.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If they did not would we be in a position, as a separate government, to raise troops and send them to the front?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Unless His Majesty, who is the head of Great Britain, the 'head of Canada and the whole of the Empire, declared war, there would be no war.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And we could not send troops?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We, of course, would not send troops.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We could not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the head of the state who declares war and proclaims peace. His Majesty is the head of the state and he is the one who declares war and proclaims peace. I do not know whether members of this House are aware of the position of Canada in reference to her troops in the field, but I think, in view of the attack that has been made upon the status of Canada, it is only right that I should put that position on record. Not only did we raise troops in Canada and train them in Canada, but we had them under our own jurisdiction in Great Britain and in France, except for the purposes of military operations.
This was particularly the case during the later stages of the war. I hold in my hind a memorandum setting out the arrangement made between the Canadian Government and the War Office acting through the 
Commander in Chief of 'the British .armies in the field. It reads as follows:
For matters of military operations the Canadian forces in the Field have been placed by the Canadian Government under the Commander in Chief, British armies in France. For matters of organization and administration, the Canadian Government still retains its full responsibility regarding its Forces. Matters of organization and administration frequently have a direct bearing on military operations and discipline, and vice versa, and it is, therefore, considered that where they have such bearing these matters should be made the subject of conference between the Canadian authorities and the G.H.Q.
The five nations forming the British Empire, made war against Germany, the common enemy. If five nations made war then why should not five nations be consulted and why should they not help to make peace?


William Stevens Fielding: If any one of these five nations had not made war in the way my hon. friend describes would that nation not have been at war with Germany just the same?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Certainly it would have
been at war with Germany.


Mr. ROSS:: Supposing this Parliament
refuses to approve of this Treaty will not Great Britain ratify it just the same?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the question that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens asked and he rather made light of the answer of the Prime Minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I made no comment.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not mean offensively. I am sure that he did not mean to be unfair in what he said. The answer to that lies in this: it would have to be settled by the Government that succeeded this Government and that Government would be faced with one of two propositions? If the British Government undertook to ratify that Treaty on behalf of Canada and to bind Canada by its provisions in spite of the adverse vote of the Canadian Parliament, the Government of the day would be faced with the position which Sir John Macdonald faced in 1858. You would either be relegated to your old colonial status or you would have to declare your independence. You would have to choose between these two alternatives but we will not have to take that responsibility because there will be no adverse vote.


Lucien Cannon: Would it be possible
for one of the overseas dominions, during this war, to declare its neutrality?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, certainly not. It is
perhaps a lack of appreciation on my part but I cannot understand the difficulty which my hon. friends experience judged by some of the questions they are putting.
What is the situation? What is the constitutional position? The British Empire is composed of five or six nations with one Sovereign. When that Sovereign is at wai .all these nations are at war, but the part that any one nation takes in that war is determined by its own parliament exercising its own sovereign power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear. . .Mr. FIELDING: It has been so in the past.


Jacques Bureau: Heretofore, it has been so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not questioning the fact that that has been our status up to date. What I say is tiba-t the power which we have exercised in determining our part in the war entitles us to some voice in the terms of peace, and that is what we have secured at the Peace Conference. I do not claim that the Government of Canada has improved the status of the Dominion during this war, but what I say is that the troops of Canada at Ypres, Courcelette, Vimy Ridge, Passehendaele, Arras, Amiens, and Cambrai made such a place for Canada in the Empire and in Europe that any government here would have been false to its duty if it did not seek to maintain that place at the Peace Conference. I can understand men who did not want Canada to go into the war, who thought that this was not Canada's concern at all, that she should limit her operations to this country and to this continent-I can understand them saying we should not have been at the Peace Conference, I can understand them saying we should keep out of the League' of Nations; but I am absolutely at a loss to understand the men who agreed that Canada's sons should go forth to help defeat Germany and bring peace to the world saying that Canada should not take any part in deciding what the peace terms should be. What was Canada's position at the Peace Conference? My hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) has said in reference to Canada's position that her delegates were not on an equality with the delegates from Great Britain. I do not know just what mj hon. friend had in view when he made that statement, unless he meant that we should have been there as an independent power. If he did not mean that, I do not know just what be did mean.
Now, let us look and see just what the status of Canada's representatives was. In the first place, the Prime Ministers of the Dominions were on the panel from which the British Empire delegation was chosen. In that respect, they were sharers in the representation of the whole Empire at the Peace Conference, in the five delegates that represented the British Empire. In addition, Canada had the same representation, the same status, and the same rights as the smaller powers at the Conference. What I would say to my hon. friend is this: It is true Canada did not have the same position as Great Britain, because she had not the strength, the population, the power, of the Mother Land, but she had a better status than any other small nation in the group of nations that took part in the Peace Conference. She had her own representatives and she was entitled to share in the Empire representation as well. Now my hon. friend (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) has raised the question about the signatures to the Treaty, and he asked: Would not Canada be bound by the signatures of the representatives of the Empire mentioned in the Treaty? My hon. friend read the first five names in the Treaty and then he says the names of the Canadian representatives and other Dominions follow but they were unnecessary. Another hon. gentleman, I do not remember who it was, said it was obvious it pleased the Canadian representatives. It looked very well to have the Canadian names in and, therefore, those names appeared in the Peace Treaty. What is the situation, Mr. Speaker? The Treaty is made by His Majesty, the head of the state, with the heads of the other states. The state in that sense consists of the whole Empire. It consists of the United Kingdom, it consists of all the dependencies, as well as the self-governing dominions, and India. Those British plenipotentiaries signed for all the Empire, except those. specially mentioned who were expressly authorized to sign for their respective countries. My hon. friend looks incredulous. Well, let me give him the proof.


Ernest Lapointe: Very much so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am prepared to help clear up the misgivings of Doubting Thomases, if I can.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope you will.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have before me the
Order in-Council of the 10th April, 1919, which provides for the appointment of the

Canadian plenipotentiaries, at least which recommends the names to His Majesty for appointment as plenipotentiaries. I will not detain the House to read the document in full but I shall read the most important portions. It says:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on report from the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, stating that it is expedient in connection with the Peace Conference to invest fit persons with full powers to treat on the part of His Majesty the King in respect to the Dominion of Canada with persons similarly empowered on the part of other States, is pleased to order and doth order that His Majesty the King he humbly moved to issue letters patent to each of the following named persons (then come the names of the Prime Minister, Sir George Foster, Mr. Sifton, and Mr. Doherty) naming and appointing him as commissioner and plenipotentiary in respect of the Dominion of Canada, with full power and authority, as from the first day of January, 1919, to conclude with such plenipotentiaries as may be vested with similar power and authority on the part of any powers or states, any treaties, conventions, or agreements, in connection with the said Peace Conference, and to sign for and in the name of His Majesty the King in respect to the Dominion of Canada everything so agreed upon and concluded and to transact all such other matters as may appertain thereto.
Upon that recommendation of the Governor General in Council in Canada His Majesty the King did issue an authority to those ministers to attend the Peace Conference, not on behalf of Great Britain but on behalf of Canada, to conclude terms of peace at that Conference, and I think it is perhaps only right that one should put upon record the terms of that power because it shows clearly the status of the Canadian representatives at the Peace Conference.
George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, etc., etc., etc. To all and singular to whom these Presents shall come. Greeting!
Whereas for the better treating of and arranging certain matters which are now in discussion, or which may come in discussion between Us and other Powers and States in connection with the forthcoming Peace Congress.
We have judged it expedient to invest a fit person with Full Power, to conduct the said discussion on Our Part in respect of Our Dominion of Canada:	Know ye, therefore, that
We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in the wisdom, Loyalty, Diligence, and Circum-speetion, of our Right Trusty and WelUbeloved Councillor Sir Robert Baird Borden, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, one of our Counsel learned in the law, etc., etc., Member of the Parliament of Canada, Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, have named, made, constituted and appointed, as We do by these Pres-
ents name, make, constitute and appoint him, Our Undoubted Commissioner, Procurator, and Plenipotentiary, in respect of Our Dominion of Canada; Giving to him all manner of Power and Authority to treat, adjust, and conclude with such Ministers, Commissioners, or Plenipotentiaries, as may be vested with similar Power and Authority on the part of any Powers or States as aforesaid any Treaties, Conventions, or Agreements that may tend to the attainment of the above-mentioned end, and to sign for Us and in Our Name in respect of Our Dominion of Canada everything so agreed upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other matters as may appertain thereto, in as ample manner and form, and with equal force and efficacy as We Ourselves could do, if per-sonnaliy present, engaging and Promising, upon 'Our Royal Word, that whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said Commissioner, Procurator, and Plenipotentiary in respect of our Dominion of Canada, shall, subject if nfecessary to Our Approval and Ratification, be agreed to, acknowledged and accepted 'by Us in the fullest manner, and that we will never suffer either in the whole or in part any person whatsoever to infringe the same-
Mark those words. My hon. friends say that the British ministers could have signed for Canada. I say the British ministers could not have signed for Canada, in the face of this power given to Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues.
-we will never suffer in whole or in part any person whatsoever to infringe the same, or act contrary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power.
In witness whereof We have caused the Great Seal of Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to be affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal Hand.
Given at Our Court of St. James, the first day of January, in the Tear of Our Bord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Nineteen and in the Ninth Year of Our Reign.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the hon. minister a question? By what process was this Order-in-Council transmitted to His Majesty the King? Was it through His Excellency the Governor General direct to the King, or through the British Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question at the present time, for I have not the information. It was transmitted while the Prime Minister and his colleagues were over in England. But my recollection is that the Prime Minister stated when presenting the Treaty to the House that he took steps to see that the issue of the authority to the plenipotentiaries was directly connected with and based upon the Order in Council.


Arthur Trahan: The Order in Council was addressed to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the right hon.

Sir Robert Borden stated in his speech last week, which statement will be found at page 22 of Hansard. The question which now arises is: Whether it was at the direct request of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that this authority was issued by the King in favour of Sir Robert Borden.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the question.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister of Great Britain absolutely concurred in this action. It was all taken with his full approval after the understanding was arrived at with reference to the representation of the Dominions.
I am at a loss to understand the objection of my hon. friends. Do they think the Prime Minister of Canada should not have had that authority?


Andrew Ross McMaster: He should have had authority.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then if the Prime Minister should have. had the authority, what is the object of criticising and finding fault with our representation at the Conference?


Jacques Bureau: We are not criticising; we are putting questions to get light on the subject.	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We are merely asking for information.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been repeatedly pointed out that our constitutional relations within the Empire are in a state of transition. The whole object of the Constitutional Conference is to put those relations on a more satisfactory Basis, if we can. It is not possible to say one day that the situation is so and so, and the next day that it is so and so; it is a gradual process, an evolution from the position of a colony to that of a sister nation of equal status with 'the Mother Country, and when this Constitutional Conference is held I feel confident it will accord us that position.


Ernest Lapointe: We have not got that position to-day, then?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have it in fact, and the British Government recognize that we are entitled to it, but the machinery for giving effect to it has not yet been fully worked out.


An hon. MEMBER:: A waste of time.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That machinery has to
be worked out. In the meantime there are bound to be anomalies. We have a definite
goal in view, and we are seeking to attain that goal as speedily as it is possible to work out the machinery for giving effect to it.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon.
friend allow me a question? What would be the practical difference between the status of a sister nation and the status of an autonomous colony?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It depends on the position that is accorded. Calling a thing a certain name does not necessarily make it what you name it; it is what it really is that counts.


Ernest Lapointe: You want to ascertain what step Canada has made.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just in the same way,
when Sir Wilfrid Laurier returned from the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 1897, he declared that Canada was a nation. A great many people disputed that proposition. Part of the argument yesterday of my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (iMr. McKenzie) was against that position. One might argue that Canada was not a nation at that time; but she was attaining that status; and the assertion of that status by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the concession of that status toy the Government of Great Britain, has made possible the subsequent develop-' ment. So to-day, when this Government says the status of Canada must be equal to that of Great Britain and the other Dominions in the Britannic League of Nations, if you choose to call it, the recognition of that status by the Government of Great Britain puts us in a position where all that is necessary now is to complete the working out of the machinery in order that we may enjoy that status; and that is the object of the Constitutional Conference which is to be called.
Yesterday my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition quoted from the British North America Act the section which authorizes Canada to carry out any Treaty affecting Canada made between the Empire and any foreign Power. Under the British North America Act Canada now has the constitutional right to carry out this Treaty and all that is involved in it and implied toy it. The British North America Act, Section 132, reads .as follows:
The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under Treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.

I believe that Canada under this Treaty, particularly under the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Labour Convention, holds a higher national status than she has enjoyed in 'the past. I also believe the action of the Imperial Government in passing the Act authorizing His Majesty to take all action necessary to carry the Treaty into effect, and the ratification of the Treaty, will be a recognition of Canada's improved status by the Imperial Government, which has the legal authority las well as the constitutional right to' do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Does that apply to India also?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not concerned in
discussing the 'position of India at this time; I am concerned only in discussing the position of Canada. So I say upon all these fa'cts the position of Canada is wonderfully advanced over the old position. We are recognized now as a nation of equal status with the Mother Country and other Dominions. The Constitutional Conference must work out the details. They are not easy to work out and will be fraught with the greatest difficulty. No one should minimize the difficulties of the situation. There is no parallel far an Empire like this of self-governing nations seeking to work together. It is the greatest experiment in democratic Government that the world has ever seen. But I believe a solution will be found. I have confidence in the Anglo-Saxon genius for government, I have equal confidence in the genius for government of our friends of French Canadian birth and race, for they have shown great capacity in that direction. Sir George Cartier showed wonderful capacity and vision in the work he did in helping to bring about Confederation.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier showed an equal capacity for government in the work which he did in connection with our constitutional development. So I hope that in the working out of these problems we shall have the aid of men of both races in this country- just as I am sure we shall have the aid of men of both races in South Africa

in order that we may arrive at a solution that will ,be practicable and under which the Empire, consisting of several nations owing allegiance to a common sovereign, may continue to work together in pursuit of the great ideals which they hold in common.


Mr.   GANNON@: I do not wish to tire the minister, but if he will permit me I will put one more question before he proceeds to the discussion of another point. Can he

tell the House why Newfoundland was not represented at Versailles, and what difference there is between her status and that *of Canada and the other Dominions?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If I endeavour to answer for Canada, I think that will be quite sufficient at present.


Joseph Archambault: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that the British Empire ivas composed of five nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said at least five.


Joseph Archambault: Will my hon.
friend name those nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The United Kingdom is one, Canada is another, Australia a third, New Zealand a fourth and South Africa a fifth.


Joseph Archambault: What about India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will not discuss the constitutional position of India. A discussion of that matter would only becloud the real issue; no object can be gained by entering into it.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind hon. members that the House is not in Committee. Many of the questions which have been asked are not even relevant to the subject matter of the speech which is beirig delivered by the hon. minister and I must request that the rules governing debate be more strictly adhered to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 

Great Britain, having agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, having referred it to arbitration and having agreed to carry out the award, would be the one to refuse to carry out the award. I think we are absolutely safe in counting on that.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an answer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend says: "That is not an answer." Let me take the case if Great Britain refused to carry out the'award. Under article 16, the Council of the League would have to recommend what action should be taken. It is an unthinkable proposition that they would recommend Canada to take action against Great Britain, but nevertheless, I will take my hon. friend's case. If the Council of the League decided that Canada was one of the nations that should make a military contribution, theh Canada immediately becomes entitled to membership in the Council and to take part in its deliberations; she then becomes a country of special interest and entitled to sit as a member of the League:
Any member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send a representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council during "the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that member of the League.
Canada becomes entitled to have a representative present, and the Council cannot act unless the members are unanimous.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In that case, would not Canada be considered as a part of the British Empire?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me read the clause
again. This is the second last paragraph of article 4 on page 10 of the Treaty:
Any member of the League not represented on the Council shall be Invited to send a representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council during the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that member of the League.
The Council cannot act except unanimously.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the minister contend that every time Canada receives a recommendation of the League to do something, she will have the right to be represented on the Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Certainly, it is clearly so stated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As a full member having a vote?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As a full member having a vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister cannot
show that in the Covenant.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It states so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It does not state that the member will have a vote. On the contrary, it is stated in some other place that a party to a dispute is excluded from the vote.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is not a party to the dispute; it is a party called on to take action. Canada becomes a party of particular interest and entitled to representation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not if they call upon her to take aotion against Great Britain. If they ioall upon her to take action, she thereby becomes entitled to sit on the Council as a member, and that Council cannot act except by unanimous consent of the members, and Canada could not be called upon *to take action unless she herself consented to do so. So the case my hon. friend has presented is impossible under the conditions governing the action in the League.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the minister contend that when this member is invited on the Council, it is in any other capacity than that of making* representations to the Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: She becomes a full member for the purpose of that discussion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I cannot construe the
clause in that way.


Ernest Lapointe: That
means that Canada shall never be called upon to take action unless she agrees to it. Is that the answer of my hon. friend?


Newton Wesley Rowell: She cannot be conipelled to take action unless she agrees to it, so far as action under that clause is concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: It is interesting to have that on Hansard.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is interesting to have
that declaration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the view I would reach from reading the Covenant. After reaching that conclusion from perusing the Covenant, I had the opportunity last night -probably many hon. members also had it- of seeing the official explanation issued by the Government of Great Britain in reference to the terms of the Covenant of the League. It was published as a parliamentary paper, and I was particularly inter-

ested to see that the position I ba/ve taken was supported toy the explanation in this parliamentary paj^er, as appears from the following extract:
It is the duty of the Council, with the help of its n\ilitary, naval and all advisers, to recommend what effective force each member of the League shall supply; for this purpose, each member from which a contribution is required has the right to attend the Council, with power of veto, during the consideration of its particular case. The several contingents will therefore be settled by agreement, as is indeed necessary if the spirit of the Covenant is to be preserved, and if joint action is to be efficacious.
The situation mentioned cannot arise under the conditions and terms of the Covenant; and, therefore, the fears he has expressed he may dispel. The Canadian ministers have not put Canada into a difficult or impossible position. I had intended discussing some other phases of the Treaty, but as I intend to conclude by six o'clock, I shall not discuss them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I intend to conclude by
six o'clock, but I want to point out again that the object of the Treaty is to insure peace and to prevent war by providing means for settlement of justiciable cause by a judicial tribunal, or of matters suitable for arbitration by arbitration, and, in some cases, by conciliation, and by requiring that the members of the League shall not take action for definite periods, three months, or nine months, as the case may be, in order that there may be full opportunity for conciliation. In that respect the Covenant of the League of Nations represents the best hope of our humanity, which has suffered through this war as our humanity has never before suffered, to free our race from the cause and ravages of war. It represents the best hope of the best men of all the nations, and I think it is a proud position for the Parliament, the people and the public men , of Canada to have some part, though small, in expressing their approval of and participation in this momentous document which we earnestly hope will prevent the repetition of the crimes and horrors from which our humanity has suffered during this war.
Let me say this word in conclusion. The League of Nations is to aid in preserving the	peace of	the world.
There is another momentous agreement contained in this Peace Treaty, namely, the Covenant dealing with labour organization. Next to world-peace the most important thing for our humanity now is industrial peace among the nations of the
9i _
world. I wish I had time to discuss the labour clauses of the Treaty, but I have not. I wish I had time to discuss the features of the new organization in which Canada is also a party-not without the strenuous effort of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works and his colleagues. To hon. member who thinks that our ministers need not have gone to the Peace Conference, who say that it was sufficient if Canada were represented by Great Britain, I say: How would representatives oi Great Britain represent at that Conference the industrial conditions of Canada? How would the employers of Great Britain represent the employers of Canada? How would the workingmen of Great Britain represent the workingmen of Canada? If the Prime Minister and his colleagues had1 done nothing else, in view of the magnitude of the industrial problems facing us these days, the fact that they secured representation for Canada in this international labour organization, entitling us to send our Canadian representatives to participate in its deliberations, their trip to the old country was well worth while and will be of lasting benefit to Canada. We trust the other treaties will soon be signed, that peace not only with Germany, but with all the other nations at war may soon come, and I say to my hon. friends on both sides of the House: Canada-having taken such a magnificent part in this- war, Canada's position having been so splendidly maintained at -the Peace Conference by the Prirpe Minister and his colleagues, are we not big enough to forget party and prejudice at this time and give the meed of praise to the statesmen of Canada who stood for Canada's interests among the nations of the world? Canada is great in-her territory, in the character of her people, in her institutions, in her free democratic government. This Treaty will affect Canada not only to-day with her eight millions of people; it will affect- Canada when she has from twenty-five to fifty millions, when Canada is not only one of the greatest powers on the Pacific, but one of the great powers of the world; it is a Treaty which we hope may mean an adjustment of international conditions gradually worked out through its provisions that will avoid war, not only for a generation, perhaps, but for a century to -come. If the Government of Canada, when such a momentous document was being settled, affecting our future for generations, had failed to take their part and see that Canada's interests were not prejudiced, but her rights conserved, they

would have wholly failed to- do their duty to the people of Canada. They have maintained at the Peace Conference the splendid position which the troops of Canada won for her in the field of battle.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with a considerable hesitancy, not only on account of the very great importance of the matter itself, though several speeches have been made already and have led me to comprehend the matter better than I had done before, but also on account of the remarkable speech which -was delivered this afternoon by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kowell). As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have not the habit.of agreeing with the minister, but I can say in all sincerity that I admired very greatly his talent and eloquence and also the agility with which he skipped around the troubles, difficulties and intricacies of the problem that he was dealing with.
As the minister said, this is a question which is far beyond the realm of political warfare, a question which is far above the common, ordinary grounds of our partisan struggles and .strifes. I have no intention of discussing it in the spirit of the politician, no intention of approaching it in the capacity of a partisan. The few remarks that I shall address to the House to-night will be presented by a Canadian who wishes to speak as a Canadian, and I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that- my remarks will be received by the House in the same spirit as that in which they are made.
In 1914, when the whole civilized world was under the impression that the era of warfare had ceased, that our degree of civilization had reached such a point that- it would be impossible to have wars as we had them in the past., the -universe was -startled to hear that the German and Austrian empires had thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the world and had proclaimed the gospel that now might was to be right. Never, I believe, shall we forget the scenes of horror that took place during the invasion of Belgium and Northern France. We still hear the rumbling of the German guns through Belgium. We still see the flames of destruction as they 'burned in the cities of Liege, Namur, Dinant and Louvain. For a while the whole civilized world thought that with the Golgotha

erected by Germany Christian civilization would disappear and we should go back to the age of paganism. But much has happened in the years that have elapsed. You remember as -well as I do the news that used to come from Europe depicting the carnage and the horror of it all. Luckily the war ended, and in 1919 in the city of Versailles, a city which was made famous by the great French king, the Grand Old Man of France, Mr. Clemenceau, got up, and facing the German delegates *who represented. the old regime in Germany said: "The hour of reckoning has co-me" and the German delegates were forced to sign the Peace Treaty that we have now- before us for consideration.
This document, I believe, has to be divided into two portions for intelligent consideration. First, it is the document which brought about peace; therefore, it contains the provisions of the Peace Treaty itself. Not only did the statesmen who met in Paris want to put a stop to the state of war that had existed but they also desired to maintain a state of peace, to maintain throughout the world such a condition of things that war as we have seen it for four and a half years would be impossible. The second portion of the Peace Treaty, and which has been inserted for the purpose of safeguarding peace throughout the - world, is known as the Covenant of the League of Nations. This Peace Treaty, and this Covenant of the League of Nations, have, in my judgment to be considered from two aspects. They have to be considered first as regards the entire world and they have to be considered as regards the Dominion of Canada.
The remarks I shall address to the House will be very incomplete, and the conclusions I draw will be very imperfect. I would like to have been able to offer something better for your consideration, but unfortunately the delay which has been granted to us by the Government has been very short and we have had but a very few days to peruse this very important and bulky document. When I examined this Treaty, when I drew certain conclusions from its contents, I took into consideration the very great troubles and difficulties that were met, .1 have no doubt, not only by our Canadian delegates but 'by all the delegates who were in Paris. These troubles and difficulties arose by reason of the existence of conflicting interests between the Allied and Associated Powers. They also arose on -account of the spirit of revenge in many countries after the war

was finished. They also existed on account of that traditionalism which exists in Europe and which influences the minds of many statesmen. They also arose on account of the very great difference between the political ideals existing in the Old World -which -is Europe and in the New World which is America, including the United States and Canada.
Moreover, the Canadian delegates must have experienced very great trouble and that trouble must have arisen from the fact that our national status is altogether misunderstood and misapprehended by the statesmen of other countries. Not only do the people of the United States misunderstand altogether our standing in the British Empire but in Europe-in France, in Italy and in every country-it is absolutely impossible for them to understand our position within the British Empire because their colonial system is altogether different from ours.
It is after paying due regard to all these elements of trouble that I will offer certain considerations on the Peace Treaty.
This Peace Treaty, considered as an instrument to bring about peace is very severe, but if the members of this House remember how Germany conducted the war, and consider the conditions which were imposed by victorious Germany on Russia and Rou-mania, still more the conditions ithat would have been imposed, according to the statements and declarations of the leading men of Germany on the Allied countries if this war had terminated with a German victory; and moreover, if we bear in mind the behaviour of the German plenipotentiaries at Versailles, we must come to the con-elusion that the Germans were entitled to absolutely no favour and could expect none.
But, Mr. Speaker, while we had a right to impose upon Germany a treaty which was severe, I say there is a great danger -a danger which has been avoided to a certain extent but not altogether removed -of imposing on Germany a treaty which would be considered absolutely unjust and tyrannical. I do not say that the Treaty is such, but that if you consider certain clauses of it you may think those clauses might bring about a certain condition of things and a certain condition of mind in Germany that will cause trouble in the near future. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am wrong; I hope that my apprehensions are unfounded. When I read through the Treaty I found certain provisions that I would have liked to see somewhat modified and made less severe. Mr. Speaker, there
have been in the past examples of very unjust treaties, and they show that a people that have been crushed, and unjustly crushed, always rise, and that very soon, to take their revenge. I might point out to the members of this House as an historical antecedent what happended when Napoleon I, after the battle of Eylau, saw Prussia lying prostrate at his feet. In those days Louisa, Queen of Prussia, went and asked an interview with the French Emperor, and in that interview, which has been described by all historians, the Queen begged from the French Emperor that certain privileges be left to the Prussian people. Napoleon thought that his victory was definite, that his triumph was final, and he refused to grant to the Queen of Prussia anything that she had asked. Napoleon left the room where that interview had taken place. He journeyed to Potsdam where Frederick the Great lies, and took away the. sword that the great Prussian had carried throughout all his battles. Mr. Speaker, the Prussian people were not crushed for long. A few years afterwards a Prussian army was lined up agajnst the French army on the Plains of Waterloo, and Napoleon learned that a people cannot be crushed, they can only be humiliated, and that a fair peace is far preferable to one that is unjust and too . harsh.
Mr. Speaker, let us come closer to our own era. Let us remember the Peace of 1870. In those days the President of the French Republic, Mr. Thiers, asked from Prince Bismarck certain conditions for France. Bismarck refused, to grant his request. Bismarck thought that France had fallen never to rise again; and to-day the sons of Bismarck have had to go to Versailles to accept from President Clemenceau a peace that was imposed by the victorious Allies, among whom France had one of the first places.	I do not offer
these remarks, Mr. Speaker, in the view that the peace as concluded between the allied powers and Germany was unjust, but I simply say that some of its provisions appear to be very severe and to offer a danger for the future. In contrast, and recalling the results of the generous peace let the members of this House remember what happened when England defeated the Transvaal armies. Botha met Lord Kitchener. England, represented by the Commander in Chief of her armies, offered very generous conditions to her fallen foe, and a few' years afterwards when the recent great con-

flict broke out Louis Botha was behind the Empire's forces to help along the victory.
In the present Peace Treaty the provisions that I refer to are, first, that which calls upon the Kaiser to be handed over to the Allied powers by Holland, to be tried by an international tribunal. I would be the last man in this Chamber to offer any justification for the conduct and behaviour of the German Kaiser; but I say that a trial of the German Kaiser would offer certain dangers. A trial in London or Paris would make of a man who is now fallen and altogether ignored by the rest of the world a martyr, would make him a great rallying personality for the German people, and would offer a great danger to the world's peace. The Treaty is also very severe as respects the economic dependence of Germany upon the Allied countries. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of this clause in great detail, but simply to say this: According to the actual relations which exist between all countries of the world, the ruin of one has an effect upon all the others. Should Germany be impoverished, should Germany be ruined, all the other countries of the world would feel the effects of her ruin. Moreover the Treaty contains provisions for reparation in regard to damages done by Germany, and I say that if the Allied powers do not ' allow Germany to revive her trade and to again take the position as a trading country which she occupied before the war, it would be absolutely impossible for her to pay the reparation damages that have been asked of her by the provisions of the Treaty. Tlie last point to which I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker-, is the clause in the Treaty that keeps Germany out of the League of Nations. As pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe), a league of nations to be complete and to attain its object must comprise every nation in the world. I hope, therefore, it will be possible for the Allied countries to include Germany very soon in the League of Nations so as to ensure that Germany will not be in a position to enter into alliances with other countries and to create in the face of the new League of Nations alliances in Europe and in Asia that will threaten the future peac^e of the world.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the provisions in the Peace Treaty that I consider may be too severe. I am not in a position to criticise the Treaty. The statesmen who were at Paris and Versailles and drafted the Treaty knew the conditions much better than I do.

I hopb they were justified in inserting those clauses, and I hope the terms imposed will not, as I fear they will, jeopardize the future peace of the world.
I think that the Treaty contains certain clauses which should not be there at all, and among them I would mention the clause that hands over to Japan the district of Shantung. It seems to me that the weakness of China should have been her protection among the Allied powers, and that they should have prevented Japan from robbing -because it is nothing but robbery-that district from China.
Other clauses that I would like to see in the Treaty are missing. Of clauses that I would have read with great pleasure the first I would mention is one giving something to Canada out of this war. We iiave he-ard members of the Government and their supporters tell us the wonderful achievements of our army over in Europe.
I approve, of every word that these ministers and members have said. But if Canada has done wonderful things during the war, at the Peace Conference our representatives should have obtained something for this country, -as every other country has benefited to a greater or less extent. If the Treaties are perused it will be found that Greece is to be given something, as are France and Italy; if the drafts of the other treaties are examined it will be found that every country in Europe is obtaining something, and even countries in Africa. Canada gets nothing. I am Soi'ry that our delegates, the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) did not see that Canada at least obtained an indemnity. Our financial condition is very poor, we need the money, and after having fought as " we did I think we should have been granted a substantial indemnity. Probably I shall be answered that in accordance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty Canada will get her share of the indemnity to be exacted from Germany when it is allotted to the different countries. But that share will be so very small that it will practically amount to nothing, whereas we should have been given something substantial. Another clause that I should like to have seen in the Peace Treaty is giving to Ireland the right that has beep given to several other nationalities in Europe-the right of self-determination. Last year I spoke on this question in the absence of the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). He has since returned from the Peace Conference, but, unfortunately, although in this Cabinet ha

represents the Irish population of Canada, and has been very busy sitting on all sorts of commissions, apparently he has forgotten to raise his voice in favour of Ireland. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the Irish question could not be settled by the Peace Conference because there exists in Ireland an English Protestant minority, and that that minority-the Ulster minority-cannot be coerced. I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice when he follows me in this debate, if he does, to tell me what difference exists between the Irish problem and the problem which he solved in Bohemia. In Bohemia there are a. very great number of German people, and those people were forced to stay in the new State formed by the Allies. The hon. Minister of Justice had no hesitation in concurring in that arrangement. That being so, I would like him to explain why he refuses a similar solution of the Irish question. Not only has that principle been applied in Bohemia, it has been applied in Roumania and in the settlement of the former Austrian provinces which are now given over to the Jugo-iSlav IState and to Italy. In a word, Mr. Speaker, everywhere in Europe there is no hesitation amongst the Allied Powers to form new States and to coerce small minorities; but when it comes to Ireland the Canadian delegates and the other delegates of the British Empire, together with the delegates of the other nations, decide to leave the Irish question alone and not to heal the wounds which the Irish people have suffered from for more than two centuries.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, the Treaty can be considered as an instrument to maintain peace throughout the world, and for that purpose it contains the Covenant of the League of Nations. The idea of a League of Nations is not new. Leagues have been formed in earlier times, but unfortunately those leagues were not successful because they were founded either on a selfish basis or on very undemocratic principles. We had in the old days the Hanseatic League. Afterwards we had tjhe Pacte de Famille formed among the Bourbon Kings. Then we had the Holy Alliance. All these alliances and leagues have disappeared. At the Peace Conference President Wilson was the sponsor of a new League of Nations. I hope that this new League will assure to the world a new era of peace. The principle of the League of Nations will be approved, I believe, by every member of this House. But while the principle is worthy of approval, I think we have a right to examine with great care the details of the organization of the League to see if fMr. Cannon. 1
really the object for which it was formed will be realized. As I said a few moments ago, the League should be completed by the inclusion of Germany and Austria, and when it includes every nation in the world, then I think it will be in a position to maintain peace. But as the League of Nations is now constituted Germany and Austria are excluded. Other countries have been invited to joint the League, but I notice with great surprise that one country situated on the American continent has not been invited- I refer to Mexico. Why should Mexico be excluded?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh! oh !


Lucien Cannon: Why should Mexico be
excluded if the United States are acting in good faith and wish to secure the peace of the world? Is Mexico excluded simply because the United States have designs on that country and want to act there free from control of the League of Nations?
Some members , on the other side laugh, but I think that is a question which deserves the serious consideration of this House.
As I have said, I am in favour of a League of Nations .if it is a means of ensuring the peace of the world. But a League of Nations which would be simply a new alliance formed on the basis of the [DOT]old European system of continental alliances or " balance of power " should not be approved by Canada or by any other country which is desirous of having peace. When Germany formed the alliance with Austria and Italy, known as the Triple Alliance, she wanted to dominate the world. For four years and a half the Allied countries have fought Germany in order to preserve the world from German domination. England, United States, Japan or France have no more right to dominate the world than Germany had.
The League of Nations, in its constitution, involves certain dangers to the freedom of the component parts of the League and to the autonomy of our own country.
In order to understand the question it is necessary that hon. members go back to the history of other days and examine the status of Canada at different periods as recorded by our different constitutions since we came under the British regime. I do not wish to enter into full details or particulars. I simply wish to remind the House that in 1763, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, Canada was a Crown colony. In those days the British Government was the supreme master of everything that was done in Canada; the people of Canada at

that time had absolutely no. control over the action of the Government as represented by the Governor . himself. A few years after England took possession of this, country the American revolution started, and the American colonies, which had been threatened by the Mother Country with taxation without representation, declared their independence and refused to let the Imperial Government interfere in what they deemed to be their own local affairs. Facing the American Revolution, the .British statesmen decided that it would be good to improve conditions in Canada so far as government was concerned and give to the Canadian people a larger measure of liberty. The Quebec Act was passed in 1774. Under that Act the administration of the Governor was subject more or less to the control of his advisers who sat in the legislative Council. As we go on we see the gradual evolution of constitutional liberty in Canada. When the French revolution occurred, the statesmen of England, afraid of the spread of revolutionary ideas throughout the world-ideas that were being .propagated by the French revolutionists of that day just as revolutionary ideas are being propagat'ed to-day by the Bolsheviki- thought it was time to give us a still larger measure of liberty and freedom, so we had the Act of 1791 which gave to Upper Canada and to Lower Canada a new constitution. But if we examine the constitution which was granted to Canada at that time we see that it was very much restricted and limited and that the Governor through his executive was altogether independent of the representatives of the people. Under that regime of more or less absolute domination by the central Government we lived until .1840, when Lord Durham in his famous report advised the Imperial Government to bring about a change in the relations existing between the Mother Country and the colonies. The British statesmen of 1840 gave us a new form of government, but it was not responsible government; we were given a constitution which was in very many ways imperfect. Through the efforts of leading Canadian statesmen of that day-men like Baldwin and Lafontaine-we .secured responsible government; we took the last step towards the securing of a Government in this country which was, so to speak, the master of our local affairs and which asserted the right to deal with Canadian problems. United Canada improved its condition in 1867 by co-operating with the 
other provinces in the formation of the Confederation, of which we are all proud.
The British North America Act gives us certain liberties, certain privileges, certain prerogatives. Yet when the President of the Council says that we are an independent nation he may be saying something which is pleasing :to the eaT of every Canadian, but he is saying something which does not fit in exactly with the words of our constitution. The hon. gentleman this afternoon 'made a very clever distinction between what he designated as our legal rights and our constitutional rights. I admire the minister; he is a very clever lawyer, and a lawyer always shows his talents when he is defending a bad case. The hon. gentleman showed this afternoon that he was more than a clever lawyer; the worse the cause the more able he shows himself to be. This distinction between legal right and constitutional right is a distinction which is applicable to England only. The British constitution is not a document; it is not contained in any book. The British constitution is unwritten; it is an assemblage of customs, precedents and' usages. The President of .the Council is perfectly justi-* fled when he says that .there is a distinction .between a legal right and a constitutional right, but F repeat .that that distinction applies only in England, not in Canada; and I will show you why. In Canada our constitution is a written document. We have, so to speak, our charter; we 'have our privileges as a people and as a country.
The British North America Act binds the Government just as it binds every legislature of every province of Canada, just as it binds every citizen of this, country, and there is no cause for making a distinction between a legal right and a constitutional right. We have only the rights which are granted to us by the British North America . Act, and we cannot g<? outside of that Act to find any other privileges, or rights.
When there was a war in Egypt the Imperial authorities made, through the Canadian Government, a demand on the Canadian people for some help in that war. Sir John A. Macdonald was Prime Minister of Canada at that time; he was the leading spirit of the Quebec Conference, which drafted the British North America Act; he was the leading spirit of the National party in Canada; he was the leading spirit of the Tory party in Canada, and^ I do not think that any words uttered by Sir John Macdonald will be disavowed by the supporters of the Government in this House. Sir John

A. Macdonald at that time said that Canada would not take part in any Imperial war unless Canada wanted to, and that not a Canadian soldier should leave our shores without the consent of the Canadian Government as expressed by the representatives of the people. And as a matter of fact in that war in Egypt Canada did not take an official part. Later, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister of this country, a war took place in Africa, and Sir Charles Tupper, who was the leader of the Conservative party at that time, started an agitation throughout Canada asking that Canada should participate in that war. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then Prime: Minister, said in the House of Commons that Canada would take part in the war, but only of her own free will, and that England had no right to force Canada to send soldiers to Africa; that only the Parliament of Canada had the right to say what should be done in that regard. Moreover, when a law was passed to send soldiers to Africa, if I am not mistaken, a proviso was inserted in the law stating that that should not be a precedent to be'used in the case of future wars of the British Empire.
As regards our trade relations:	Before
the war Canada had negotiated treaties. We had the Franco-Canadian Treaty negotiated by our own representatives; we had the German Treaty, which was denounced by Canada without the Imperial Government taking part in such denunciation. In a word, if I may sum up, the situation as I view it, before the war Canada internationally was bound by whatever the British Empire did as regards foreign policy for Canada is a part of the British Empire, but imperially Canada was absolutely free to do whatever she wanted within the British Empire whenever a war might arise. As regards our trade treaties, we were independent to make treaties wherever and how we wanted, subject always to the powers that were conferred upon our representatives by His Majesty the King of Great Britain.
In 1911, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was the leader of the country at that .time, wanted Canada to take the last step to full nationhood, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) was sent to Washington to negotiate, as the representative of Canada, a trade treaty with the United States. Reciprocity was negotiated through our ministers and our ministers only. Moreover, in that year, Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced into the House of Com-nions his naval policy, a policy that meant that Canada would have a navy under
Canadian control, manned by Canadians, for the defence .of our Canadian coasts. At that time Sir Wilfrid, I think, represented the true spirit of the Canadian people, and Canada wanted to see that her rights as a nation were respected and maintained. The year 1911 brought on a change of Government, and if our status before the war was that which I have just detailed, what was the status of Canada during the war when the present Administration was at the head of our affairs? To-day I listened with great interest to the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) and yesterday to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton), and I was very much surprised to hear Tory members like those who sit in great numbers on the other side cheering the declarations of independence, so far as Canada was concerned, from the Mother Country, when those same Tory members were in 1911 going throughout Canada denouncing Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a traitor because he wanted to have a naval policy that safeguarded our rights as a nation. I am not a "Little Canadian"; I am not a supporter of the old colonial regime; I am not a man who is in favour of accepting the dictates of Downing Street; I am in favour of as great a measure of freedom and liberty for my country as I can obtain. But when I hear the ministers of the present Government tell us that they have secured a new status for my country, I turn my eyes to the past and I say, as the old Latin poet said: "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."


Mr. TOBIN:: Translate it.


Lucien Cannon: "I fear the Greeks even whilst bringing gifts." Our liberty, our freedom and our independence would be given to us by a Tory Government. The Prime Minister of this country (Sir Robert Borden), who distinguished himself by his small colonial sentiments in 1911 and in 1913 when he introduced his Bill to give $35,000,000 to the British Empire, would change his mind. I hope he has, but I doubt it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier wanted to safeguard the autonomy of Canada in connection with the naval policy which he introduced in 1911. The Government of today fought that policy, and instead of insisting upon the rights of Canada, as they claim to have insisted recently, they wanted Canada to send to England a bag containing $35,000,000 in gold as the tribute of slaves to their master. Mr. Speaker, I will support the President olf 'the Privy Council and the Minister oi Public Works when they vindicate the

liberty of my country, but I will always ' 'ask from this Government more evidence of good faith than I would ask from any other body because their past record is a very poor evidence of their sincerity.
I do not wish to enter into a discussion as to whether Canada was represented at Versailles as an entity distinct and separate from the British Empire, but I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council this question, and I hope lie will answer it: If Canada bad distinct representation at Versailles, will the King give a distinct ratification for Canada, or will there be only one ratification for the whole British Empire? Moreover, if the representation of Canada at Versailles is different and distinct from that of the British Empire, were our Canadian delegates appointed by the Canadian or the Imperial Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were -appointed by the Canadian Government.


Lucien Cannon: That answer covers only half the truth, and I will prove it. An Order in Council was passed by the Canadian Government recommending that our Canadian delegates be appointed, but that Order in Council h-ad to be sent to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and it was the Prime Minister of Great Britain who eaw that I-h-e appointments were made. Our delegates were the appointees not of our Canadian Government, not of the Imperial Government, but of the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Geo-rge.
I am not one of those who say -that Canada should not have been represented at Versailles. I was proud to -see our country represented, and I hope that never again will war be declared or peace b-e made without Canada being consulted. The only criticism which I offer o-f the presence of our delegates -at Versailles -is this: -that if they oocupie-d -seats there, those seats were not big -enough for the country they represented. We should have been in the front row, and our country should -appear in the Peace Treaty, in the same manner as other countries. We should not have been there as a subsection but as a whole' chapter.
The President of the Privy Council told us this -afternoon that Canada was a member of the League of Nations, a member altogether separate from the British Empire.
I hope he is right.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will not find that statement anywhere in my address.


Lucien Cannon: If I understood the minister aright, he said that the British Empire was a member of the League of Nations, and that Canada was also a member of that league. Am I right?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Canada is a member of the League of Nations, but Canada is a part of the British Empire.


Lucien Cannon: I admit that, and I do not think the minister will deny it. Let me ask my hon. friend this question: If Canada is a member of the League of Nations as an entity, and the British Empire is also a member of the League, where will the Canadian delegate sit when h-e represents Canada as a separate entity, and where will he sit when representing Canada as part of the British Empire? I would also draw the minister's attention to the statement made before Congress by President Wilson of the United States. The minister told us this afternoon that he. would not like to interfere in the disputes of American politiciaiis. That is very proper. But we are not talking of disputes of politicians, we are talking about the interpretation given to the Covenant of the League of Nations by the author of that Covenant. My hon. friend from Kamour-aska (Mr. Lapointe) quoted this afternoon from President Wilson's address before Congress (Congressional Record, p. 4285) where the president declared that whenever a question should arise in which the British Empire was interested Canada would not have a vote. That is the interpretation given by the man who drafted the Covenant of the League of Nations, and although I have -a great admiration for the President of the Privy Council I am very much afraid his interpretation would not stand against that of President Wilson.
The President of the Privy Council went further. He said that whenever the inter- . ests of Canada were at stake, Canada would have a place on the Council of tire League of Nations, that the Council could not take any decision without the unanimous consent of all the members of the Council, and he drew the inference that Canada would therefore not be obliged to do anything imposed on her by the Chuncil unless she had consented to it. I disagree altogether, and I would refer my hon. friend to Article 15 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which -says that -the decision of -the Council has to b-e unanimous, but that tha-t unanimity shall -not include -the votes of ith-e interested parties. It says:
If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed ito by the members thereof other than

the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute-
I would ask the President of the Privy Council to reconcile his statement of this afternoon with the express wording of Article' 15,


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think we shall make any real gain by attempting to interpret this Treaty by this dialogue. The two things are entirely distinct; they relate to wholly different matters. The clause my hon. friend is dealing with deals with a dispute between two nations referred to the Council for investigation, and subsequently possibly for decision. That is not the case I was dealing with. I was dealing with a case under the other clause where the League may recommend to a nation that it should take certain action against another nation. If the league is going to recommend to a nation that it should take certain action against another
9 p.m. nation which is violating the Covenant of the League, then quite clearly under the clause I mentioned that other nation is entitled to be present and take part in the discussion as to what ii should do to carry out the? Covenant.


Lucien Cannon: Clause XV covers the
case. It says:
If there should arise between the members of the League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture-they will submit the matter to Council.
Then it goes on to say:
If the Council fails to reach a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League reserve to themselves the right to take such action'as they shall consider necessary for the maintenance of right and justice.
I hope the Government are right , when they declare, when they assert, that \ve have attained to nationhood. But, on the other hand, I doubt their declaration on account of their past behaviour and of present happenings. President Wilson refused to acknowledge our international status. When he was asked in Congress what would happen to Canada if trouble should arise between England and the United States, President Wilson said that there would be no trouble with Canada because Canada had no diplomatic relations with the United States and therefore Canada had no international status. How can we be a nation in the true sense of the word if we have no international status? Mr. Speaker, we are a nation! The Prime Minister of this country declared to the House on Tuesday last that we were a nation and he was proud to say it and I was proud to listen to him saying it. But, on the other hand if the members of the House consult Hansard they will see that the Premier told us that to obtain a French copy of the Treaty he had to do it through- Lord Milner, Colonial Secretary in the British Government, and that we, a nation, who had to sign this treaty, that we, a nation that had the right to all the privileges of such a status, could only obtain one . copy although we had asked for 500! If we were a nation and we wanted copies of the Treaty, we should not ask Lord Milner, who is evidently very badly disposed, but we ought to do it directly and write or cable to Paris.
* The Prime Minister in his speech announces that very soon there is to be a meeting in London, and at that meeting the future relations of the self-governing dominions with the Mother Country will be regulated. If the Government is sincere, and if the Prime Minister actually secures our new status at that meeting in London I pledge myself to support him, but be will have to stand by the position which he took in 1918, with all its consequences, and he will have to insist, first of all, that the title of King of England be changed and that in future the King be no more known as the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Overseas Dominions, but as His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and also His Majesty -the King of Canada. How can the King act for Canada distinctly from the rest of the British Empire,, as the President of the Privy Council contended this afternoon, unless he has the title of King of Canada and acts as such?
If we are really a nation, if we have attained that status of independence which many people in this country desire, we shall also have to change our constitution in such a way that no more shall we be bound to go to war simply by the fact that England has declared war. If the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) speaks in this debate -I admire his talent and I have great respect for his experience-I will ask him if he can seriously contend that Canada is an independent nation, as his colleague said this afternoon, when Canada has not .a word to say when war is declared and has not a word to say as to the conditions of peace? We will have to be consulted before war is entered upon and we will have to be consulted before peace is signed.


Ernest Lapointe: You are afraid to be right,


Lucien Cannon: I am afraid of being right. Up to the year 1919 not a soldier could leave Canadian soil without the consent of the Canadian Government as expressed by the representatives of the Canadian people meeting in Parliament. For instance, when Great Britain declared war on Germany if the Canadian people had said in Parliament: " We will not send one soldier to

the war," Great Britain could not have forced us to send any. Canada went to war not because the Dominion was only a part of the British Empire but because this country wanted to take part in the conflict in favour of the true democratic principles that ought to Tule the world. But if this Treaty is approved, if Canada becomes a member of the League of Nations, our last particle of freedom and liberty will disappear; and when England as a member of the League of Nations, or rather the British Empire as a member of the League of Nations, starts a war, for instance, with Turkey, the Council of the League will turn to Canada and tell this country: "You have got to take part in this war, not because you are a part of the British. Empire, but because your representatives in Parliament in the year 1919, when they met for a short session of thirty-one days, gave away the liberties that you had secured after years and years of fighting and of combat." That is the situation as I understand it.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I reaffirm again my high admiration for the theories enunciated by the members of this Government. I hope they are right but I am afraid they are wrong; and I say that if we have signed this Treaty, if we become members of the League of Nations, we should do so under the reservation of all our rights as existing to-day and with our complete and full autonomy. As far as I am concerned I will accept this Treaty and the membership of this League only subject to these reservations.
We have been told by the President of the Privy Council that a new era is dawning upon the world. His eloquence has shown us skies lighted up by the rising sun of eternal and permanent peace. The sight and the view is beautiful, I enjoy the spectacle, and I hope it will continue. But if we want to have peace in the rest of the world let us first have peace in our own country. I therefore advise the President of the Privy Council-if he wishes to gild this league and to have linings more beautiful even than those his imagination has described to us to-day-to tell the papers of this country, over which he has a certain influence I understand, to educate the population and the citizens of Canada to' their new duty as a nation; if we are a nation.
As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) said, the sooner we understand Our responsibilities bf citizenship the sooner we shall have a great, a noble and a united country. We from the province
of Quebec, who during this period which has just closed have suffered direly the insults which were hurled at us under varying circumstances, were pleased a few days ago to see the son of His Majesty, our King, come to our old city of Quebec, where the future of America was decided on the Plains of Abraham in 1759, and there tender to the loyal French Canadian population the royal hand-the hand which has shown to the world that even in warfare the descendants of the Kings of England are always worthy of their forefathers. When the hand of the Prince of Wales was thus extended to the French Canadians I hope, Mr. Speaker, that our compatriots of the English provinces saw the extension of that hand as a sign that social and civil warfare in Canada has come to an end. If we are good enough to be so treated by the heir of the Imperial throne of England I think the loyal population of Ontario can join with us in building our country so that she .may be as big in the future as she ought to be; and it is only on the basis of a true Canadian spirit of equal justice to all that our country will enter this new era announced to us by the Government with internal peace and with external independence and respect.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patriotic sentiments of the hon. member from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). When I saw him chasing the Minister of Justice in regard to Ireland I could not help but come to the conclusion that the Minister of Justice is possessed of many of the graces that the angels are supposed to have and is more than circumspect as to what places he suddenly rushes into.
I am going to speak only for a short time and I shall devote myself to certain questions that I think arise out of this debate. But, in the first place, I wish to ' say that I am here to vote for the resolution before the House, because I think the Treaty is a good Treaty and we ought to ratify it in the interests of the world at large. In fact, this Treaty is the greatest document that humanity has had up to the present. For one thing, it substitutes arbitration, conciliation and discussion in the open for the intrigue of diplomacy, whether openly avowed or concealed. I believe that its intrigue, deceit and licentiousness have made diplomacy the prostitute that has wrecked the history of the last thousand years, and I am glad to see that secret diplomacy has to come to an end. Great results are bound to come from the new diplomacy-the dis-

cussion and trial of public questions in open court and their settlement by arbitration. But now that we have a League of Nations it will not be arbitration that will rule the world, I hope, but rather public opinion, and certainly public opinion has the right *to rule the world. It seems to me that hereafter public opinion, as expressed by the people in journals and in discussion, and the publicity thus given to the facts, will afford more than anything else security for the welfare of humanity. .Therefore, it is a matter of satisfaction to me that this League of Nations is to be created and that I have the honour and the opportunity as a humble member of this House to vote in favour of the ratification of the Treaty and of all that goes with it in the subsequent legislation that is to be passed to make good that Treaty and the League of Nations.
I also appreciate everything that has been said by the Prime Minister and his colleagues who attended the Conference in regard to the good result that is likely to accrue from the provisions which deal with the problems of labour. That is something that everybody can approve of, and the working people all the w'orld over-and we are all workingmen in this country-will be glad to see that the problems of labour have been placed on an improved basis, and I feel sure that it will be bettor for the world to have some kind of internationalism in regard to these problems. For that reason also I shall give my vote in favour of the proposal, now before the House.
I would not have had much further to say had not the question of the future of Canada and its so-called new status been projected into the discussion, and for a few minutes I wish to refer to this alleged change in the status of Canada which has taken place or is about to take place, and also to the suggestion that Canada Iras in some way become a new nation and that we have entered into a League of Nations within the British Empire. I want to try to clear up this question and to give my views in regard to it-views that may be worthy of consideration not only in this House but outside. This question has been allowed to remain in the background for some time, other matters having been given preference to it, but it is before us now and must be disposed of.
We have been told-and the hon. member (Mr. Cannon), who has just taken his seat, has partly made my speech for me-we have been told that we are now a nation,' and Sir Wilfrid Laurier told us years ago that we had became a nation.

Now, I am a Canadian; this is my country; I have no other country but Canada. For many years as I have sat in this House I have thought time and again of our political status, 'although I have not said much about it. I shall be convinced that wTe are a nation only when I know that we have the sovereignty that goes with a nation. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) that as long 'as Canada has not the right to make her own constitution-and we have not that right-we are not a nation, and we have not sovereignty. We have not sovereign rights in regard to treaties and in regard to war. We cannot make war; we 'cannot make peace. We cannot send ambassadors to other countries; we cannot receive ambassadors here. We have not sovereignty even in the matter of shipping. We have not sovereignty in the matter of copyright. As the member for Dorchester said, our courts are not the supreme 'and final interpreters of our own law. So that when hon. gentlemen say that we are a nation, I tell them that we shall be a nation only when we shall have assumed full sovereignty; only when we have the rights which are at present denied to us.
We are boasting, of our being a nation within the galaxy of the Britannic nations. But I want to recall to this House the fact that independent of anything we may think or anything we may do the Parliament of Great Britain can to-morrow change the Royal succession as it exists in the present Royal family of England; they can set up another form of government, a democracy or a republic, without consulting us in any respect. So that when we make these professions about our having nationhood and things of that kind, we must remember that we have not nationality, in that what we have can be taken away from us tomorrow by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It may be taken away in a night in connection with a revolution-and this age is an age of revolutions. In the presence of these considerations, therefore, we have to give attention to the subject of our relations with the Empire, to this question of nationality; and in some way we have to try to clear the matter up.
I do not mean to advocate any particular thing in connection with Canada's position,
' as to her sovereignty, as to her nationhood, as to her relations with the Empire. But we have been told in this House that a great constitutional conference is to he called at a very early day to settle the question of the relations which should exist between the various nations within the Empire. I

say that we must first lay down the principle that nothing be undertaken in the way of a constitutional conference without our asserting our absolute right to know how such a conference is to be conducted and without our retaining the right to pass absolutely upon the transactions and conclusions of that conference. Not- for one moment do I wish that we shall be led into something. I happen to be of, the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, when he was in this House, and I have been guided more or less by some of the principles which he laid down. If there was anything that Sir John A. Macdonald was jealous of, it was the maintaining of Canada's right and Canada's autonomy. What the President of the Council quoted here to-day from Sir John A. Macdonald concerning Canada's right to determine her own fiscal policy is my doctrine, as it was his; and I apply it not only to fiscal policy but to everything else, and especially to any great constitutional changes that have to be made.
So I lay it down here that before any more missions are undertaken to London and before there are any more conferences in regard to the constitution and the political future of this country, not only must the lines, to be followed at such a conference, be laid before the people, but nothing must be finally done at any such conference without our. representatives first laying the matter before the Canadian people for their consideration. It will not do for the delegates whom we send to' Great Britain to deal w'ith these matters to come back and say: We have been in conference; we recommend this thing, and if what we recommend is not adopted, we will resign our places in the Government. The air should be cleared with regard to these things; hereafter Canada should be fully considered in connection with these matters.	[DOT]
During the last few years I have been more than worried about these things. I could not speak out when the war was on, but I did not like all these missions to England. I did not like the commitments that were being made. I did not like it when even the heads of the Government here saw fit to go to England and take part in these conferences, the only reason given being that Mr. Lloyd George was very anxious to have representatives of Canada go over there and sit with him. What he ought to be anxious and concerned about is first of all to state why he wants representatives of the Government of Canada to be there. Of course, it may be difficult to do that in time of war, but from this time on, having regard to the official announcement that a great council of the Britannic nations who are supposed to be independent is to be called, everything must be done in the open and done after full discussion. The result of all these transactions and deliberations must be laid before the people of Canada and Canada should not be committed until the people have had the fullest opportunity of discussing them. When I say that, I am standing on the platform of Sir John A. Macdonald and also on the platform of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and I think I have good reason for taking this position.
If these great changes that, are suggested are to take place, we must also have regard for present conditions as they exist in this country, and for the British North America Act and the federation of Canada which it created. We know out of what questions and discussions the British North America Act aro$e and what problems it, in a measure, endeavoured to solve. If our delegates go to England in the near future to discuss these questions, they must review and acquaint themselves with the questions that were, considered when Confederation was created, and the first people they will have to have regard to are the people of Quebec who entered into that compact and agreement out .of which the Confederation of Canada arose. Furthermore, if we are going into this question of the future of Canada, not only must we pay some regard to the views of Ontario and Quebec and the Maritime Provinces at that iirtie, but in the light of to-day. In going into this great question of recasting the whole organization of the British Empire and especially of Canada, we must pay regard to some of the new divisions in which the people of Canada are constituted. First and foremost, before we enter into or commit ourselves to a great, new departure of this kind, we must consult the people of western Canada, the farming community of Canada and the labour interest of Canada. In fact, every portion of our country must have ample opportunity of discussing these questions in the light of its interests and its views. And so, while I say I am in favour of the ratification of the Treaty and will gladly vote for it, and while I am prepared to discuss these questions of the future of the country-and they may be coming up almost immediately and the Prime Minister may be leaving for England by almost the next boat after this House is closed-I want to

put myself on record here and now on behalf of myself and my fellow countrymen against any attempt to rush this question just now to any immediate settlement. I want the fullest discussion; I want all the facts brought back, and I want the people themselves, whose destinies may be changed by this new proposal, to have an opportunity of discussing it.
Not only do we go into this new discussion as a member of the British Empire, but more and more, when we come to settle the future of Canada, must we have regard to the fact that we are a great power or country or state, it may be, on this North' American continent, and we must have even more regard for this continent than for our European connections and alliances. America to-day is the home and centre of democracy, and when I speak of democracy, I speak of that democracy which was created by Oliver Cromwell, which subsequently was advanced by George Washington and which has been upheld in a marvellous way by Abraham Lincoln and by some of our own statesmen and public men here in Canada. We have given a new meaning to democracy, and it is the democracy of America, as1 exemplified by the United States and Canada, that is the saving grace of the world today. We must have regard, therefore, to the fact that we are on this North American continent, and that Canada is the intercontinent which looks across the Atlantic to Europe and all its problems and which also looks across the Pacific to Asia and all its problems; "and when .we come to make the great decision that we must make-.but, I hope, not make too soon or too rashly-we must have regard for all these things, for all our previous commitments, and must keep all our pledges and promises of the past, and most of all, keep ourselves straight and in line in the ser-ice of democracy.


John Wesley Edwards: If I understood my hon. friend aright, he said that we must have more regard for our relations on this continent than for our relations with any of our Allies in Europe. Does my hon. friend mean that we should have more regard for our relations, say with the United States, than for our relations with the (Mother Country?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say quite that. But I said, when we are considering all these questions of our relations with Europe and our relations .with all other countries, we must recognize what

the Prime Minister said here the other day-and he was not the first to say it- that Canada, in going to the battlefields of Europe, led the democracy of America in that great work, and the United States had to follow us.
Mr. EDWAF.DiS: What did my hon. friend mean when he said that we must have greater regard for our relations with the countries on this continent than for our relations with our Allies?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not going to be cross-questioned on this matter; I am going to state my views, and I will take the responsibility of my views. What I wish to say is that when we are told that new problems are to be brought before us and that great changes are to take place and that great conferences are to be had, we must have regard for all these things and we must recognize .that we are on this continent-and it is a great fact that we are on it. When I say that I have not a word of criticism to pass on the old land which was the home of my fathers, or of Britain which is the mother of all parliamentary institutions and largely of the liberties of the world. But we must consider and have regard for everything and we must take the right time to consider these questions, and I come now probably to my last argument and to the last statement I wish to make..	*


John Wesley Edwards: Why more regard for our relations on this side than on the other?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say quite that. I will put it in this way -due regard.


John Wesley Edwards: I object to the word
" more.'


William Findlay Maclean: Then we shall leave the word "mpre" to the dictionary. I am still here.
I want now to come to what I regard also as a matter of the greatest importance, and that is this: While we have been led into this discussion of the new status of Canada and the greater status that she is about to assume, I do not think that the discussion of these questions or the bringing on of a gre at constitutional conference in Europe is the thing to which we at this time ought to give our greatest attention. Now that the war is over, these questions may very well be left to the future, and I do not think this great constitutional conference, soon to be held in England, is the pressing question. The pressing question in Canada to-day is the reconstruction of Canada and

the re-establishment of the men who took part in the vfar, and we can well afford to let stand for a time these questions of the future and these constitutional questions, and I am not discussing them nor proposing them.
I would much prefer to see the time of this House taken up with the discussion of reconstruction in this country. The most, pressing question in Canada to-day is the high cost of living, and it must be dealt with. The next most pressing question, and it is rampant in Toronto to-night and all day yesterday, is the civil re-establishment of our soldiers. Great, questions have also arisen out of the war in regard to our policies on banking and commerce. Many great questions also arise in connection with the the tariff and how this country is going to raise a revenue sufficient to meet its obligations. To my mind these are the pressing questions of the day that must be settled by Parliament, and ought to be settled now. The war has been brought to a successful conclusion, the League of Nations is under way, and when the Treaty has been ratified I am quite willing to let these agreements work out as best they can for the benefit of humanity. With all respect to the various opinions in this House, to my mind Canada can better afford to give most of its time and energy now to the pressing questions I have mentioned. What we want to do is to restore Canada to her ability to produce. More production is what we want, to pull us out of our trouble and danger. While I appreciate what has been done for labour, and the	improved	status it- has
achieved, to my mind there, is just one thing for every Canadian, whether he is a member of this House or not and that is to do all that in him lies to increase our .production so that we can have enough goods of various kinds to export, to give us a trade balance in our favour as against other nations at an early date. Let us reestablish our soldiers'in civil life, and give our attention 'to the other pressing problems of the day, and do whatever we are called upon to do in connection with the League of Nations. And when I have said that, I have said all I have to say to the House to-night. I apologize for taking up the time of the House, but I could not listen in silence to this discussion, and most of all read what has been said by the newspapers and on the platform, in view of the amount of unrest there is not only here but .all over the world. The main 10
thing now is for us not to discuss politics so much as to discuss economics and to give our main attention to the problems that are knocking at our door for attention.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Mr. Speaker, at this late
hour, at this stage of the discussion, I shall not trespass upon the patience of the House, as I do not rise to participate at any length in the debate that is now in progress. May. I preface my remarks by reminding the House that owing to the paramount importance of the Treaty of Peace now under consideration, I should deem myself to be recreant to my duty, did I not make a few remarks in our beautiful French language which was on a footing of equality with the English language at the Conference of Versailles, the outcome of which is the Treaty now under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, 1914 and 1919 will remain two outstanding landmarks in the world's history, ranking among the epoch-making events in the annals of the nations.
We had the wars of the Empire, under Napoleon, culminating in his defeat on the Waterloo battlefield and later on, we witnessed with tearful eyes and broken-hearts the frightful catastrophe, the war of 187071, to which the Treaty of Paris put an end, and we are just emerging from that epochal conflict which happily had its triumphant conclusion in the Treaty of Peace at Versailles.
History, the avenger of all wrongs, has recorded the two wars just mentioned, and the pen of the historian is about to describe the one in which we have been engaged, the greatest war ever yet waged, and the supreme effort put forth in the cause of freedom, justice and for the vindication of the rights of humanity.
In 1914 Germany let loose on the world that war, thinking that she could easily win jt, and as for forty years she had been organized as a military machine, who could resist her militarist spirit, her lust .of world conquest? Who could withstand her numberless battalions, ,so well disciplined, and well nigh invincible?
But she had reckoned without heroic Belgium, which was going to throw her whole energy into the world struggle, and almost exhaust her national forces; she had counted without France, which was to be bled almost to death, and suffer untold agonies; she had reckoned without Italy, whose sole wish ivas to continue living in peace; she had counted without Great Britain and its colonies, *which could not



allow the weak to be crushed beneath the heel of the enemy: she had reckoned without the United States, which was going to be swept into the war 'by the vision of all those useless hecatombs of men, women and children, and of a future pregnant with dangers to its own security.
And during four years, humanity stood aghast at the gruesome spectacle of armies such as had never been embattled rushing against each other, of millions of human lives being sacrificed to the god of a merciless war, while the gaunt spectre of starvation was stalking through the land, amidst scenes of slaughter,, spoliation, ruin, shameless holocausts of irreparable treasures lit up by blind barbarian vengeance.
But on the day appointed by Providence, Foch and his valiant armies smashed the Austro-German effort and sounded in clarion notes before an expectant world those memorable words: "Liberty is no longer imperilled; Right and Justice shall not disappear from the earth."
And we had the Treaty of Versailles.
After the effort put forth by Canada in sending to the battle front over five hundred thousand men, in shouldering a debt of over a billion dollars, and at the cost of over sixty thousand of soldiers who had laid down their lives for the defence of the Empire, could Canada look with indifference as a detached spectator, at the conclusion of a Treaty imparting to a wondering world the good tidings which, on Christmas Night, the angels brought to the shepherds in Judea: "On earth i>eace, good will toward men."
Mr. Speaker, rejoicipgs were general, and it was but natural that Canada should as much as, if not more than, any other country, thrill with pleasure' upon hearing that the terrible scourge of war had passed away and that an era of peace, justice, and benevolence was being ushered in for the whole human race.
This Treaty we have now before us, and are invited to ratify it, but here, among several other questions involved, there is a very important one that I wish briefly to touch upon. Heretofore, Canada had been free to take part or abstain from participating in foreign wars, even those wars which could affect the British Empire; yet it had never occurred to any one that there was any danger of our country keeping aloof and looking with indifference upon the fate of arms when Great Britain was being involved in a great world struggle on the issue of which the honour of the Crown and the destiny of its subjects were staked.
[Mr. Gauvre.au. 1
From time immemorial, down to the enactment of that too-famous* Conscription Act which will stamp with indelible disgrace the men who framed it, the more so as one recalls to mind the sordid antipatriotic and almost inhuman grounds acted upon by its promoters in bringing forth and enforcing this measure, I may say that Canada had volunteered her help to Great Britain in her wars. Witness the part taken by Canada in the Nile Expedition, and in old Boer War days in South Africa. And when Germany invaded Belgium, and Great Britain drew the sword in defence of the weak and to save Liberty threatened by the Teutonic hordes, 'Canada without haggling, raised an army of 400,000 men who flocked to the colours and voluntarily went over the top facing death, to help the Allies in this new crusade against modern barbarians.
Why should not this state of things continue? Why erase with one stroke of the pen all that our past history made up of constitutional liberty, and throw us gratuitously, for the sake of the League of Nations, into the vortex of militarism, without reference to our feelings, in order that' Parliament may vote a ratification which will bind us for ever?
But the hand of rampant Imperalism was going once more, after so many fruitless efforts, to drag along the Dominions and to involve them into the wars of the Empire which Canada could with good reason deem unjust and hurtful to her best interests.
Under the cover of the rejoicings and festivities which marked the cessation of hostilities our Imperialists in London and even in Canada availed themselves of the opportunity to hitch us up to the Imperialistic car, and under pretence of claiming that our participation in the war had entitled us to a place under the sun, among the nations, and while inviting us to attend the Conference at Versailles and to sign the Treaty of Peace, they succeeded in masking their thoughts and disguising their projects, and now, by bidding us to ratify the Treaty, and affirming the principle laid down in clause X, they want to bind us forever to the fortunes of that Empire which we have always been ready to defend, without being obligated by a clause of the Treaty, devised for such a purpose.	i
In forecasting the future, I do not wish to act the part of a prophet of evil. Desirable as it may be, I see in that League of Nations a source of trouble, of entangle-

merits and international dangers the more to be apprehended because there are in Europe so many sore and bleeding wounds not yet healed up.	'
To my mind there is in Clause X a preconceived idea. I see behind it an almost machiavelian hand striving to smotheT every feeling of patriotism, spontaneously manifesting itself through material;, help ' proffered in times of stress and struggle such as our Mother Country is liable to go through.
I am quite aware that the Treaty, as soon as it is signed by His Majesty the King, obligates the whole Empire, a part of which we are proud1 to be, but let me tell you, Sir, that Canada would have been better impressed and even more grateful had we been ignored in the ratification of the Treaty, and left free and untrammelled as formerly, voluntarily to clasp hands with the Empire across the seas whenever an opportunity offered.
Our constitution is all of a sudden changed by that Treaty, and from a free country we are being enslaved by a clause which could unexpectedly involve us in unjust or arbitrary conflicts, in wars of spoliation, because history which has recorded those scraps of paper could very well repeat itself, even in quarters' from which it would be the least expected.
I have here a clipping from a remarkable editorial, which offers food for thought, and that appeared in the columns of the Citizen of September 8, under the heading "Canada's National Status." And in order to render full justice to the author of this editorial, let me read it in extenso:
In the circumstances it is folly to talk of Premier 'Borden " wresting a new national status for Canada from the peace conference." What the present peace treaty represents is not a new national status but a surrender of Canadian rights. Hithertofore we have gone to war, when we have done so, voluntarily. Henceforth we shall he compelled to go to war, if we accept the treaty as it stands.
If Canada has attained a new national status, now is the time to demonstrate it. We can do so by objecting to a section of the treaty that takes out of our hands the most important decision in national life-the making of war or peace. To assert that we have gained in nationhood by surrendering this right is surely absurd. As the matter stands now, the United Kingdom enters into an agreement with a great group of other nations to involve Canada and the rest of her overseas dominions with her in war, should occasion arise, and this without any reference to us. If we sign the treaty as it stands, -with Article X. in full force, we bind ourselves to go to war as soon as Britain does, whether we like it or not. And should Italy attack France, for example, we should be involved at once through Britain's obligations, and
>104
compelled to send troops overseas to support France.
The Canadian Parliament is called upon for a most momentous decision. The facts are clearly before it, in the language of the contentious clause and in the ratification of the treaty by Britain without reference to Canada's action. Only by a reservation in the matter of Article X. can Canada's present rights be maintained. If parliament endorses the treaty as it stands we are committed to participation in future European wars without reference to our own feelings in the matter or our ability to live up to our obligations, financial and otherwise.
(Translation) Therefore, I say that once it has ratified this Treaty Canada will cease to be a nation following her own path toward a wonderful destiny. This country will feel as though it were condemned to chain and bail, and for us of the province of Quebec I believe we shall no more he able, as our ancestors used to sing, to say with Sir George Etienne Cartier, whose centenary we were celebrating a few days ago:
Originaire de la France Aujourd'hui sujet d'Albion,
A qui donner la preference De l'une ou l'autre nation?
Mais n'avons-nous pas je vous prie
* Encore de plus puissants liens?
A tous prffdrons la patrie:
Avant tout soyons Canadiens.
I am, ready to vote in favour of any amendment tending to assert our determination to be consulted before being led to participate in future wars in which Canada would not be directly or indirectly concerned.
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY moved the adjournment of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. There is a well known rule of the House which provides that: "When the Speaker is upon his feet for the purpose of putting a question, no member shall rise, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance." The observance of this rule is necessary in order to preserve the decorum of Parliament.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Wednesday, September 10, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Two o'clock.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I .have the honour to
lay upon the Table the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy of the House. This is not in strict compliance with rule 9, which is the rule followed, but it observes, I think, the spirit of the rule. At all

events it reports to the House the minutes of those meetings which have not heretofore begn reported and makes a complete record as 'far as the House is concerned.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTROCUTION).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal Code (Electrocution). He said:
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the same as was introduced last session, but it could not be reached then on account of other business. Since its introduction I have received a large number of expressions of opinion in favour of the measure - which is to change and make more modem executions, or capital punishment, in Canada. I am sure that when the Bill eo'mes to be discussed and hon. gentlemen are made acquainted with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown and others, the House will favourably accept it.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
PEACE conference-correspondence BROUGHT DOWN BY HON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) asked if the Government would bring down forthwith copies of the correspondence which may have taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments on two branches of the subject now before the House; first, in regard to the representation of Canada at the Peace Conference; second, as to the steps that might be deemed necessary for the ratification or approval of the Treaty. In reference to the first, the Government has no objection to bringing down the correspondence, but it is necessary to secure the agreement of the British Ministry to this course, and we are communicating with them in reference to the matter. I may say, however, for the information of the House, that certain cable communications passed between the Government here and the Prime Minister, after he arrived in England, in reference to Canadian representation, the substance of which was communicated by him to the Imperial Government, and as that consists of our own cables there is no objection to their being brought down. As they are not
IMr. Speaker.]
lengthy, and for the information of the members, I will read the cablegrams. The first is from the Acting Prime Minister, to Sir Robert Borden, and is dated 4th December, 1918:
Council to-day further considered Canadian representation at Peace Conference and is even more strongly of opinion than when you left, that Canada should be represented. Council is of opinion that in view of war efforts of Dominion other nations entitled to representation at Conference should recognize unique character of British Commonwealth composed of group of free nations under one sovereign and that provision should be made for special representation of these nations at Conference, even though it may he necessary that in any final decisions reached they should speak with one voice; that if this is not possible then you should form one of whatever delegation represents British Commonwealth. It surely is not contemplated that each nation at war should have exactly same numerical representation as Great Britain and Prance. Should not representation be to some extent commensurate with war efforts? Would you like Order in Council passed or any other official action taken declaring attitude of Government on question of Canadian representation at Conference? If so, please cable.	'
This was followed by a cable from Sir Robert Borden to the Acting Prime Minister, dated January 2, 1919.
In Cabinet to-day I took up question of re-, presentation of the Dominions and spoke very frankly and firmly as to-Canada's attitude. My proposal which I consider the most satisfactory solution that is practicable and which was accepted by the Cabinet is as follows:-
First, Canada and the other Dominions shall each have the same representation as Belgium and other small allied nations at the Peace Conference.
Second, as it is proposed to admit representatives of Belgium and other small allied nations only when their special interests are under consideration, I urged that some of the representatives of British Empire should be drawn from a panel on which each Dominion Prime Minister shall have a place.
I pointed out that Canada has no special interest such as South Africa. Australia and New Zealand, in respect of additional territory and that the basis of representation accorded to small allied nations would, therefore, be unsatisfactory from Canadian point of view. I emphasized the insistence of Canada on this recognition and I urged that the British Empire has the right to define the constitutional relations between the nations which compose it and their consequent right to distinctive representation. It is anticipated that British Empire will have five representatives entitled to be present at all meetings of Conference. I expressed my strong opinion that it would be most unfortunate if these were all selected from the British. Islands. Probably three will be named and two others selected from the panel for each meeting. The panel will comprise both British and Dominion Ministers. No public announcement can be made until these proposals have been communicated to Allied Governments and accepted. I shall be glad to have' views of Council. My proposal really gives to Dominions fuller representation than that accorded to small allied nations such as Belgium.

To that communication the Government replied as follows:
Council has considered B115- that is the cable of the Prime Minister which I have just read-
-and sees no reason to change view expressed in P35-
that is the cable of the 4th December, 1918, wihich I read.
If Peace Conference in its .composition is to express spirit of democracy f&r which we have been fighting, as Council thinks it should, small allied nations like Belgium which have fought with us throughout war should be entitled to representation throughout whole Conference, even if limited to one member, and if this were agreed proposal that Canada should have same representation as Belgium, and other small allied nations, would be satisfactory, but not otherwise. Canada has had as many casualties as the United States and probably more actual deaths. Canadian people would not appreciate five American delegates throughout the whole Conference and no Canadian entitled to sit [DOT] throughout Conference, nor would they appreciate several representatives from Great Britain and Canada none. There will he great disappointment here if you are not full member of Conference. We fully appreciate that you are doing everything in your power to secure suitable representation for Canada.
There is a cablegram dated January 16, 1919, from the Acting Prime Minister to the Prime Minister:
Announcement as to Canadian representation at Peace Conference most favourably received. Hearty congratulations on' success of your efforts in this regard.
There is one other document which has some bearing on the matter. The first plenary session of the powers being assembled, the Peace Conference adopted a scheme of organization and the rules under which its business should be conducted.
The rules of the Conference are to be found in the second Annex to what is known as Protocol No. 1 of the Preliminary Peace Conference, that is, the formal record of the proceedings of the first Plenary Session. The question of status is dealt with in the first rule set out in this Annex, which reads as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Rules of the Conference /
1.
"The Conference summoned with a view to lay down the conditions of peace, in the first place .by peace preliminaries and later by a definitive Treaty of Peace, shall include the representatives of the Allied or Associated belligerent Powers."
"The belligerent Powers with general interests (The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan) shall attend all sessions and commissions."
"The belligerent Powers with special interests (Belgium, Brazil, the British Dominions and India, China, Cuba, Greece, Guatemala,
Hayti, the Hedjas, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia, Siam, the Czecho-Slovack Republic) shall attend the sessions at which questions concerning them are discussed."
Then it goes on to deal with other Powers.
With reference to the second question of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) as fo the correspondence in reference to the steps that might be deemed necessary for the ratification or approval of the Treaty, this correspondence is necessarily secret, it having reference to the urgency of ratification, and in that connection to international conditions of a confidential nature touching other countries. The Government would not be justified in laying the correspondence before the House without the full approval of the British Govern-ernment with whom we are communicating. As however fhe Government is anxious to give the House the fullest possible information, I will lay upon the Table a memorandum prepared on behalf of the Prime Ministers' of the Dominions and sent by Sir Robert Borden to the British Empire delegation and to the Prime Minister of Great Britain in reference to the position of the Dominions in connection with the signing of the Peace Treaty. It is entitled:
British Empire delegation.
The Dominions as parties and signatories to the Various peace treaties. Memorandum circulated by Sir Robert Borden
on behalf of the Dominion Prime Ministers.
Mr. McMAS'TER: What is the date?
Newton Wesley Rowell: March 12. 1919. It
reads:
(1)	The Dominion Prime Ministers, after careful consideration, have reached the con? elusion that all the treaties 'and conventions
' resulting from the Peace Conference should be so drafted as to enable the Dominions to become Parties and Signatories thereto. This procedure will give suitable recognition to the part played at the Peace Table by the British Commonwealth as a whole and will at the same time record the status attained there by the Dominions.
(2)	The procedure is in consonance with the principles of constitutional government that obtain throughout the Empire. The Crown is the supreme executive in the United Kingdom and in all the Dominions, but it acts on the advice of different ministries within different constitutional units; and under Resolution IX of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, the organization of the Empire is to be based upon equality of nationhood.
(3)	Having regard to the high objects of the Peace Conference, it is also desirable that the setlements reached should be presented at once to the world in the character of universally accepted agreements, so far as this is consistent with the constitution of each State represented. This object would not be achieved if the practice heretofore followed of merely inserting in the body of the convention an express reservation providing for the adhesion of the Domin-



CANADIAN SHIPS REGISTRY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon.   A@: Air. Speaker, at the request of the Prime Minister I would like to make another statement. This has reference to the transfer of Canadian owned ships to Canadian registry.
For a considerable time the Canadian Government have had under consideration the question of securing the transfer to

Canadian registry of Canadian owned ships at present on the United Kingdom registry. Many Canadian owners wish to make this transfer, but in view of the pressing need for tonnage the Minister of Shipping has heretofore refused to sanction, such a course. As a result, however, of representations recently made by the Canadian Government, the Government of the United Kingdom have consented to alter their policy in this respect, and they have agreed to the announcement of the change in the following terms set forth in a telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated August 16:
" Subject to adequate safeguards of the maintenance of our present rights in regard to the carriage of government cargo by liners, it is proposed that all ships that were Canadian owned before the war, and any ships transferred to Canadian owners during the war, are now to be transferred to Canadian registry if their owners desire it."
A subsequent telegram from the Colonial . Secretary, dated August 19, explains that the above proposal concerning transfer >to Canadian registry is not intended to apply to cases where there has been a special stipulation to the contrary.
This refers to cases of the sale of British owners to Canadian purchasers of ships of British registry. Owing to the great demand it w'as found necessary to retain rigid control of British ships and no British owners were permitted to transfer their ships without definite stipulation that such a transfer should not carry with it any rights other than those of the seller. The purchaser, therefore, in that case would receive the ship subject to the Government right of requisition, and of preventing transfer to another registry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to ask the President of the Council if he can give any information as to whether ships not British, which were under charter to Canadian companies, and which were commandeered by the British Government, will be returned to the former charterers?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Air. Speaker, I
have no information on the point, but 1 shall make inquiries and endeavour to answer my hon. friend to-morrow.
THE PEACE TREATY. [DOT]



DERATE RESUMED ON THE MOTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER TO APPROVE OF THE TREATY OF PEACE.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the following proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden, adjourned from September 9:

That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of -His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this (House do approve of the same.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I meed hardly 'tell tJhe House that it is not my intention to follow the lines along Which this -dehate has 'proceeded and to d-eail with the constitutional -aspect of this question. It is my intention to discuss wha-t the document we -are considering really i-s as laid upon the table of this House-the Treaty of Peace between Germany on the one -hand and the Allied and Associated Powers on the other.
This Treaty, Mr. Speaker, brings to an end ith-e greatest tragedy that -the world has ever known

a tragedy which on the western front alone involved no fewer than
27,000,000 casualties, 7,000,000 of which are now 'sleeping beneath the sacred soils of France and Belgium; a tragedy which put upon the Allies alone a debt of $150,000,000,000; a tragedy which has dethroned kings, wrecked governments, destroyed our economic system and brought the world to the verge of bankruptcy. That is the condition of things that this Treaty is supposed to end.
Canada has made great sacrifices in this war and this Parliament has 'the right to discuss the terms of the Treaty. This Parliament has a right to know whether the liberties Which- were so well won on the battlefields otf the world have been preserved -by our representatives at the Peace Conference at Versailles. It is to that aspect of the question that I wish to direct the 'attention of the -House for a few moments.	.	*
But before discussing the 'terms of peace, we might well look at the causes of war and see how the terms of this Treaty will apply to what in the past have been the great incentives of military effort. With my limited knowledge of history it appears to me that one of the causes of war in the past has been the military ambition of monarch's or nations. Another cause has been the lust for territory on 'the part of nations, for the purpose of [DOT]colonization or of trade. Another has been the natural desire of peoples to be linked with their own kin and with those of their own tongue. It was from this aspect, I think, that the representatives at the Peace Conference viewed the state of the -world as they found
it. Many wrongs have been done in the past which they felt it was their first duty to rectify. Not -only had -they to deal with the present condition of affairs resulting from this war; they had in mind the untold misery that had been caused -and the unfair treatment that had been -accorded to many nations as the result of previous military conflicts. T-h-es-e they have in certain measure attempted to remedy. Alsace and Lorraine have been returned to France, and Bosnia goes to Serbi-a. West Prussia, Posen and part of East Prussia go to Poland, while Silesia, North Schleswig and the remainder of East Prussia are allowed to settle their own national allegiance by a popular vote of their people. Four new free nations are created which -consist of no less than sixtydive millions of people, fifty millions of whom were five years ago under oppression and bondage. That, I think, is the first result, one of the great results, of this Treaty which we are now asked to ratify.	.
Another result of the Peace Conference which may have a very happy effect upon the world is one which has not so far been mentioned in this debate. I refer to the mandatory policy which has been inaugurated with respect to weak and backward nations. Nations of this kind are to be developed and educated along the lines oi scientific government; they are to be treated like children in a school who are taught to look after themselves-; they will be enabled to obtain all the advantages of western civilization. When we reflect that this principle can be extended to all the backward nations of the earth, we see in the possibilities that may emerge from that policy one of the great blessings which may result from this unhappy war.
Then, the representatives at the Peace Conference have attempted to do away with the conditions brought about by the greed of nations in the past for trade. They have thrown open various countries to freedom of trade; they have put them on an equality so far as freedom for carrying on business in concerned.
Let us now come more particularly to the conditions- of the Treaty. This is a treaty with Germany, who, we must remember, was the great aggressor; who was the cause of the much lamented state of affairs which have prevailed during the last five years. What are the conditions which have been laid down in respect of the ambitious military nation which was the cause of this war? If we look at the military terms which have been imposed upon Germany, we see

that the army of this once great and powerful nation, which was able at the beginning of the war to mobilize between 9,000,000 and
12,000,000 men, has been reduced to 100,000 men and 5,000 officers. That, I think, presages well for peace so far as Germany is concerned. In addition, the demobilization of troops in Germany is restricted to five per cent a year of the total force. It will be remembered that in 1806 France restricted the Prussian military force to. 20,000 men, and Prussia, in order to evade that restriction, said: We will maintain only 20,000 men, but we will train 20,000 new men every year. It will be remembered also that a few years later, at the battle of Waterloo, she was instrumental, to some extent at least, in defeating the French, who had imposed such drastic terms upon her.
In addition to the terms which I have mentioned, the forts of the Baltic and the Rhine are to-: be done away with. The fortifications of the Kiel Canal and of Heligoland are to be destroyed. Conscription has been abolished. The naval terras are almost as drastic. Germany is allowed to keep only six battleships, six light cruisers and twelve torpedo boats; she is permitted to have no submarines and no 'air force. Her fourteen cables are yet to be distributed by some method to be arrived at by the League of Nations. War material must not be imported or exported by Germany. Thus we see the drastic military conditions to which this once powerful military nation has been subjected.
We have surrounded our late enemies with a natural fortification. We have on the west the natural fortifications of the Rhine. Then we have the Alps, and in the near East we have the Danube. On the eastern- flank we have created two nations and made them free and independent: Poland and Czecho-Slovakia.
Thus we have her hemmed in as it were on every side by free and independent peoples. The frontiers of Great Britain will be on the Rhine; those of Egypt and India will be on the Danube, and it is worthy of note by those of us who recall our ancient history that those were the natural boundaries which were used by the great Roman Empire.
Turning to the economic conditions that are imposed, we find that they are equally if not more severe. Germany has to pay an indemnity of $25,000,000,000, and I hope that that is not the total amount, as it does not seem to me that $25,000,000,000 is sufficient indemnity to put upon a nation which

caused the Allies a war debt of $150,000,000,000. I hope that there will be other levies put upon Germany at -a later date. Germany accepts responsibility for all the damage done to the Allies and associated governments. She agrees to reimburse civilian damages. She agrees to replace shipping on a ton for ton basis, this to be drawn from her merchant marine and from her coastal and river shipping. She agrees in addition to build merchant ships for the Allies for years to come and to devote her economic resources to rebuilding the devastated regions of the western front. Germany agrees to return to the most favoured nation treaties without discrimination, while the Allies and Associated Powers are given freedom of transit throughout Germany. Germany loses 3,000 square miles of her industrial territory and 7,000,000 people. She loses 1.000,000 square miles of her colonies and' 12,000,000 people, colonies with which before the war she had a foreign trade of no less than $13,000,000. She loses her markets, her mercantile marine, her raw materials. We take from her three-quarters of her iron and coal and a large share of her phosphates. We take thousands of vessels and hundreds of thousands of animals. We have put upon her an immediate levy of $25,000,000,000. Philip Scheidmann former chancellor of the German Empire, said on May 12, speaking from his place in the House:
This treaty is, in the view of the Imperial German Government, unacceptable, so unacceptable that I am unable to believe that the earth could bear such a document, without a cry issuing from a million throats in all lands.
As regards us, Mr. Speaker, who saw something of the devastation caused by Germany in the western fields of Europe, who saw her violate every law of God and man, this appeal does not fall on very sympathetic ears. We hope that she may be taught through the harsh terms of this Treaty that more than in the biblical sense "the way of the transgressor is hard." We welcome as a just retribution the punishment which is about to be inflicted upon the late Emperor of Germany and those associated with him who 'were responsible for this war.
We must, of course, realize that these economic terms are terms which will be carried out by any nation only when it is compelled to do so, and this brings us to the conditions which are provided for in the enforcement of this Treaty. First and foremost among them, in my humble judgment, is the League of Nations. .Thirty-two nations have agreed to submit all their troubles to arbitration; more than that, they have-

agreed to use their influence to get all other nations to do the same. Who is there in this House or in this country to-day that will believe that if in 1914 we had had such an organization as that, this war would have come upon the world? Personally, I do not believe that if the Treaty which has just been signed between Great Britain, France and the United States had been in existence prior to the war, such a conflict would have come to pass. But above and beyond all this, one of the most important uses of the League of Nations is that it will be an authentic channel by which the views of the leading powers of the earth may be given to the world. That alone is, I think, a ver.y important thing.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken a great deal about Article 10 of this Treaty. The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) yesterday proved, I think, conclusively that the sovereign power of this House was in no way encroached upon by this Article. But I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite-and they say they are all in favour of this League-what use this League would be without Article 10. It appears to me that it would not be worth the paper it is written upon nor the time that it took to write it. The including of that Article gives the League a dynamic power and force which will undoubtedly be a benefit to this country. Hon. gentlemen have to a considerable extent quoted the President of the United States, the author of this League, but I should like to remind them that a few days ago, before the Committee on Foreign Relations at Washington, he stated that Article 10 .implied nothing more than an obligation; that if the United States were going to war, Congress would have to declare it and the Government would have to come to Congress for the means for carrying it on.
Moreover, Articles 16 and 17 give the League power to put economic pressure upon any nation or nations which may violate their agreements. Article 16 says that if any member of the League disregards its covenants and resorts to war, its foreign trade and personal relationships shall be cut off from the rest of the world. We see ' there great possibilities of exercising, so to speak, an economic blockade against any country that refuses to abide by the decisions of the League of Nations. Article 1'7, directly following that, makes provision whereby any countries at war that are outside of the League are to be invited to come in, and if they enjoy the benefits of the League the same restrictions are imposed upon them as are imposed upon members
of the League proper. Let us consider for a moment what this means. Germany, as well as other countries in Central Europe, requires a great deal of raw material to be imported from other nations. Under the present terms of this Treaty she is allowed to buy coal and iron in the market without any discrimination, but we can readily see that if she refuses to abide by the decisions of this League, that privilege may be immediately cut off and all the economic pressure which practically the world can exert may be put in force against her. Germany, in 1913, imported no less than 94,000,000 bushels of wheat, the total world supply in that same year being 4,000,000,000 bushels. The Allies at that time grew no less_than
2.071.000.	000 bushels, or over 50 per cent of the total. That is, there was that much directly under the control of the Allies, or the members of the League of Nations. Germany, after 1870, owed much of her economic progress to the iron which she got in Lorraine. Turning to the iron fields of the world, we find that we 'have taken three-quarters of what she formerly possessed away from her, and in the possession of the Allies alone there is no less than three-quarters of the iron of the world. Copper, which is the next most important basic metal, is held in similar proportions. In 1913 the total production was 1,000,000,060 tons, and of this the Allies held no less than
770.000.	000 tons. The case in regard to coal is similar; of 1,100,000,000 tons, the Allies controlling over 823,000,000 tons, showing that they could impose an almost overwhelming economic blockade.
Of the 22,433,000 bales of cotton available in 1912 the Allies held over 19,500,000 bales. * These figures will indicate the power the League of Nations may exercise without resorting to force of arms. I repeat, Canada may have much to gain by being a member of the League, and no nation need expect to derive from membership in the League benefits of any importance without incurring some obligations.
Another very important part of this Treaty, to my mind, is that comprising the labour clauses. It is perhaps too soon for us to comprehend fully all that they may mean to the world, but if these provisions with regard to labour are carried out by the different members of the Leagile we can readily conceive that they will be a great blessing to humanity. In passing, we in Canada ought to be proud of the part the Prime Minister of this country and his colleagues have taken in drafting these momentous labour clauses. It would take

too long to enumerate all the labour provisions, but the opinion expressed in the Covenant that labour is not merely a commercial commodity, the regulations for securing humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, the introduction of the 24-hour day weekly rest, the abolition of child labour-these are provisions [DOT] which will do much to alleviate the troubles and the toils of labour.
Mr. Speaker, practically the whole of this debate has centred around Article X. I would ask this House and the country to consider whether Canada has not some duty to perform for the benefit of the world and of humanity. We have passed through .a dark night filled with trouble, tears, and death, and we on this side of the House think that Canada should now step out on the platform with the other nations of the world and do her part in carrying to those nations less prosperous and less blessed than ours the blessing of our free institutions and the civil and religious liberty which we possess. We should do so in the interests not only of Canada herself and the great Empire to which we belong, but also in the interests of humanity.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much time in debating this question, because I think the House is already well informed, and further, in view of the limited time that has been given to the members of this House to get acquainted with the facts it has been somewhat difficult to analyze thoroughly the Treaty and the Covenant.
I should have liked before discussing this question to have had a full report from the hon. gentlemen who represented Canada at the Peace Conference of their activities, of the speeches they delivered and the objections they made at all sittings of the Conference w'here Canada's interests were at stake. I think we are entitled to a full report of their deliberations.
I regret that the Prime Minister showed some little nervousness the other day because a few questions were put to him, with the view of enlightening the House, by the hon. member, for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding). I do not wish to be severe, but it seems to me there is a lack of dignity on the part of the gentleman who occupies the exalted position of Prime Minister of Canada when he threatens to resign from office the moment he is asked a few pertinent questions. You will remember that a year ago when the hon. member for Kingston pressed his motion for the abolition of

titles we were threatened with the resignation of the right hon. the Prime Minister in the midst of the great war. This year, when an hon. member who belonged to the Unionist wing of the Liberal party asked a few pertinent questions of the Prime Minister, we again had the threat of resignation if the Treaty and the Covenant were not approved almost without any discussion. Mr. Speaker, we have not been accustomed in our Canadian Parliament to this mode of procedure. ,


Jacques Bureau: That is autonomy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I regret we are obliged to discuss in haste the very important question before us to-day. I said the very important question; I should have said the most important question that has ever come before the Canadian Parliament since Confederation. I shall endeavour to offer a few observations on this question, speaking for no one but myself.
As regards the war itself, I need not say that I have approved and I still approve of Canada's participation in the great war, both in men and in money. I have given my all in this war, and I have no lesson to receive from any hon. gentlemen as regards my patriotism, my loyalty, and my admiration for British ideals of civilization, freedom and self-government. It was a war between two conflicting ideals-the German ideal, that might should prevail over right, and the British and French and 1 should say Christian ideal, that right should prevail over might. It was the bounden duty of Canada, and the moral duty of every civilized nation in the world, to see that our ideal should prevail, that right should prevail over might. The war has been won, and won, thanks to Divine Providence-for I believe in the intervention of Divine Providence in human affairs.
It has been won thanks to our dead heroes; and let me ,say, Mr. Speaker, that if the silent voices in Flanders Fields could be heard to-day, those young men who are under the sod would say: O Canada ! we did not fight, we did not fall to promote a new imperialism, to implant a new .militarism. We fought for freedom; we fought for justice; we fought for civilization. The war was won, , I repeat again, thanks to the intervention of Divine Providence, thanks to our dead heroes, and to the indomitable spirit of the Allied armies, among which the Canadian army played such a glorious part. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if I approve of Canada's participation in the great war I must sav at once that I cannot approve of the war

policies of the Government. During the last five years we have seen exploitation, extravagance, profiteering, waste, all which is the cause of the discontent that exists in our country. I cannot approve of the war policies of the Government because, all throughout that period, from the inception of the war to this very day, there has been an utter disregard of the constitutional rights of Canada There has been a complete absence of statesmanship-statesmanship that should make for union and not for disunion. There has been an abject surrender of principles 1 to party exigencies. Mr. Speaker, I shall not make any other reference to party politics, but lest my remarks this afternoon should be misunderstood, I say again that I .approve of Canada's participation in the war in regard to both men and money, but disapprove of the war policies of the Government, for they were not in the best interests of the cause. Bygones are bygones. The glamour of war has faded away and the country is now facing grim realities. The Liberal party, to which I have the honour to belong, can well afford to await the verdict of an enlightened electorate voting under a Liberal, a Canadian, a British franchise, when the war policies of the last five years are scrutinized. The war is won, the Peace Treaty signed, the League of Nations is created, and now the Dominion Parliament is asked to ratify or rather to approve of both. The first question which arises is this: By virtue of what powers are we called upon to ratify or to approve of the Treaty and Covenant? To say that we approve but do not ratify is only a fine play of words. If this Parliament approves, without any reservation, the Peace Treaty and the Covenant, Canada is committed to all the consequences of the Treaty and the Covenant. By virtue of what power are we called upon to ratify the Treaty and the Covenant? We are not a Sovereign nation. We have no Treaty making powers, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council. I am fully aware that sometimes in the past Canadian ministers have negotiated in Prance for instance and in Spain, a treaty between France and Canada and between Spain and. Canada. But, Sir, if the Canadian ministers were allowed to negotiate those treaties they did so because they were made plenipotentiaries by the hand and seal of His Majesty the King. I remember the case of the Franco-Canadian Treaty which was signed by my hon. friend who was then Minister of Finance, the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and by Mr. Justice Brodeur, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries. They affixed their signatures to that treaty not as Canadian ministers but as British plenipotentiaries. In spite of all the pious wishes which have been expressed, and duly so, by the Canadian Parliament, we
3 p.m. have no treaty-making power.
except the power we have of making treaties with the Indian tribes of the north. That is our sole treaty-making power. Mr. Speaker, I am a British citizen wherever the British flag floats; but if I were a British elector in the United Kingdom I would stand by the Treaty of Peace, and by .the Covenant of the League of Nations without much questioning. I would 'perhaps criticise some of the terms of the Treaty, but I would stand by the Treaty and by the Covenant because, legally, as a British elector, I would have a say in the matter. As a Canadian, however, I have no say at all in the foreign affairs in which the United Kingdom is involved. I would stand by the Treaty because it marks the end of the most cruel of all wars, and I would stand by the Covenant because, indeed, it is a noble, it is a generous effort to abolish militarism in the world and to put an end to the reign of the bully in European and in world -politics. Yet, if I were a British elector in the United Kingdom, I think I would offer a few observa-, tions concerning the Treaty. For instance, I would deplore the fact that the representatives of both Great Britain and France have in that Treaty given official recognition to the German Empire as an entity. Mr. Speaker, I do not make this, statement on my own judgment. I base my view on the very able criticism whi'ch was published in England and in France a few days ago and signed by the ex-foreign minister of France, Mr. Hanotaux. Mr. Hanotaux claims that the greatest mistake which was made in the Treaty-and it is its most outstanding one-was the recognition by the Powers of a United German Empire. Those of us who are familiar with modern history know that the United German Empire was the creation of Bismarck, and that Empire was the result of fraud, of theft and of corruption.
I will not delve into history, but, Sir, the Powers, according to Mr. Hanotaux, should have given back to Germany her status of before 1870. Before 1870 there was a German confederation and that confederation was much less formidable than the German Empire, under the sway of Prussian militarists, became. If I were a British

elector I would-as was stated yesterday by our young friend, the distinguished member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), who delivered .a speech worthy of his ability, and worthy of the best traditions of this House-force my representatives at Westminster to settle, first of all, the Irish question before joining the Le-ague. Mr. Speaker, I am not uttering a phrase for the mere pleasure of uttering it; I am stating what is a fact. Why, today, if you read the British press, and notably the London Times, you will see that Lord Northcliffe himself advocates the immediate settlement of the Irish question, without which settlement he claims there can be no Imperial unity. I merely mention the name of Lord Northcliffe; the fact of mentioning his name bears its own lesson, carries its own weight. When a man like Lord Northcliffe, the proprietor of the London Times, has come to the conclusion that there can be no Imperial unity unless the Irish question is settled, it speaks volumes for the temper of the British electorate at the present time. Not only is that the opinion of Lord Northcliffe, but it is the opinion of my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who some years ago spoke in Toronto,at a public meeting, called to discuss a memorandum which had been prepared by a Toronto committee. This memorandum contained the following conclusions:
1.	Canada showed her determination to preserve and strengthen the ties which now bind her to Great Britain and other portions of the British Commonwealth.	*
2.	Effective organization of the Empire must not involve any sacrifice of responsible government in domestic affairs, or the surrender of control over fiscal policy by any portion of the Empire.
3.	But it is an inevitable development of responsible government in the Dominions that they should assume their proportionate share in the defence of the Empire, and should have a voice in determining its relations with other states.
Notice, Mr. Speaker, " a proportionate share in the defence of the Empire and a voice," etc. One does not go without the other.	.
4.	We think, therefore, that as soon as circumstances permit, political leaders throughout the Empire, irrespective of party, should meet to consider the problem.
As my friend the President of the Privy Council was then the hope of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, he was asked to support the conclusions in this memorandum. He spoke at a large meeting held, if I mistake not, at the University
[Hr. Demieux.]
of Toronto, and there he is reported to have said:
Mr. Rowell declared that the Irish question must be settled first, that the present duty was to save the Empire now and reorganize it after. wards, that a co-operation of free peoples was better than centralization in government.


Ernest Lapointe: In what year was that speech delivered?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1917. I remember
the occasion well. I quite agree with the opinion expressed by my hon. friend on that occasion but I venture to doubt that if on that* evening, that historic evening, he had been surrounded by the same audience as listened to him yesterday, whether he would have held the^ reception that he did after the great speech which he delivered yesterday.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I got just as good a one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then I congratulate my hon. friend.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Would the hon. member permit me a question before he leaves that subject? What settlement of the Irish question would he suggest? How would he settle it?


Ernest Lapointe: Ha, ha!


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not like to
branch out into an argument on that point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But, I have no hesitation in saying that an Act was passed by the British House of Commons and it is on the statute-book of Great Britain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And sanctioned by the
King.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was sanctioned by
the King and signed by His Majesty, and therefore I would, in the truly British old-fashioned way, stand by King George and silence King Carson. But enough on this subject. I have spoken as if I were a British elector, which I am not; as a Canadian I have no say in the matter at all. I can only approve of the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant in so far as they do not impair or abridge any of my constitutional rights, and I think this is sound Canadian and sound British doctrine. I may be told, and it is quite true, that anyhow as a British subject I am bound by the Treaty and by the Covenant. This is quite true in a sense, but by ratifying, or approving-the two expressions .are only a play upon words 

the two instruments submitted to us, the Canadian Parliament is committing itself

to prospective agreements of the gravest im-. portance. The Canadian (Parliament is surrendering its control over the military forces and defences of Canada, and such is the meaning of article 10, which can stand a study of the judges of the/Privy Council much better than article 17 of the school regulations of Ontario. It is clear and well worded; it is written in French and in English, and you may discuss it which way you like it has that meaning-that if Canada adopts this Covenant without a reservation as to the constitutional rights of the Canadian Parliament you are surrendering the control of your military forces and of your finances. Article 10 reads as follows:
The Members of the 'League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all (Members of the (League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
I quite -agree with what my hon. and gallant friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGib-bon) said a moment ago, that the Covenant would be meaningless and worthless without Article X. Article X is the teeth of the Covenant, and without it the League could not be enforced. But again, Mr. Speaker, I must look upon the whole issue as a Canadian-and call me a little Canadian if you please. The fact remains that iwe are to-day considering this question as members of the Canadian Parliament, and not as members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I must lookhipon the whole issue as a Canadian living under a constitution vesting us with limited powers only. I do not fear the encroachments of the United Kingdom in fiscal matters. Our fiscal independence was settled many years ago- and all honour to Sir Alexander Galt, who drafted the noble document which was read yesterday by my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). In military matters we are governed also by and from Ottawa, and not by and from London; and we do not want to be governed by and from Geneva. By approving this Article X without any reservation, we declare that Canada is bound by all the obligations that may be undertaken not only by the United Kingdom but by all the other members of the League. Great as are the powers of this self-governing Dominion, she has no voice in the foreign affairs of the British Empire. Why should we play on words, Mr. Speaker? It is all very well to -speak of Canada as a nation on a footing of equality with the Mother Country.
In one s-en-se it is true; in another sense it is no.t true, unfortunately.
The answer given by such a great statesman as Mr. Asquith, and by an ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Ha-rcourt, to this question: Shall we, -the Dominions, have any say in the conduct of foreign affairs^settles the point.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterboro):: Will the hon. gentleman kindly say what he means by unfortunately?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Unfortunately what?


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. gentleman used the word " unfortunately " just now.


An hon, MEMBER:: Webster would tell you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: mittee of Imperial Defence should receive in confidence knowledge of the policy and proceedings of the Imperial Government in foreign and other affairs. We pointed out to him that the Committee of Imperial Defence is a purely advisory body, and is not and cannot under,any circumstances become a body to decide on policy, which is and must remain the sole prerogative of the Cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Commons.
Could the case be put more squarely and in a more concrete form than it is put there by those two great Liberal English statesmen? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that their answers settle the issue.
I said that Canada was a self-governing Dominion, that she had no voice in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that her obligation as regards the war issue was for the defence of her own territories. The questions of peace and war do not came under the purview of her constitution, the Imperial Parliament being supreme in such matters. The right hon. the Prime Minister the other day made this announcement to Canada:
The future relationship of the nations of the Empire must be determined in accordance with the will of the Mother Country and of each Dominion in a Constitutional Conference to be summoned in the not distant future. Undoubtedly it will be based upon equality of nationhood.
Undoubtedly, not certainly-suggesting that there is a doubt.
Bach nation must preserve unimpaired its absolute autonomy,-
That is what we claim, Mr. Speaker.

but it must likewise have its voice as to those external relations which involve the issue of peace or of War.
Mr. Speaker, if this announcement is true-and I believe it is true-the word of the right hon. gentleman is as good as his bond; it involves that an organic change in our constitution is contemplated. Well, Sir, I contend that this Parliament has no mandate to subscribe to this organic change. No Imperial Conference, which is only a consultative body, and no war cabinet, which was evolved during the war for a special purpose, can in such important matters override the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian constitution. Let us not be deceived by fine words; above all, to use the expression of Disraeli, let us not " take a leap in the dark."
The President of the Council waxed eloquent yesterday as he spoke of the future of Canada. I was reminded of a .remark made by a French statesman, M. Salvandy, I think it was, one of the ministers of the days of the French restoration. He had

delivered a very eloquent address before the House of Representatives, and as he was congratulated by one of his friends, he said: "Yes, but I was dancing on razor blades all the time." I may add that there were no safety razors in those days.
My hon. friend was very vague yesterday in all his definitions. He spoke of Canada not as being a nation, hut as being a nation within the Empire, that sounds well, but it is nothing else than a play upon words; it is meaningless from a constitutional point of view. There is no such thing as a nation within the Empire.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What did Sir Wilfrid Laurier mean when he said that Canada was a nation? Was that not within the Empire?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is very anxious to get from us his slogan for the next election. In order to get the electors to forget his sins of omission and commission, it would suit its purposes to denounce first, last and always, the disloyalty of those French Quebec members who stand "for a seperate nation", who advocate "independence." But we shall not dance to his tune; we will remain Canadians.
Again, do repeat in English the words of a great French statesman, I say that we are to-day what we were yesterday and to-morrow we shall be in the hands of Providence. Providence will shape the destinies of this nation, not my hon. friend, not the Tory party, not the Liberal party. Providence will shape the destinies of Canada; we are only the instruments of Providence. According to our merits or demerits the destinies of this country will be shaped.
My hon. friend says that we are a nation within the Empire. Have we the attributes of a nation? My hon. friend has studied international law and can answer that question. It is true that we have territory; it is true- that we have population; it is true?-no, it is not true-that we have sovereignty. These are the three .attributes of a nation, according to international law-territory, population, and sovereignty. Territory, as I say, we have-an immense expanse of it from the North Pole to the sixty-fifth parallel and from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific. But if we wish to add one handful of earth to that territory, we have to go to London and have the British North America Act amended. When the Hudson Bay - territory was purchased through the campaign of George Brown, but by the Macdonald Government, Sir

John A. Macdonald had to go to London in Older to settle the terms; he could not add to the British territory of Canada. Mr. Speaker, there is quite a movement, as we all know, in favour of the West Indies becoming a part of the Canadian confederation. If we wished to take steps to effect a union with these beautiful islands, we would have to ask permission from the British authorities at Westminster.
But have we sovereignty? Can we appoint a consul to represent the interests of our Canadian merchants in any city, town or village south of the boundary line? Can we even appoint a consular agent? A motion was made some years ago, and, I think, passed by the House of Commons, recommending that representations be made to the home Government requesting that Canada be given the right to be represented abroad by consular agents or by consuls in purely mercantile matters. What became of that resolution? Like many speeches delivered by -the President of the Council, it was torn and scattered to the four winds of heaven.
Last session my hon. friend agreed as to the desirability of the appointment of a commissioner to represent Canada in Washington, and we agreed on the name of the man who should be appointed. What has become of the suggestion that such an appointment be made? We have large interests with the great republic to the south of us and the presence of a Canadian commissioner at Washington would greatly assist the business men both of Canada and of United States. Yet no sooner had the suggestion been made by my hon. friend in this House than the question was taken up in the British Parliament. I forget the exact answer that was given by Mr. Bonar Law or Mr. Walter Long, but it was, to say the least, a very frigid answer-and the appointment has not yet been made by Canada. It shows, Mr. Speaker, how little we have to say in connection with foreign affairs; we have not the^power even to appoint a commercial agent to represent us in the city of Washington.
I remember having had many conversations some years ago with the Canadian Commissioner in France, the late Mr. Hector Fabre, and I know of his troubles with the British Consul at Paris. The British Consul, not the Ambassador, mind you, did >no't understand why there was a Canadian office at the Rue de Rome, when he, at the British Consulate, was representing the interests of Great and Greater Britain in Paris. That shows that we have not
many of the attributes of a nation, seeing that we are begrudged the appointment of an agent at Paris, and we are practically told not to dare appoint an agent in the city of Washington. Sovereignty! Have you read, Sir, the speech delivered in the Senate last session by Senator Nicholls, exposing a most scandalous state of affairs as regards the commandeering of Canadian ships? I shall not refer any longer to this question, because I should like to be brief; but my hon. friend wanted to create an impression throughout the country. Ho began by depicting in glowing terms the future of Canada, so as to prepare for a coming election and to get his slogan out of our admissions. He put the alternatives before the House. Is it the status quo? Is it annexation? Is it independence? My hon. friend was in quest of an election cry; but if he wants an answer to that question, I may remind him in all friendliness that the "Canada First" party was started in the great city of Toronto, and that the Annexation Manifesto which was signed in 1849 did not not bear the signatures my hon. friend may think of. The mentioning of this Annexation Manifesto of 1849 comes in apropos, it seems to me, during the course of this discussion. There are hon. gentlemen who think. they are well advised in promoting the cause of centralization and who would like to merge Canadian every-day interests with British every-day interests. Why was the Annexation Manifesto signed and circulated in 1849? We Know that before 1849, indeed long before the year 1840 even, there existed for Canada and all the other British colonies a preferential tariff in Great.Britain, and during the years which elapsed between the year of the rebellion and 1842 or 1843 big business was being done in the old provinces Upper and Lower Canada; our merchants, our exporters were shipping grain and lumber in large quantities to Great Britain, as Canada had a preference in the British market. Then the agitation took place Tn favour of the abolition of the Corn laws- it was the coming of free trade in England. What happened? The moment there was taken away from the colonies, and particularly from Canada, this preference advocated again to-day by some of my hon. friends, one pi whom I see on the other side; the moment this preferential policy was abrogated by Great Britain, a grievance Was at once created amongst the merchants of Canada, and the result was that we had the Annexation Manifesto. The merchants of Canada said: If Great Britain will not

give us a preference, we will annex Canada to the United States of America.
Speaking on that subject, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) not very long ago used these words which I am about to quote, and I believe that coming from one of the leading lights of the Unionist party, they are a vindication of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). We know how the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was labelled and was dogged by the Torv party in Canada during the campaign of 1911 because, like the Britisher and the good Canadian that he is, he discussed freely with American statesmen commercial interests which concerned both. Canada and the United States. Yet he was denounced in every city, town and hamlet in this great province of Ontario as an annexationist, nay, as a traitor, as disloyal. He was defeated in his own constituency because he had dared to advocate the very policy which, in the words of the President of the Council, saved Canada from annexation in 1849. This is what the President of the Council said:
I wish to point out to you that when this question of trade arose in a crucial form between Canada and Great Britain the Liberal attitude was-" Let the Mother Country do what is best in her own interest, and we will do what we consider best in ours, and that their course would not in the least affect our loyalty." The Conservative attitude was-''Unless you continue to feed us by preference, the connection may not lie as valuable as we otherwise thought it would be."
My hon. friend added:	.
Some of the distinguished leaders of the Conservative party in the city -of Montreal emphasized this view by issuing the famous " annexation manifesto" of 1S4S-49. Lord Elgin was a very wise man. He saw this annexation cry grow out of economic conditions. He thought he saw a method of removing the pressure and offering relief to those who were suffering. He went over to the United States and negotiated the treaty Of reciprocity. The annexation sentiment died, and the Conservatives [DOT] who held annexation views, became just as loyal as their neighbours.
I commend those words to the anti-reciprocity league and to the back and front benches. Sir, let us not involve Canada in the domestic affairs of Great Britain. Let us not entangle Canada in the foreign affairs of Great Britain. Let us, in the words of my hon. friend, keep' our own counsel, and intervene only when the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people feel that they should intervene.
The speech delivered by my hon. friend just a few moons ago when he was a budding young Liberal statesman of Ontario, 
a speech to which I listened and which I applauded at the time, was less vague than the one he delivered yesterday. The former was delivered in a very healthy atmosphere-at the Reform Club. The speech he delivered yesterday was for the Round Clu'bs, and the ward Tory associations of the good city of Toronto. It was very nebulous and vague, so vague in fact that I should like to contrast its language with that he used in 1912. Then he stood for Canadian rights. My hon. friend's speech in 1912 was on the subject of "Liberals and the Empire." On trade matters my hon. friend thought that we were preaching under Sir Wilfrid Laurier- under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, mind you, the true doctrine of imperial co-dperation in trade matters. He said:
I wish to point out to you that when this question of trade arose in a crucial form between Canada and Great Britain the Liberal .attitude was-"Let the Mother Country do what is best in her own interest-
Shocking!

and we will do what we consider best in ours, and that their course would not in the least affect our loyalty."
This is plain Liberal gospel, .clear as crystal.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think it is the Liberal gospel I preached yesterday too.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It had not the same flavour.


Ernest Lapointe: He was reading from Sir John A. Macdonald yesterday.
Mr. LEA1IEUX: I said a moments ago that the crux of the whole question in connection with the Treaty and the Covenant, of which I approve with some reservation, was the matter of military organization. My position is this: I want to maintain the privileges and the rights which we acquired at the time of Confederation to decide for ourselves when and how we shall engage in wars outside of those caused through the defence of our own territory. I said that in military affairs both on land and sea we had enjoyed absolute freedom. In the matter of naval defence my hon. friend also took the true Liberal and Canadian view in 1910, when he said:
Our Parliament passed the Naval Service Act, which contains all the provision necessary for developing as large a naval service as Canada may desire to provide-in fact if the present Government wishes to act, all it has to do is to ask the 'House of Commons to make the necessary appropriations, and the-Naval Service

Act of 191'0 which contains all the provisions necessary to develop a Canadian navy. Men may differ as to the number and character of the ships which should compose our fleet-this is a matter of detail-but time will vindicate te policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for a Canadian navy-
Not an Imperial navy.
-as the wise and statesmanlike policy, both for Canada and the Empire.
I	subscribe to those views. In the matter of naval defence my hon. friend again vindicates the policy of the Liberal party, which we claim was the true Canadian policy, but which was condemned by a certain fraction of the electorate in 1911 precisely because it was too Canadian a policy and not enough of an Imperial policy. ,
My hon. friend also spoke of the questions arising out of our defence of the Empire by land, and again he absolutely sided with the attitude of the Liberal party of the day on that question. He said:
Under the Liberal Administration, while maintaining full autonomy and the national rights of Canada, plans have been steadily worked out for the defence of the Empire and the cooperation of all the forces of the Empire in all national emergencies.
My hon. friend went further. He spoke of the vexed question, which must be faced squarely and honestly-and I am afraid that yesterday my hon. friend, by his subtle distinctions and nebulous statements did not face it, I shall not say honestly, but squarely-the vexed question of Canada's non-participation in Imperial wars. My hon. friend, when he was the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, was not afraid to face such an issue. He could afford to do so because he belonged to the majority. He knows that one of the minority cannot speak as freely on that question as one of the majority, because prejudices would immediately come into play. We know what my hon. friend had in his mind yesterday when he pictured for us the alternative-annexation, independence, and statu quo. Now let us appeal from Rowell to Rowell, if my hon. friend will allow me the classic expression.


Ernest Lapointe: From Philip sober to Philip drunk.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is pretty hard on the Club.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would rather say, from Philip drunk to Philip sober. My hon. friend on that occasion went to the very root of the question, and I was surprised

yesterday that he treated the issue with such subtlety and evasiveness. He said:
In view of the discussions which have recently taken place, both in the British and Canadian press on the question of colonial neutrality, it is only fair to point out in considering the attitude of the Government of Sir John Macdonald that the position taken by Sir John and his colleagues in declining to participate in the war in Egypt was not a declaration of colonial neutrality. It is well for us to keep clearly in mind the distinction between neutrality and non-participation.
Well said, Mr. Speaker.
As Sir John Macdonald would undoubtedly have said, and as Sir Wilfrid Laurier has repeatedly said, whenever the Empire is at war, Canada, as a part of the Empire, is at war also. In the past one hundred years Great Britain has been engaged in, I suppose, over a score of wars, and yet in none of those which have occurred outside of this continent have Canadian troops participated, except in the war in South Africa. No statesman of Canada has ever proclaimed the doctrine of colonial neutrality, hut what Canadian statesmen have said and truly said-
And what we 'Liberals say to-dayis that the Government of Canada must decide the character and extent of the participation which Canada takes in the war. It is the Parliament which must vote the supplies on this important matter. If I read history aright, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John Macdonald have taken exactly the same position, except that the Government of Sir John exercised the right to decide by refusing to participate, the Government of Sir Wilfrid by participating.
My hon. friend concluded with what we call in Roman law a Petition of Principles; he concluded with these words :r
Our action should be adequate, commensurate with our ability in our share of the burden. Our policy should not be the product of a momentary enthusiasm or of unworthy fear, hut as part of a permanent and well-connsidered plan whereby Canada will undertake her share in the defence of the Empire. Let our policy not be formed 'by or shaped in response to the spirit of militarism. Our navy is not for aggression, but for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our trade routes; for the maintenance of traditions and ideals for which our British system of Government and our flag stand.
In that memorable speech, Sir, my hon. friend made a case for Canadian Liberalism on this important question of the relations of Canada with the Mother Country in matters of trade, commerce, and defence on both land and sea. He spoke boldly, he faced the issue courageously, aud his sentiments then are in sad contrast with the speech which he delivered yesterday, not to the same audience, however. My hon. friend is well aware that there are two schools of thought in Canada. One stands for centralization and the other for autonomy. I


Newton Wesley Rowell: I certainly must have
failed yesterday to make my views clear to the House or to my hon. friend, for he has been arguing against a position which I did not present to the House at all. My hon. friend has been reading from an address delivered 'by me in Montreal in 1912 but in that address I said nothing about Canada's status which I do not absolutely stand by now. The position I then took was the basis of the discussion in the House yesterday. Nothing I said yesterday was inconsistent with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The country will read the hon. gentleman's speech of yesterday and compare it with the speech delivered when he was our leader in the province of Ontario, and will see that there is a great difference between them. That is to say my hon. friend in those days was a pure unadulterated Canadian, whereas yesterday he spoke as an Imperialist.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend would like a comparison to be made would he be good enough to read all I said in Montreal with reference to Canada's status and put it on Hansard, and then hon. members can make the comparison. I say the Liberal autonomist is still the Liberal autonomist; the reactionary is on the other side of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh dear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend yesterday submitted to the House and to the country a speech in which, in my judgment -I may be altogether wrong, I do not claim to be infallible, but the whole trend of his argument supported it-he fabricated or manufactured a brief for the Imperialist lli	.
jingo party for the next election. I may be all wrong, but I am sincere when I make this statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are wrong.


Newton Wesley Rowell: While accepting the hon. gentleman's sincerity, will he allow me to say that I do not-know anybody on this side of the House who wants a general election or who is concerned about formulating such a policy. I certainly never said anything which would justify the conclusions my hon. friend has drawn.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has the floor, and he may not be interrupted except with his consent and to put a question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection to
being interrupted because my hon. friend was himself subject to some interruption yesterday, and certainly did not object to it. But it is useless to play upon words. The speech delivered by my hon. friend yesterday differs absolutely from the speech he delivered some years ago before the Reform Club. My hon. friend has asked me to read that speech in full. Well, I would ask him if he was sincere in 1912, if he was sincere yesterday, to go to Toronto and to deliver there the same speech which he delivered at the Reform Club. I am afraid my hon. friend would not do it; he could not do it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I delivered it at many
other places and would be glad to do it again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend in 1912 spoke as a Liberal and as a Canadian. Yesterday he spoke as an Imperialist of the hardest type. At any rate his speeches are there. They can be compared, read and digested. My hon. friend stands forth to-day, in view of the altered circumstances in his case, as an advocate of the Curtis plan and the Milner policy, which is jingo Imperialist policy.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will
permit me? He is absolutely wrong. I have always been opposed to that policy. I was opposed to it in 1912, I am opposed to it to-day. If my hon. friend would pay any attention to what I said, he would see that my whole speech was absolutely contrary to that policy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the principles advocated by my hon. friend yesterday should triumph, what would be the result? He speaks of a continuous growth-not a growth towards autonomy, but a growth towards

centralization, thus taking away from Canada the rights she now possesses and transferring them to London. I said a moment ago that my hon. friend was nebulous. He is playing with words-take his magnificent distinction between a legal right and a constitutional right-and I say that the whole trend of his argument yesterday came to this: that there is a change in the affairs of Canada, a change in the Canadian tradition, and that today we are about to transfer the powers possessed by this Parliament to another body on the otheT side of the water.
We claim, Sir, that we should be governed in all matters by Ottawa, and not by London, except as provided for in the Constitution. I do not advocate the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, nor do 1 advocate the abolition of the office of Governor General. If you want a slogan for Canada on this question of our relations with the Mother Country, I will repeat the slogan of 1911: Let well enough alone; let us not be involved in the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom or in its foreign policy.
As I said a moment ago the Imperialists are all intellectuals.


An hon. MEMBER:: Those are not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes, they comprise the ablest men-presidents of universities, newspaper editors, political economists. Remember, Lord Milner is not ito be despised; he is one of the ablest men in the British Empire. Those Imperialists will try to foster their ideas and to implant their principles throughout, the Empire by all sorts of methods and every combination and device possible. They will try to get some weak kneed Liberals to support their plan-indeed, they have secured the services of my hon. friend. By the establishment of Round Table clubs they have reached many young men of Canada. I have been approached myself, as have also many others, with the invitation:	Come along;
we want to help you Canadians. But once you sit around the table it is easy to realize, Sir, that the so-called true Imperialists will only be satisfied if Canada surrenders the rights she possesses. To-day it will be called a Scheme of Imperial Federation; to-morrow it will be termed a Britannic Alliance; another day it will be an Imperial Partnership; another day it will be Sister Nations of the Empire, or, as my hon. friend said yesterday, the Commonwealth of ^he Empire; but the same principle underlies all these combinations 
-it is always Imperial Federation disguised.
The Conservative party and, I might say, Canadians of all parties, have some regard for the opinion of the late Sir Charles Tup-per. He was a good Canadian and a good Britisher, and in 1893, speaking in the city of Winnipeg, he used the following language :
I am perfectly satisfied that a more unwise, a more injudicious, thing could not possibly occur to Canada than to change her Constitution in any radical respect whatever. We have a constitution that has stood the test of more than a quarter of a century and that I would not be willing for any representation in the Imperial Parliament or anything else to change in any material respect We must ever retain the entire complete and independent management of our own affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the great political power of to-morrow in Great Britain will not be the Imperialist party, it will not be the party of Lord Milner, of Walter Long, of Bonar Law, in other words, the jingo party; it will be the Labour party. And what does the labour platfonm contain^ That platform was launched a few months ago by its brilliant leader, Mr. Henderson, who used the following language:
Like them,-the Labour Party-we have no sympathy with the projects of " Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the subjection to a common Imperial Legislature wielding coercive power, (including dangerous facilities fo>-coercive Imperial taxation and for enforced military service), either of the existing selfgoverning dominions, whose autonomy would be thereby invaded; or of the United Kingdom, whose freedom of democratic self-development would he thereby hampered; or of India and the Colonial Dependencies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a "White Empire." We do not intend, by any such " Imperial Senate " either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in controlling the growing popular democracies overseas. The absolute autonomy of each self-governing part of the Empire must be maintained intact.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say once more that I approve of the Treaty of Peace, and I approve the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations. I believe with Viscount Grey: .
Nothing but experience convinced individuals that law was better than anarchy to settle the relations between themselves. And the sanction that maintains law is the application of force with the support of the great majority of individuals behind it. Is it possible that the experience of this war will produce a settled opinion of the same sort to regulate the relations of States with each other and safeguard the world from war, which is in fact anarchy?
I believe in that liberal principle of a League of Nations backed by force in order

to enforce its decisions; but, Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, subject only to Canadian law, to a Parliament elected by the Canadian people, I approve of the Treaty and the League, provided a reservation is made, that nothing in this act of mine shall impair or abridge the rights, or in other words, the autonomy of Canada.
At the Liberal convention which was held a few weeks ago in Ottawa, I seconded the following resolution, which was moved by a gentleman from Toronto, Mr. Gregory, K.C.:
Resolved, that we are strongly opposed to centralized Imperial control and that no organic change in the Canadian constitution in regard to the relation of Canada to the Empire ought to come into effect until, after being passed by Parliament, it has been ratified by vote of the Canadian people on a referendum.
Mr. Speaker, I stand by the principle of thait resolution. The Prime Minister of Canada has no right to attend, with some of his colleagues, a conference in London and there commit his country 'to any policy of centralization. The Canadian Parliament, representing the Canadian people, is entitled to know and' to pass upon the policy which the Government intends to propound before that new body which is to be created in London.
I know that wiben any hon. gentleman on this side speaks of autonomy or of the constitution, at once he is met with the suggestion that he is overdoing it. If this Parliament was homogeneous; if there were but one race in this country, the Englishspeaking race, I would understand that such a discussion would be unnecessary. But we have in this country a majority and a minority, and I wish to impress upon my friends who belong to the majority that the minority, in whatever country it dwells, is ever jealous o.f its constitutional rights. No one should be surprised, therefore, if when a question of this kind comes before the House those who belong .to the minority are anxious to be enlightened; are anxious that no cause of grievance be created; are anxious that no hasty change should be made. Any change from the minority's point of view implies a risk, and every risk for a minority is a danger.
I am a British citizen. I am proud of my citizenship; I would not exchange it for or traffic it with any other citizenship in the world; yet I am of French origin and of French blood. I appreciate the rights and privileges which I enjoy under the Union Jack. My hon. friend need have no craven fear that any one belonging to the minority, that I know of, would turn
that flag down or 'would exchange his citizenship. The French Canadians are well - aware of the fate that befell the French minority in the United States. When Louisiana was purchased by the United States there was a large French settlement in that state, but if one goes to New Orleans to-diay he will find that if there is a French civil law it is interpreted before the courts in English. In the Louisiana Legislature there is no French language to speak of; the same applies to the courts of the land. So there is no one in our province who would support a movement in favour of annexation.
Oh, if it were only possible for us to understand each other! You, our; friends from the province of Ontario, are often misguided. You misjudge your fellow men from the province of Quebec. Why should some of you attempt to bully them? Why . do you not treat them with more consideration? The minority is always nervous; is always jealous of its rights and privileges, and there ,are causes of misunderstandings which should not exist. Do not always offer the cup of bitterness; offer the milk of human kindness. The war is ended now -gloriously ended from the Canadian point of view, from the British point of view. Our soldiers in the trenches have intermingled and have sung the song of love; why should we in Canada perpetuate the hymn of hate? Why should not the public men in the Government estop-I use the legal expression-the newspapers from abusing those who belong to the minority?
Is our country, or is it not, an asset to the British Empire? Can we be an asset if, instead of being united, we are essentially divided ?
There is tabled before you, Mr. Speaker, the Treaty which was signed by the Great Powers with Poland. You have exemplified in that Treaty the basic principles which should guide Britishers and Christians all over the world-respect of the minority,
, respect of their religious, national and linguistic rights. You, men of the majority on this North American continent, are you afraid of five million people who speak the French language? You are over 110,000,000 speaking the English language; surely John Bull would stand his ground under such circumstances. I appeal again to the public men of this country; I appeal to the ministers of the Crown to put an end at once to that deplorable agitation which has been going on from one end of the *country to the other since the beginning of the war.

Treat us as equals, because we are your equals. If we are to become, as we will, members of the League of Nations, let us first of all, before joining it, resolve to form a more essential League-the League of a United Canada.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before the House and the subject with which it deals are the most important considerations that have been submitted to the Parliament of Canada since Confederation. In discussing this matter I shall endeavour to stick as closely as possible to the subject in hand.
I believe that it is big enough and important enough to call for our best consideration without our turning aside from it in any way to endeavour to make political capital for any party, or to give political bias to any of the things that are embraced in the Treaty.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), who, with his usual eloquence, has occupied about one hour and three-quarters, has debated very few of the features of this great Treaty, and, therefore, he will, perhaps, excuse me if I do' not follow the vagaries in which he has indulged, because I believe, when he reads that speech, he will come to the conclusion that it is not equal to the great occasion on which he spoke, nor does it uphold fully the ability that he has displayed on some former occasions on very much lesser subjects. I shall refer only to some two or three points that the hon. gentleman has made, believing that my time can be better occupied in endeavouring to elucidate in a humble way and from the standpoint of a business man some of the features comprised in the Treaty. The first remark that struck my observation, that I thought was worthy of note, was this, "that Canada had no treaty-making powers." I think those are the words of the hon. gentleman. It is true he uttered them before the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) came into the House, or I fancy his coat tail would have been pulled, and he would have been reminded that in 1911 the member for Shelburne and Queen's, accompanied by the then member for Brant and others, went to Washington and negotiated the reciprocity treaty because they themselves told us so, and throughout that election the reciprociy treaty it was called. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman went somewhat afield when he said that we had no treaty-making powers. Nor was that the first occasion on which Canada made a treaty. Sir John A. Macdonald, twenty or 
thirty years prior to that, went down to Washington and negotiated what was called the Washington treaty, if my memory serves me correctly. It is true that this Treaty and all other treaties must receive the sanction of the Mother Country, but we had the power of negotiating them and the various matters that were dealt with in those treaties were put in by the Canadians themselves who went to Washington to negotiate them. 1 think I am speaking by the book, and I will call the attention of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) to the fact that treaties have been negotiated before now by members of the Canadian Government.
The hon. gentleman has brought in *several questions which, I say, have no bearing on the discussion, but I think I ought to refer to at least one or two of them. He has brought in the Irish question, and I wish the hon. gentleman would just listen to me for a moment while I show wherein, in his own speech, according to his own showing, he has transgressed his own doctrine. The Irish question, he says, should be settled by the Imperial Government before we, as a part of the British Empire, become a party to this Treaty, because it is a burning question, and he tells us he would settle King Carson right away. He did not tell us what he would do with Ulster, but I gathered from hi? speech that he would trample on the rights of Ulster with both feet, and, King Carson would immediately be dethroned. How does that fit in with his closing remarks when he appealed for tender treatment to minorities? It shows that the hon. gentleman, when he is dealing with the minority in -Quebec, as he calls it, has very tender feelings, but when he- comes to deal with Ulster, which does not see eye to eye with Quebec in religious and other matters, he would put both feet upon its neck and trample it in the dust and dethrone King Carson. A fine piece of strategy on the part of the hon. member for Maisonneuve! A beautifully high, Christian principle which he would extend to the minority in Quebec but which he would deny to the good old country of Ireland! We have enough troubles on this side without indulging in the Irish question, and we have no more right to drag the Irish question into a debate on this Treaty than we have to drag in the treatment of the coloured races by some of the great powers which are also parties to the Treaty. We could soon get *a long way off the Treaty, and I do not purpose being dragged in that direction. But

the hon. member for Maisonneuve ought to be more consistent, and when he appeals for tender treatment towards minorities, let him remember that all minorities do not dwell in Quebec; there are a few in Ireland as- well and we think that they should be treated with the same consideration as the hon. member appeals for in the case of the minority in Quebec, in which case he may be quite right. Although I asked him how he would settle this question, he did not tell us how he would do so. He is not an Irishman-it is true, he has told us so. The British Government has said: If Ireland will decide what will settle this question, we shall be only too pleased to do it, but up to date there has been devised by neither the majority or the minority in Ireland anything that will settle this question. The hon. gentleman says that the King is good enough for him in this respect, and that he would let him settle it. Well, he refused to tell us on what principles he would let the King settle it, and if he were in power in Great Britain to-day, he could no more settle the Irish question than he can the .school question between Ontario and Quebec, not a bit more. He may appeal for minorities and all that, using fine, high-sounding phrases, but when it comes down to hard pan, you cannot make the different elements amongst those very distinctive people in Ireland come together and live together in peace and harmony under one common rule. That has been tried for thirty years, and I, as an Imperialist as I have been called, would be willing to give of my substance and of my time for the next two or three years if I could help to settle what I believe has been a great bone of contention in the British Empire for a long time. But that is nbt a matter that appears in the treaty, and therefore, we should not discuss it. I do not purpose dealing with anything further that the hon. member for Maisonneuve has said. It is true that he has expressed in a few closing sentences some opinions with which I myself agree, and I shall endeavour to point those out as I go along in debating this treaty.
The war has come to an end and this treaty is proposing a basis on which a final settlement shall be made. In that respect the destinies of nations and of the civilised world rest within the four corners of this great agreement. I believe that this marks a new epoch in the history of Canada, in spite of what hon. gentlemen opposite may have said. Never before has a treaty of
any kind between the nations of the earth been committed to this Parliament for its opinion. Never before have we been asked what our view is with regard to a compact into which we have entered. I for one say that this is a step in advance of anything that has ever before existed in this country and that we are privileged-and I hope we shall rise to the height of the privilege that it is-to give the very best of our knowledge and wisdom to the discussion of this great question.
In that respect I agree to a very large extent with what the Opposition has done so far. They have appealed for time and for information, and in my judgment this is so great a question that it should not be rushed through this House in two or three days if it is thought that two or three weeks would be better. We are asked to undertake obligations that are going to bind us and our children and our children's children as far into the future as we can see. We should therefore take every possible precaution to see that our rights and privileges are safeguarded in every respect. While I say that, I know that nothing I can say or that anybody else may say on the floor of this House can change one line of the Treaty. The Treaty is submitted to us simply for approval, or ratification, or adoption, or whatever you like to call it, but we cannot change one word in the Treaty without the permission of all the other powers that are parties to it. My friends opposite, I think, are suffering undue qualms of conscience with regard to what is buried in the signature that is asked. They seem to shrink from the responsibility of adopting or ratifying or approving this Treaty. Many of their fears I think are more or less groundless. We must at times take risks. On great occasions we must come to decisions, and come' to those decisions fairly quickly, and I cannot see anything unreasonable in asking this House to set its approval on this Treaty. Perhaps I may make a homely comparison in order to make the matter more clear to hon. gentleman opposite. This is a most unusual session; the subject under discussion is a most unusual one; and we have some other very unusual conditions in the House. For instance, on the front benches of the Opposition some kind of treaty, or entente cordiale, or combination, has been arrived at between two great political powers, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Shelburne and

Queens (Mr. Fielding), for the joint leadership of the Opposition. I do not know whether it is a treaty-


Andrew Ross McMaster: An organic union.


William Foster Cockshutt: -or an understanding or a union, hut we are told that they have come together, and I presume that nobody on the back benches will deny that they are two great powers. There -may he a eonvenant between them. It cannot be a League of Nations, but it is a league of two great powers. The question I would ask is: Has this agreement been sumbitted to the Liberal caucus? If so, did they ratify or approve or adopt it, or did they amend it? We have not heard, but we would like to know the terms of this union, because likely they are applicable to the Treaty under discussion. If you will attempt to conceive of what might happen at a Liberal caucus called for the purpose of considering the union of these two great political powers for offensive and defensive political work, I think you will have a good idea of what you are asked to do with regard to this Treaty.
Then you have fears for your autonomy. That is an awful word, as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has told us, and he has quoted my views from the naval debate of some years ago. I want to tell you gentlemen opposite that I think your autonomy is in danger right now, because whether this treaty that has been made between these two gentlemen has received the endorsement of the caucus or not we are told by the press that a king will shortly enter this House and will say to these two great powers: "Step to the right.
. Step to the left. Sit back. I am the king and leader of this great party." Why didn't you elect a president? Surely the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) who has announced himself as a great democrat, has overlooked the fact that he is going to.be led by a King, when he might have had a democratic leader.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A King elected by
Prince.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend has told us that he is a great democrat, and I, of course, believe what he says, because he is a man who speaks what he believes and testifies what he does know, and sometimes I think he testifies a little more than he knows. I think I have spent more time than I should have in trying to enlighten my friends opposite on what they are asked to do. They are asked to ratify or approve

of this treaty. I want them to understand that in my view, if this House ratifies the Treaty, we shall be'bound by its provisions and shall have to live up to them. I am inclined to think that we shall have to live up to the obligations in the Treaty whether or not we ratify it. I am rather of the opinion that we shall have to.
The Treaty documents that have been put in the hands of hon. members are so voluminous and contain so very many important clauses that it is impossible for a layman of my calibre to attempt to elucidate any but a very few of the articles contained in the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations. I have said on a former occasion, that I believe the mixing of the League of Nations with the Treaty of Peace was the greatest tactical mistake that the 'Conference could possibly have committed, and I say that again from the bottom of my heart. There is a difference of opinion with regard to the League of Nations, but there is no difference of opinion with regard to making a good sound treaty of peace with the enemy. I think the Treaty was big enough to be handled by itself, and the other matter would have been taken care of a little later on. However, that has not been done, and I, as a loyal subject of the Emipre, and I trust as a good citizen of the world, am going to back this Treaty and vote for its ratification even though I disagree with many of its provisions. I think some of its provisions are extremely dangerous and unworkable, but I am willing to give the Treaty the benefit of the doubt and defer to those who ought to know better, because I believe that in the long run this may prove to be a blessing to humanity.
The High Contracting Parties to the League of Nations were called together to achieve international peace by a lot of very high-sounding principles, which I cannot do better than read. They agree to achieve international peace and security.
-'by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations.
by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect of all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.
These are idealistic, high-sounding phrases and are worthy of the best conception of the most enlightened nations of the world. With these articles I am in full accord. The origiir.l members of the League, etc., are then dealt with. The first serious objection I have to offer is to Article VII,

Clause 1, w-hich provides *that the seat of the League is to be established at Geneva.
I ,am told, and I (have seen in the papers, that this is to be changed, but there is nothing in the documents that are laid before the House to indicate this. If the Minister, who is present, will tell me that this change is to be made I shall be glad to learn the truth of i't, but I should like to know in favour, of what city the change v,ill be made. In my 'Judgment no decision has been arrived at, nor is any one in a position to state what city will receive the honour of being the seat of the League.
I do not think that the League of Nations should have been housed at Geneva. Why do I say that? Geneva is the capital of Switzerland, a country which, during the war, never sent a man to fight, a country which was busy liming its pockets with the gold of its jstruggling neighbours. And I cannot conceive of anything that could have warped the judgment, as I think has been the case, of the powers that assembled to consider the terms of peace to such an extent .as to lead them to place this permanent body in Geneva, when there were such cities as Brussels, the capital of a country that had suffered untold .agonies during the war, and Paris, the heart of the most valiant nation that took .part in the war, the nation that produced the good President Clemenoeau, who in nfy judgment, is the most outstanding and brilliant figure of the whole war. If this Treaty is good we owe a very large degree of its virtue to the "Tiger of France"-Clemenoeau.	I
could not speak too highly in praise of his brilliant action throughout the war and in the negotiations for peace that followed. I believe he has had an immense effect upon what has been done; but unfortunately in some respects he was unable, by either voice, vote or influence, to carry the conference always in the direction it should have taken. I aim not now speaking simply by book or from the four corners of the Treaty, but I have in my hands voluminous articles-far too large to be read to the House <at the present time-which justify the opinion^ I express, iwhich opinions' are largely drawn from these articles.
I think, however, I should be justified in stating that the Covenant of the League of Nations was incorporated in the Treaty largely at the instance of President Wilson and those who were associated with him in the United States and who to-day, it would appear, are the principal kickers against its contents. I deplore this situation, hut we cannot overlook it and I think we are justified in requesting some information as
to what is going to happen if this Treaty is carved up in the way in which the Ottawa Journal, no later than September 5, informed us it would be. This is what I read:
Committee approves shell of Treaty but refuses to accept vital conditions.
This is the Senate Committee of the United States.
Article 10 is repudiated in totality by Foreign Relations Committee of TT.S. Senate-Also claims right to retire from League of Nations.
What follows?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee late yesteTday finished its work on the Peace Treaty with Germany, and after adopting four reservations to the League of Nations Covenant, ordered the Treaty to be reported to the Senate with about two score amendments previously incorporated.
I would ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the House whether, should these two score amendments be introduced, the Treaty will come back to us in order that we may review and endorse or otherwise deal with the amendments that are injected by the United States Senate?. Can this Treaty be unduly amended after it has been passed? We are told that we cannot amend a word, that we cannot dot an "i' or cross a "t . Is it possible that the United States, which has been the main sponsor of the League of Nations, should now be endeavouring to incorporate such a number of amendments? The report goes on to tell what some of the amendments are, and they are very important to us and should receive our grave consideration. They provide: "for the return of Shantung to China under the amendment of Senator Lodge to substitute China for Japan in the Shantung section;" " for withdrawal of the United States from representation on the numerous international commissions." This amendment was by Senator Fall, Republican, New Mexico, and involved about thirty-five textual changes.-"For limitation of the authority of American representatives on the Reparations Commission to act without direction of their Government except on shipping questions."
They provide, further-and this is what I want Canada to note " for equal voting power in the League Council Assembly of Great Britain and the United States." The United States proposes that it shall have equal voting power with Great Britain and all her Dominions. Now, if, as one or two gentlemen have said to-day, voting and influence should be decided in proportion to what 'has been done to win the war, surely it cannot be seriously contended that our

esteemed brethren to the south, for whom I have the very highest regard, should have as much to say about the Treaty as Great Britain and all her overseas Dominions that were in the war from start to finish and sacrificed' millions as against the United States' hundred of thousands. It is invidious to draw distinctions of this kind, but when the Senate proposes that these things shall be done we cannot afford to ignore altogether what has been done by our neighbours in the United States. There are other important amendments, but time would fail me to deal with them all. However, I ask the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty), who is sitting here and will likely speak later, to tell us what will become of these amendments. Will they come back to this House after we have ratified the Treaty, or will they be rejected by the great Executive Council of the League of Nations? These are important considerations which we cannot afford to overlook. As regards the selection of Geneva as the headquarters of the League of Nations, I think, when we are talking of amendments, that this matter is a proper one for consideration, and the seat of the League, I submit, should be changed to any one of the great cities I have mentioned, such as Brussels, which was the heart of the storm; Paris, vrhich also was almost in the centre of the storm; Home, London, and even, yes, even Washington. These all have infinitely better claims to be the home of the League of Nations than has Geneva; for Switzerland never spent a dollar to help save civilization. I, for one, strongly protest against the selection of Geneva, and I understand that a storm of protest 'has been registered in Great Britain against it. I hear that the seat is to be changed, and in my opinion it cannot be changed too soon. We come next to Article 8:
The Members of the League recognize that the maintenance of Peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest points consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.
The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.
*Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revisioh at least every ten years.
That, I think, is a wise provision, I have no objection to it, and it seems to be a proceeding along the right lines.
Now I come to deal with clause 10 which has been such a stumbling block to mem-

bers opposite and which seems to be more or less in the mind of every member of the House, and we want to know what it means. I as a business man, want to know what article 10 means, and though I have listened to this discussion, though I have read the speech of the Prime Minister and as many documents as I could possibly digest in the last few weeks in regard to it, I have not as yet reached any decision in my mind as to its meaning, and I think it is up to the Government or somebody else, to tell this House, before the Treaty goes through, what our obligations are in a military and in a naval way under that clause.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am fully of that
opinion. I am not saying this to injure the Treaty. I said I was going to support it and I want to see it go through. But we as business men, to whom this Treaty is committed, should investigate, should inquire, and should find out what article 10 means. I have told you that it presents one of the most wonderful ideals that the world has ever put down on paper. These ideals of the League of Nations, to preserve the benefits that man has received from the Christian religion, and from civilization ever since the world began down to the present time, are being crystallized in this Treaty and being put where nothing can harm them, but we want to know on what basis they are going to be defended.
The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) in his closing remarks, which 1 think were a great deal wiser than the most of his speech, has just told us that if the League of Nations is any good and has any force it stands finally on the power
that lies behind it

or, in other words,
the amalgamation of the armies and navies that compose the forces at the back of the League of Nations. I think article 10 is worthy of serious debate, and I for one am not speaking with a view of making the slightest political capital for myself or for anybody else. I do not wish any individual, any government, or any cabinet minister, to be held responsible for any view that I hold with regard to article 10, but I say, in my judgment, that if the League of Nations has any backbone in it at all it is finally contained in the five or six lines composing the article referred to. First, you * have moral suasion, then you have diplomatic interference. Later on you have economic pressure, and the exercise of all those arts of civilization

that are apt to bring a recalcitrant nation into line. 'But when all these' have been tried without result, what is the final appeal? It may he said that it is unchristian, it may be said it is the old doctrine, but it is there in the Covenant just as truly as the English language can put it, in my judgment-it is " the big stick." Ii the League of Nations has any value, after it has tried all these expedients to bring the fractious nation into line, it has the expedient of telling them that if they are not open to reason, if they are not open to humanity's appeal, if they do not' have regard for other nations, if they fail to understand all other arguments-then, " If you won't do it, we will make you." That is the good old doctrine that ife as old as the hills, and that is going to stay with us, in my judgment, for all time in spite of our ideals-and I trust that my ideals in that regard are just as advanced as those of other gentlemen who may think I am giving utterance to a very heterodox suggestion. But I believe that, so far as the Scriptures themselves are concerned, they have taught us that when all these other things fail the final remedy is a sudden jerk-up:
"He that being often reproved and hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."
And there are many other passages in the Scriptures to the same effect. Now the League of Nations is replete with what I conceive to be pious opinions which are very beautiful, and pious observations which are very valuable, but in the few brief lines in Article 10 lies the crux of the whole situation, and in my judgment it means- and I repeat that I alone am responsible for what I am saying-that every nation that sanctions this Treaty will have to put up a certain amount of force to back it up later when it is required. My hon. friends opposite fear that that will be done without the ratification of Parliament. I cannot say whether it will be done with or without the ratification of Parliament, but if you are a member of the League of Nations as Canadians you will have to put up your share, or pay somebody else to put it up. That is my judgment and reading of Article 10, although that view may be all wrong. Can we escape our obligations? The argument of those gentlemen who shout so loud for Canadian autonomy, and shout so loud for Canadian nationality, and fail to realize that all these bring their obligations. I cannot understand. If ' we are a big enough nation to sign the Treaty we are a big enough nation to put up what is required of us, and we
will have to put up the men and the money that our population and our resources call for as compared with the other thirty-two or forty-two, or whatever number it may be later on, signatories to the League. I see many defects about the League, but I hope it will work out all right. I do not want to see difficulties that I can avoid, but let us consider this supposition: Suppose, for instance, Germany is again the aggressor and France is the object of attack? France's forces have been limited to probably less than 100,000 men-
I do not know the exact figures. Germany's forces have been placed at about 100,000 and they are only proportionately reduced. Suppose that France is again the object of attack. Where is the machinery contained in the League of Nations, or have any of the gentlemen who returned from overseas yet explained that point, to hold back the enemy while the League tells the different nations that compose the combination how quickly and how many men they are to get to the front? These are all questions that we must consider. France would be attacked and Paris would be entered before the United States forces could get over. You cannot get away from the possibility of future wars-they are there. I have here an article which deals very fully with this Treaty, and it makes the statement that Bonar Law, speaking six months after the armistice was signed, stated that there were twenty-three wars at present in progress. Twenty-three wars in progress six months after the armistice was signed! Then the League of Nations has got plenty of work ahead of it, and it is setting off in very stormy times; and if any gentleman on either side of the House thinks that we are in the position of using only moral suasion and reading texts of Scripture to those who threaten civilization, my own view is that they have another guess coming.
We are at the present moment up against the most unsettled conditions that the world has ever known. The Dark Ages of the past thousand or two thousand years contain no record of such atrocities as are at -this moment being committed in Russia and in other countries of Europe. The League of Nations, I hope, will be able to control all these things, but it appears to me that they have got a very big task ahead of them, and that we who are expecting to escape with little or no obligation will find that our modest army, which was raised last session from 5,000 to 10,000, will look very little in the presence of some of

the difficulties which we shall be called upon to settle.	[DOT]
If any one connected with the Government can give me any other interpretation than I have placed on Article X, I will be only too pleased to hear it; but in my judgment it carries most serious obligations. Those obligations I am prepared to assume, but I want hon. members to know that I am signing with my eyes open-that I believe my signing implies my assumption of these obligations. I think the qualms that affected the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday are very well founded, and that whether or not Canada is a party to undertaking these obligations we cannot renounce them and remain as a constituent part of the League of Nations.
If the League of Nations means anything it means that all the civilized and enlightened Powers of the world are joining together to settle all difficulties with greater and lesser peoples by certain methods laid down within the four corners of that agreement. The principles are explicitly laid down, and probably for a time at least they will be lived up to to the letter; but I fear there is a rude awakening in the near future for many who think we have heard the last shot fired and seen the last battleship launched.
I do not want to he pessimistic, nor do I want to cast any cold water on the League of Nations or any other thing that will bring peace and happiness and unity to this war-stricken world; but I want to say that in my judgment we should not rest pur faith on any broken reed, nor should we believe that once this great Treaty is signed all trouble is ended forever. I have said that the United States is largely responsible for the idea of the League of Nations. I believe it has received a good deal of encouragement in other countries, notably Great Britain; but, if I am credibly informed, a great many of those in Great Britain who have advocated the League of Nations have done so with a view to appealing to the good opinion of the United States rather than in any belief that it was the final settlement of the ills of the whole world. I hold in my hand a document written by one of the most able men in Britain, the Duke of Northumberland. He is a man of affairs; he was involved in the coal strike and had to deal wjth some rather obstreperous individuals He has given here some reflections on the League of Nations, and as a good Britisher, as I profess to be, and believing him to be also an equally good if not better Britisher

than I am, I hope it will not be considered that 1 am endeavouring to do any harm to any feature of the Treaty if I read you a few of his reflections, which were published by him in England last month. This is what he says, in part:
At last the public have been informed what the League of Nations really means. It was certainly time, for if the future system of international relations is to be founded on this principle, the public should have known all about it long before this. It is true that no opinion they may express upon it will affect the question, because there is no intention of submitting the decision to them . This seems somewhat strange, in view of. what we have been told about the value of " open," as distinguished from " secret," diplomacy. Indeed, we are told that the great advantage of the League is that it is democratic ; it will bring all the peoples of the world into touch with the foreign policy of their Governments, but the foundation on which that foreign policy rests is nevertheless a. matter with which Parliament has no concern. If it had been left to the diplomatists to establish this system, the public might have been content to acquiesce, for, with all the faults of the old diplomacy, there is something to be said for the principle that "there is nothing like leather," but when the matter is left in the hands of a body of amateurs the public should be very chary of accepting their conclusions without exhaustive investigation.
Many excellent people-
This is what I wish all those who look upon the Treaty as something ideal to listen to very critically:
Many excellent people have greeted this scheme with enthusiasm, not so much from any conviction of its practical success as from a vague Idea that there is a kind of ethical or religious principle involved In it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is there not?


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, there is. I have already said that, and the Duke says that tha,t is the reason people are favourably impressed:
This idea has been fostered by the Church of England; many of its bishops, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was present and spoke at the meeting at the Albert Hall, have given it their enthusiastic support. If their action had merely consisted in showing their approval of any honest effort on the part of a stricken world to establish peace on a secure foundation, no criticism could have been directed against it; hut they have gone much further than that, and their action really amounts to associating the Church with a political expedient. - "At bottom," said the Archbishop, speaking of the League, " it was the fruit of the Christian faith." Now, with all due deference to the Archbishop, this League no more deserves that description than, say, the Roman Empire, which was certainly a far more efficient League and had nothing whatever to do with the Christian faith. The truth is, it is just as much a political device as is any other principle of foreign policy. It is not a whit more Christian than the principle of the balance of power. But, apart from this,

there is apparently, to judge from- the phrases used, a vague notion that it is a means of achieving the Christian ideal. If this can be done by political means, what becomes of the Church's mission?
But, as a matter of fact, this policy is indistinguishable from that of the balance of power; both are based on the principle of combination against an aggressor. The only difference is that one is reasonably effective; the other is not. The fact that the supporters of the League claim, to quote Lord Robert Cecil, that it provides "machinery for the discussion of international labour questions, the improvement of health and hygiene, the protection of native races,'' the removal of abuses such as the sale of opium and of arrifcs and ammunition, etc., is no argument for the League at all. All these results could be obtained perfectly well by improving our diplomatic machinery and holding periodical International Conferences. But it may be said, Why object to the League? It can do no harm-at least it points us to an ideal of brotherhood and closer co-operation between nations. The answer to this question is that the League would be harmless if it rendered us more, instead o>f less prepared for war in the future. Its supporters do not, of course, assert any such exaggerated claim as that it eliminates the danger of war, but they do assert that it will tend to remove the minor causes of conflict by a general improvement in the system of international relations, and that we shall be better prepared for war because we shall receive more notice when a danger arises, and the whole machinery of the League will be brought into play to avert it. But this argument really ignores the danger of a future attempt to dominate the world such as has been made by Germany.
The writer goes on at considerable length, and I would like to read the whole statement if time permitted, but I do not wish to weary the House, and so I shall read but another sentence or two:
The opponents of the League are accused of having no alternative to offer. As a matter of fact, the League has probably sacrificed a finer opportunity for establishing peace on a sure foundation than has existed at any previous period in history. The Entente Powers were, after the Armistice, absolutely supreme- they could have imposed any conditions both on enemies and neutrals. With a definite offensive and defensive alliance between Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and .Denmark; with the British fleet securely established at the mouth of the Baltic and with Constantinople in Our hands ; with a combined, carefully thought out scheme of defence, of a line stretching from tha North Sea to the Swiss frontier; with a definite guarantee of military support from Great Britain ; with Germany deprived of essential requirements for the manufacture, of munitions and materials of war; with the British fleet in a position to blockade every German harbour at a few hours' notice-the western Allies would at least have been secure for the next fifty years or more. Whether they will be so now is problem atical.
These and other arguments as advanced by the Duke of Northumberland are, it appears to me, worthy of the very serious consideration of those who think that the
British nation as a whole is fully in accord with the idea of a League of Nations.
I have dealt somewhat fully with this League of Nations because I believe it is the principal stumbling block in the way of ratification of the Treaty. As I say, in my judgment the Covenant of the League of Nations should have been dealt with separately. The Treaty of Peace with Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria could have been submitted to us many months ago had it not been for this League of Nations. Probably the Treaty of Peaee would have been signed long ago and then the League of Nations, if it was to be gone into, could have been taken up later, the matter being given full deliberation and due regard being had to all the obligations entailed by the League upon Canada and upon every othe' country which would be a party to it.
Article 21 of the Covenant reads as follows:
Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed cO affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional under standings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.
That looks to me like a kind of mental reservation placed there for the purpose of appeasing an outcry that was being made by our neighbours to the South. It may be that it was justified, hut I suppose every other nation could have submitted something concerning which they would like to have had special treatment. I do not approve of the mentioning of the Monroe doctrine ahead of any other doctrine that might be mentioned by any of the other signatories to this Treaty.
Here is what Article 26 says about amendments :
Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of the League whoes Representatives compose the Assemblv.
No such amendment shall bind any Member of the League which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease to he i Member of the League.
So that if amendments are submitted and adapted, any of the thirty-two powers who do not approve of the .amendments must cease to be members of the League. It looks to me as if it will very .soon be a dwindling League. It is quite passible to contemplate that in the not very distant future, Germany and associated powers, invited somewhat later on to enter the League, may be the main voting force in the League before it is finally destroyed- as I expect it will be, in time.

number of the population of the earth; but when we think of all the destruction that has been caused and all the outrages that have been committed during this war, I, for one, think that punishment of a fitting nature should be meted out to every one of those high in authority who can be proved guilty of such gross outrages on a long-suffering humanity, such as the sinking of the Lusitania, with its innocfent thousands on board, or the deaths that I have referred to*, and the hundreds and thousands that have been killed in air raids who had nothing whatever to do with the war and whose taking off could have no effect whatever on its outcome. In my judgment all these acts call for punishment-not vengeance but punishment of a kind that they who committed these outrages can understand; for there are certain [DOT] classes of punishment that the ordinary German does not understand. Therefore I would hit him in the pocket, because that is the most sensitive part of his constitution. I would hit him also for the brutal outrages that were committed in the name of war necessity, and which were no more necessary and could no more be justified than taking the life of a new-born babe. These acts call for condign punishment. Though I have not mastered all the provisions in the Treaty for the punishment of these people, I trust that the punishment will be good and proper, and that these people will be put in their places.
I close these few imperfect remarks by saying that I look upon the ratification of this Treaty as the most serious step we shall ever be called upon to take as long as we live. I look upon this occasion as the most momentous which the Canadian Parliament has. ever faced. I recognize that the Treaty carries obligations that bind us and our children, and will continue to bind us as long as the Treaty exists and we are members of the League. But, as the Treaty has gone as far as it has, although I have many misgivings as to its final success, I am willing to accept the League and advocate the ratification of this Treaty by this House. Though I recognize it as an experiment, as the most gigantic experiment that the world has ever tried, I heartily wish it Godspeed and every success; and if any act of mine, or any prayers of mine, can help to make this Treaty a success and bring the blessings to the world that are foreshadowed here I would regard it as a glorious privilege. I appeal to my friends opposite not to make

this a party question. I am in accord with a great many of the things that have been said on the other side of the House, but I am going to support the Treaty because I cannot see that there is anything else that we can do. I do not think my hon. friends opposite can .rightly do anything else. I want to see the House stand united on this Treaty, While we may wish to make mental reservations, or even written reservations, it is not permitted for us to do so at .this stage. Therefore, I ask hon. gentlemen to take it on faith, the same as I am doing, and with their voice and vote and work help to make this Treaty the grand success that President Wilson and those associated with him expect it to be, so that the world may rise to a higher and better plane, and Christianity and civilization and the rights of the weak may prevail. I ask you gentlemen not to make any party capital out of so great a question, but when this question comes to a vote, vote on it not simply as a national question but one of international importance that will have the most far-reaching effects on every country in the world.
On motion of Mr. L. J. Papineau, the debate was adjourned.
t


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Thursday, September 11, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
(Bran and Shorts.)
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford S. Riding):: Moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Adulteration Act (respecting bran and shorts or middlings).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Donald Sutherland: The object of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to prevent what has become a common practice, moTe particularly on the part of the large milling companies of Canada, namely, the adulteration of bran and shorts or middlings by adding thereto an enormous quantity of both ground and unground weed seeds, which is permissible under existing legislation, although entailing heavy losses annually on those engaged in raising and feeding live stock, and in agriculture generally.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



WAR INDEMNITY-CANADA'S SHARE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to call the attention o! the Government to a despatch which appeared in yesterday evening's city papers, purporting to be from Australia and having reference to the indemnity to be paid to that Dominion by Germany. The despatch is dated Melbourne, September 1, and is in this form:
Premier Hughes has informed the members of the Australian cabinet that if Germany makes the first indemnity payment toy 1920, Australia's share will toe ten million pounds sterling.
When the indemnity was fully paid, he stated, Australia's share would toe nearly sixty million pounds sterling.
Is the Government in a position to inform the House whether that is a correct statement or not, and if it is, how does Canada's share in regard to indemnity correspond with that which is claimed for Australia?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position, of course, to express any opinion as to whether Mr. Hughes' estimate-as I assume it to be- of the amount of indemnity which Australia may ultimately receive is or is not accurate. I presume that he based his estimate upon such claims as he may have knowledge that the Government of Australia contemplate making, and which he anticipates would be allowed, and likewise upon such reliable knowledge as he may believe himself to he in possession of as to the claims which will be established by the other Allied and Associated Powers, and the consequent portion which might equitably be allotted to-Australia. This is the only method by which I can .see he is able to arrive at the figures mentioned. Of course, as I say, it is quite impossible for me to express any opinion as to the accuracy of his method.



GREAT WAR VETERANS-GRATUITY CLAIM.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CHARLES G. POWER (Quebec South): I would like to call the attention of the Government, and particularly the attention of the Minister of Militia, to a despatch which appears in the Ottawa Journal this morning. It purports to be from Hamilton, Ontario, and is headed:
Currie favours a Commission for Veterans. Believes their appeal for body to deal with gratuity should get Government consideration.
It goes on to say:
I believe the veterans' reasonable appeal to have their demands for an additional gratuity dealt with by a commission should receive consideration.
And further:
Regarding the additional gratuity, however, I will in the near future make known in more detail my views on the matter.
I would like to know whether General Sir Arthur Currie, Inspector General of the Military Forces of Canada, is speaking f ir the Militia Department or is reflecting the mind of the Minister of Militia when he makes that statement.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia):	I have not seen the article in
question; I am not aware of what statement General Currie made. He has, no doubt, as all good citizens have, the interests of the returned soldier at heart. He is expected in Ottawa to-morrow, and I shall call his attention to the matter. He certainly could not have in mind that he was reflecting the views of the Government or of myself, because I have *not discussed the matter with him nor have I had an opportunity of doing so.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to notify the Government that I will on Monday next .move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance', namely, the question of gratuities to soldiers and their dependents.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a despatch which I received this morning and which I have been requested to read in Parliament. It is dated at Braeebridge, Ontario, September 10, 1919, and addressed to me at Ottawa:
Be good enough to express on the floor of the House of Commons to-day the emphatic protest of the Liberals of the Province of Ontario against Sir Robert Borden's refusal


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is not competent for any hon. member upon the Orders of the Day being called, to read any document or to make any statement which calls in question any action of the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, I am not permitted to read the telegram.



CANADIAN SHIPS REGISTRY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Newton Wesley Rowell: The leader of the Opposition



(Mr. McKenzie) yesterday asked me if I could give any information whether ships no.t British, which were under charter to Canadian companies, and which were commandeered by the British Government, will be returned to the former charterers, and I promised to inquire and make answer to-day. The question doubtless refers 'to ships owned in Great Britain and registered there, under long-term charter to Dominion Coal Company. These ships were requisitioned during the period of the war by the British Government. Immediately following the termination of the war, representations were made by the Canadian Government to His Majesty's Government, requesting that these vessels should, with the least possible delay, be returned to the chartering company. In a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General dated 26th June, the contents of which despatch were communicated to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on 1st July last, and may be found in unrevised Hansard at page 4477, it is stated that of the five vessels in which Dominion Coal Company are interested, three have bfeen released from requisition and returned to the owners, and the remaining two are to be released as soon as present cargoes are discharged. It is understood that these two were undergoing extensive repairs, and if they have not already been released to the owners, they will be -as soon as they are ready to be placed in commission. We have not heard that they have not been released.



THE DEBATE ON THE PEACE TREATY- DISCUSSION ON THE PROCEDURE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. 0. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) : I should like to say just a word about the procedure in connection with the matter which is at present the main subject of debate in the House, the Peace Treaty. The other day a request was made that at some period before the discussion on the resolution was concluded the House should go into committee upon it, and the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to meet that desire. Apart from that desire and the willingness to meet it, it is, of course, not necessary that there should be any committee stage on this resolution. That being the case, unless the desire which has been expressed still persists, it appears to us that w-e should not interrupt or curtail the debate for the purpose of putting the resolu-
TMr. Rowell. 1
tion into committee. If, on the other hand, the desire to which I have referred still persists, we, of course, would he willing, at such a time as may be found convenient by the House, to meet that desire.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The understanding between the Prime Minister and myself was that we should finish to-day the business in connection with this resolution. No particular time was -assigned one way or the other, in respect either of the discussion before the Speaker or of the discussion in committee. My own view is that we should get into committee as soon as possible, when all members have spoken who wish to speak at this stage, and devote as much time as we can to the resolution in committee. I aim not, of course, in a position ito say when the committee -stage will be reached.


Mr. PECK:: I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, by what right -two men in this House-, the leader of the Government, and the leader of the Opposition, come to an arrangement as to- the -time when this discussion should close, without doing their followers the courtesy of referring the matter to them? This is the most'momentous question that has ever come before this House : it has to do with the greatest event that has taken -place in the world since the birth of Christ. Unless there is some strong reason why we should get through-and if there is, the members of the House should have been consulted with regard to it-I do not see why this debate should he curtailed. After all, we are sent here -to represent our constituents and to express such humble views as w-e -may have on these questions. I would like to know, therefore, whether there is s-ome authority with which I, -as a green member, am not familiar under which these debates can be concluded at a certain time upon the arbitrary decision of the leader of -the- Government and -the- leader of the Opposition.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is of course entirely in -the hands of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I m-ay say that I took the best terms I could get from the Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should like to have it -clearly understood that in the making of -the arrangement there was no purpose of curtailing the liberty of debate, more especially no purpose or intention of preventing horn, members -from having opportunity of discussing as fully as they might desire the terms and conditions of the Treaty.

But there was this very important consideration; the Treaty will not be ratified until the Government of this country is in a position to advise His Majesty upon that subject. Prior to giving that advice, the Government have submitted the Treaty for approval by the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. DENIS:: I rise to a point of order. I understand that every member must speak to the Chair. It would give us a great deal of comfort if the hon. gentleman would speak to the Chair so that we may be able to hear him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I was under
the impression that I was speaking to the Chair, though for the moment my face was turned in another direction. I trust that Mr. Speaker will appreciate the fact that no discourtesy was intended to him. I have, of course, every desire to make myself heard. '
It was because of the necessity of enabling the ratification of the Treaty to take place at as early a moment as possible that this arrangement was arrived at as to the disposal of this resolution.
I might add that there will be full and ample time for the most complete discussion of the treaty, on the Bill which has beep introduced into this House for the purpose of conferring upon the Governor in Council the necessary power to give effect to that treaty. There was not and is not any desire to curtail the liberty of debate, and, moreover, as the Speaker has said, the matter is, of course, in the hands of the House. I think, in so far as that latter observation is concerned, it would be well that members of the House should bear in mind the importance of promptitude, consistent always with fair consideration in dealing with this particular matter. That the treaty should be promptly ratified is of great importance by reason of the fact that it will become effective as determining all the delays provided for in the treaty, from the time that it has received the ratification of Germany and three of the great powers. The British Empire, of which we are one of the constituent nations, is one great power to be counted amongst those three, and it is important, in order that we, along with the rest of the world, may begin at the earliest possible moment to benefit by the further proceedings that may be carried on, that we should not retard that ratification by the British Empire of which we are a part. I understand the United Kingdom is in a position to act, and I think, other nations as well.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no particular views on the point of procedure which has just been referred to, but I am afraid I shall have to take exception to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) that this treaty can be discussed in committee when the Bill is before us. The Bill does not ratify the treaty; the Bill deals with matters of detail, and I believe any hon. member raising the question can succeed in establishing that you cannot discuss the treaty in committee on the Bill. The treaty will then have been dealt with and approved, and you can discuss only ' matters contained in the Bill itself. I have no particular complaint to make, nor point of procedure to take exception to, but I question whether my hon. friend's suggestion will be found feasible.



THE PEACE TREATY.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the following proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden, adjourned from September 10:
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
William Stevens Fielding: I believe, Mr Speaker, that the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one side and Germany on the other, which Treaty we are invited .to consider, is in the main a good Treaty. It has been described by .some one, I am not sure by whom, as being next to the Holy 'Scriptures, the grandest document in human history, and there is something in its character tq justify the description so given. That there should be some dissent from some of the provisions of the Treaty is certainly not a matter of surprise. If we have regard to the vastness of the problems with which the Treaty deals, if we have regard to the many rival and conflicting interests with which it had to deal, to the efforts required to reconcile those differences, the wonder is noit that there is still some difference but that the statesmen who were assembled around the table at Paris were

able to find, in so large a measure, an agreement upon that which they had under consideration.	[DOT]
As to the Covenant of the League of Nations, which forms a part of the Treaty, while it would be too much to say that it is not open to some criticism, and possibly some reservations, I think we should all regard it also as a noble effort to put an end to the horrors of war and to give to a distressed world the blessings of peace. I have no hesitation in saying that the statesmen, whoever they were, who had any active part in bringing about the completion of the Treaty, including the Covenant of the League of Nations, have rendered a service for which they deserve the thanks of the civilized world.
But we are discussing in this debate not merely the merits of the Treaty itself. The debate has taken a wide range, and we have been spending a good deal of our time in discussing the policy of the Government regarding the Treaty, and particularly the claim that they have made that, by this Treaty, and by the proceedings in connection with it, there has been a great advance in the constitutional status of Canada. That aspect of the question obliges me to express some dissent. I want to speak for myself alone, for I shall not be surprised if some of the views I may have occasion to utter will not altogether be endorsed by hon. gentlemen on either side of the House; but one must call a spade- a spade, and it is my emphatic judgment that the whole policy of the Government in relation to the Peace Conference and in regard to the proceedings which they are now asking us to engage in is a colossal .humbug, designed to impose upon an innocent Parliament and to bamboozle a too-credulous people, who have been led to believe that our statesmen who went over to Paris did some Canadian business, a belief for which there is no foundation whatever. It is my judgment that it was not necessary for our representatives to go to Paris under the terms and conditions which took them there. It is my judgment that the present procedure for ratifying, or approving if the word is preferred, this Treaty, is entirely unnecessary, and, therefore, I am unable to treat the situation with the gravity which some hon. gentlemen have been attaching to it.
Let me guard against a mistake. If any man in this House or out of it says that I am content that the interests of Canada shall at any time be disposed of by men who are not representatives of Canada, he

will be saying that for which there is no foundation whatever. Whenever there are Canadian interests at stake, I shall be found standing for the vindication of those interests, for their representation, before any tribunal which may be called to deal with them, by Canada's proper and responsible representatives, the ministers of the Crown, or by men chosen by the ministers of the Crown. If the question under consideration is one of our Imperial relations, one within our own family circle, I shall be among the foremost to insist on the maintenance of the autonomy of Canada; I shall be among the foremost to claim that we shall uphold and adhere to every constitutional right that has been won for Canada by the efforts of our statesmen who have passed away. If a question is to arisd in relation to some foreign country, I shall be prepared to maintain, as in the past, that in the treatment of that question Canada shall be represented by responsible ministers of the -Crown, or somebody- chosen by them. In these two cases, the one of our own Imperial relations, the other as to our relations with a foreigv country, wherever there is a real interest of Canada at stake, I want Canada to be represented by the ministers of the Crown, the chosen representatives of the people. When there is something going on in which Canada has no interest, when there is something in which Canada, if she has an interest at all, has only that remote interest which comes to every citizen of the British Empire, an interest which we share in common with our respected fellow-citizens of the Fiji Islands, when there is that kind of a question or a group of questions to -be considered, I would not waste the time of four ministers of the Crown and a great deal of public money in having the representatives of Canada try to deal with such questions. In short, I would have Canada represented, and adequately represented, when there was any Canadian business to be done; I would not be over anxious to have her represented when there was no Canadian business to be done, and the latter ' seems to me to have been largely the situation with regard to the proceedings in connection with the Peace Treaty.
There is a sentiment in this matter, I suppose, as well as facts, and the two should be considered, I do not undervalue sentiment; far from it. Noble sentiments move men to noble deeds, and very often there are times when we may put aside all other considerations and be moved by high and noble sentiments. But sentiment is only of value when it can be harmonized with

facts. When .sentiment runs up against cold facts it does not weigh very much. Now there are some cold facts in connection with the Peace Conference which we should consider. There is one great basic underlying fact that I am anxious that this House and the country should absorb, because it is the foundation of my contention, and that underlying basic fact is that there was no business of Canada before the Peace Conference at Paris. Our representatives first went to England. That was quite right. The British Government had given the assurance that the Dominionsi would be consulted when the time for peace-making approached, and it was a very proper undertaking for the British Government to give. Undoubtedly it was the right thing for our ministers to go over to England and discuss the matter fully with the British Government, but when they found that there was no Canadian business coming before the Conference I do not think it was a wise policy to press for representation, especially for representation separate and apart from the British Empire. We had some little discussion of the matter last year when I presented a little evidence, as I think Hansard will show, of how our delegates were obliged to spend their time over there. Let no man say for a single moment that I am desiring in any way to undervalue the talents of our representatives over there, still less, that I desire to belittle them. It would be a silly thing to do, and the man who would attempt it would only succeed in belittling 'himself. The gentlemen who represented Canada are eminent public men of unquestioned ability and large experience in the public life of this country, and if there had been any Canadian business to do they would have done it. They did not do any Canadian business, through no fault of their own, but simply because there was no Canadian business to do. The evidence which I was able to submit to the House last session went clearly to show that these gentlemen had the greatest difficulty in filling in the time; they did not know quite what to do. There were a number of committees appointed on a variety of subjects, and the managers of the Conference distributed our friends over these committees and their names were published in the press. There was a system which I mentioned to the House last year of what one of the delegates expressed as " eyewash," which meant that with nothing to do they were making an effort to lead the public to suppose they had something to do. That was all set forth in the House
last session. It had a humorous side then, but time, experience, and this Treaty now show that those statements were substantially cgrreet. These gentlemen did not do anything concerning Canada, not because they had not the ability-they had it-not because they had not the desire-they had it-but because there was absolutely no Canadian business coming before that gathering.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I would ask the hon. gentleman if the sacrifices we made in the field, and the 55,000 dead we left in the fields of France and Flanders, did not give us the right to say something about the conditions of the Peace that was to be concluded?


William Stevens Fielding: IT there were any Canadian interests in the world affected there would be no question of our right. The sacrifices that were made by the 50,000 or 60,000 Canadians now lying on the fields of the Continent would give us a claim to any position that we want in considering the affairs, of the nation, but they do not give us a claim to make ourselves ridiculous by undertaking to deal with things of which we know nothing.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that the Canadian people have no interest in the peace of the world?


William Stevens Fielding: We are a part of the
British Empire, and I desire that we shail always remain so, and I therefore regret the policy of hon. gentlemen in pleading for separate recognition apart from the British Empire. By their demand for separate recognition apart from the British Empire they are beginning-they may not have meant it so-to break up the British Empire. There is no question of our rights as within the Empire to participate in all its deliberations. We have in the representatives of the British Government in London statesmen who would take due account of the interests of the Empire at large. I again say that upon any point where Canadian interests were particularly affected it would be desirable that we should have special representation, but when there was no Canadian business before them, when no Canadian interests were affected, I say it was not wise for us to insist upon having representation of Canada when there was really nothing of importance from a Canadian point of view for our representatives to consider.


John Hampden Burnham: Would my hon. friend object to our

representation if the Old Country had asked for it?


William Stevens Fielding: I should like to have the correspondence before answering that question.


John Hampden Burnham: I will produce it


William Stevens Fielding: 
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: Will my
hon. friend permit me a question? Were we not as Canadians interested in the ports of Hamburg and Dantzig?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The only interest we have in them is one which would certainly have been adequately protected by the British statesmen, and that interest is that we should have free access to them. But there is no provision that Canada should have any particular access to them. Will mys hon. friend suggest that if Sir Robert Borden had not gone over, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando would not have taken the greatest care to ensure that there was no discrimination against them?


Arthur Meighen: I merely suggest this,
that where Canada as Canada has interests, even though other nations have the same interests, our interests should be looked after by those who represent this country and are responsible to it, and not by those selected by any Parliament or people not answerable to us.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that a question?
iMr. FIELDING:	I do not object. We
have no interest that is not the common interest of the world at large in that port question, and it is preposterous to contend that it was necessary to send over delegates from the Dominion of Canada to arrange about the waterways of the Danube, the Elbe, the Oder and the Niemen. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we have any interest in these things it is the common interest of the Empire at large, and there was no special interest to Canada which called for special representation.
Then my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster),
we are told, was Chairman of a commission on economic questions. Well, Sir, if you read over the forty or fifty clauses relating to economic questions you will find no reference to anything in which Canada is particularly interested.	_
The great purpose of the economic clauses was to see that Germany, in the new order of things, did not discriminate against the Allies. Will my hon. friend suggest that, if our delegates had not gone there, Germany would have been permitted to discriminate against the Allies? Was it not one of the most natural things in the world that the Allied representatives should insist that Germany should- not be permitted to discriminate against them? My hon. friend the Minister of Interior (Mr. Meighen) will hardly' ask us to believe that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not been present some exception would have been made by which Canada could have been discriminated against while all ^ the rest of the civilized world enjoyed free access. During the time that these hon.	gentlemen wdre absent,
serious conditions were prevailing in Canada. Never in the history of this Dominion was there more need of the concentrated attention of the ministers of the Crown than during the past year. When we consider the unrest that existed, the strikes that were growing almost to revolution in one of our great cities-,-when we regard all these things, surely we must admit that it was a time for ministers to be at home and not elsewhere, if their presence abroad was not imperative. If their presence was necessary over there, if they were dealing with Canadian questions, then . undoubtedly much could be said in defence of their absence. But inasmuch as they were not dealing with Canadian business, I am one of those who say that it would have been wiser had they come home. Was there unrest? Yes, unfortunately; everybody knows there was. But if the men who thought that our ministers ought to have been at home at that time still entertain that view, I beg them to take comfort in the reflection that while they were not here they were carefully considering the navigation of the Danube. If in the presence of the strikes which existed there were men who thought that our ministers should have been at home to join with their colleagues in the consideration of these grave matters, I ask these men to be patient and enduring, because the explanation is that our ministers were exceedingly busy in arranging the affairs of Czechoslovakia. And if our Budget was delayed, if the business of Can-

arrant humbug. The ratification by Great Britain is beyond all question effective. There cannot be a debate about that. I do not believe that any of my hon. friends in the Government-and they include some able lawyers-will stand up and say that in his opinion, if we did not pass this resolution, the Treaty would cease to be effective. One does not need to be a lawyer to see that. An ordinary layman, like myself, can easily see that when the British Empire, through His Majesty the King, ratifies the Treaty, it is ratified for every part of the British Empire. Therefore I think the procedure here is really a' bit of humbug; it is not necessary.
The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) put a question the other day to the President of the Privy Council which was very pertinent. He asked: What about Newfoundland, what is her status? Has she not the same status as we, and what is she doing? The President of the Privy Council replied that it was as much as he could do to answer for Canada, and he was not called upon to answer for Newfoundland-a very fair and proper answer. But the idea that was in the question of the hon. member for Dorchester remains: What is Newfoundland's position? In all that 'Constitutes status-that overworked word "status"- Newfoundland stands on even terms with Canada. She is a smaller country than Canada; she is an older colony than Canada; she is now known as the Dominion of Newfoundland. For all purposes of constitutional discussion Newfoundland is exactly in the same position as Canada. The Premier of Newfoundland went ovct to the Conference in England. I am not sure, but I think he went to Paris; if he did so, he speedily discovered that there was no business there concerning Newfoundland, and he had the good sense to come home and attend to Newfoundland's business.
_ Our ministers, when they made a similar discovery respecting Canada's business, were content to stay there and go through the tomfoolery of attending to business that was not Canada's.


Mr. STACEY:: May I be permitted a question? In view of the very strong language used by the hon. gentleman I would like to ask-and I could listen to him with very much more composure if he would favour me with an answer-as to whether he himself isent any sons overseas?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: ' Oh, oh, oh. Shame.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I have little regard for the man who would blow his Own horn through the service of his son.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order.


Frank Bainard Stacey: Mr. Speaker, if I have done or said anything out of order I humbly apologize, but I do not know that my question is out of order.
Mr. MeKENZIE: It is certainly out of order.


Frank Bainard Stacey: If so, I beg to retract it. Certainly I am the last man in this House who would attempt to even think of blowing my horn through anybody else's efforts. But I do think that my question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not object to the question of the hon. gentleman. From my point of view it was out of order, except on the point that no member can interrupt another member who is addressing the Chair. But I do not take the objection that the question is out of order, although I do not think in this instance it was a wise question to put. Shall I tell the hon. gentleman that I have only one son? He enlisted as a private soldier in the month of August, 1914, he saw service, and is now home with an honourable discharge, having won his commission after two years in the ranks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MeKENZIE: A cowardly interruption.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Stevens Fielding: I have said that in my judgment the ratification or approval of this Treaty is not necessary by this Parliament, and-I hope the word is not offensive *-it seems to me that it is a part of the general humbug surrounding this matter.
I suppose the ministers can fool some people over this question, but I know they cannot fool their own friends over it. They cannot fool that.eminently respectable Conservative newspaper the Montreal Gazette, for a few days ago the Gazette said:
The Bill to ratify the Peace Treaty, which is the excuse

Oh, I want you to notice that word "excuse".	'
-for the special meeting should go through as a matter of course. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has given its sanction to the instrument, and no matter what any legislative

todies of the colonies may do, in due time the Empire will he at peace with Germany.
So the Gazette sees through this foolish pretence that we have to ratify or approve of the Treaty. The Gazette is right; the ministers are wrong.
Then there is another thought: I do not think ratification is needed at all, I do not think approval is needed at all; but if approval were needed, it did not require a special session of Parliament for that purpose. I am not as well informed as I would like to he regarding events in the Sister Dominions, but so far as I know there has 'been no special session of any Parliament of the Sister Dominions. Perhaps my hon. friends the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) can inform me if that is so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My information is that Parliaments in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have been convened for this month for the purpose of dealing with the Treaty. Whether the- sessions are special or regular, I do not know. The South African Parliament is now in session; I think New Zealand has already approved the Treaty, and it is now, I believe, before the Australian Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: The point I desire to make is this: If approval was necessary it could have been had without a special session of Parliament. We made a change in the fiscal year some years ago, for a distinct purpose. It was found that when Parliament assembled, as it usually did, at the end of January or in February, the sessions were protracted into the summer, and it was thought desirable to make a change whereby the sessions could begin much earlier and end much earlier. Formerly the fiscal year ended on the first of July. It took about seven months to get papers and records together, and that threw the session into the months of January or February. Therefore we changed	the fiscal	year so that
it ended on the 31st day' of March. Allow the same seven months and Parliament could meet in October or November. It is as easy now for Parliament to meet in October or November as it formerly was to meet in January or February. So with a diligence on the part of the ministers after they came home, a little diligence on the part of the officials, instead of meeting on the first day of September we could have met in October and had the advantage of a very early session of Parliament, so that we would not need a special session. Now we are called together in a special
session w'hich I do not hesitate to say is not necessary; I join the Montreal Gazette, which is a strong Conservative paper not accustomed to deal rashly with public questions, in stating that the Peace Treaty is only an excuse for this parliamentary session. We are unnecessarily, wastefully, called together in a special session of Parliament which will cost at least a million dollars of public money. We are asked to practise thrift and economy; we are called upon to exercise all the virtues that men ought to practise to-day-and the Government sets the example by calling a special session of Parliament which is not needed at all and flinging away at least a million dollars.
With regard to the status to which my hon. friends attach so much importance, 1 really think it is very much magnified; as I said a moment ago, the word has been very much overworked, We have a written constitution; by it the status of Canada is fixed, and there can be no material change in our constitutional position except through an amendment of the British North America Act. There has been no such amendment; there has been no change in the status of Canada; actually at this moment there is no change in Canada's constitutional status. We have gained in prestige-you may call it status if you like, if you do not use the word in a constitutional sense.
Canada plays a much higher and a much bigger part in the affairs of the world than she ever did, and of that we are all proud. Canada's increasing prestige has been brought about in our time by three events. The first was in 1897, when under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the commercial system under the British preference was introduced. Undoubtedly that added much to Canada's prestige in the eyes of the world; undoubtedly that added prestige to Canada's position throughout what I may call the colonial Empire. And may I not pause just to remark that whatever prestige we gained by the ,step which was then taken, whatever increased status came to Canada as a result of that step, was accomplished in the face of the strenu-our hostility of the present Prime Minister.
The second thing which added to the prestige or the status of Canada, if you wish to call it that, was the South African war. Then hundreds and thousands of the sons of Canada volunteered for service and went away down to South Africa to fight for the flag. Undoubtedly that made a deep impression upon the British mind everywhere.

do we want? That is practically giving us the right to make our own treaties. I cannot understand the meaning of this cry from time to time about the need of enlarged status. I have no sympathy with the cry that something must be done. I do not believe for a single moment that we have any reason to fear Canada's political future. The British Constitution has developed a remarkable capacity for adapting itself to the changing conditions of the times, and I believe it will continue to do so. I believe that, from day to day and from month to month, by various methods, by our conferences, by the communications that are taking place, by greater intercourse, by all these things, we shall gradually come to have a stronger and stronger power in our relations with the Mother Country. I do not know how you are going to define it; I do not attempt to define it myself; I am content to express my hope and belief that it will come. I had occasion in a previous discussion, a little while ago, to use some words which I can hut repeat, because they express the thought which is in my mind and that which I believe represents the thought of the people of Canada:
"I want Canada to have all the freedom that is possible in the management of Canadian affairs, all the unity with the Mother Country that is possible without the sacrifice of the freedom we now enjoy, and I want Canada to be all the time a part of the British Empire."
I have an abiding faith that if any circumstances shall arise in which a difference shall seem to exist between the Mother Country and ourselves, the statesmanship which has been developed in the past will continue, and we shall find a way which shall be consistent with our own freedom, our own autonomy, and with the unity of the British Empire.
There is one part of the Covenant of the League of Nations which has been the subject of very much consideration and discussion both here and elsewhere. I refer to Article 10 of the Covenant. It has been read before, but I must ask permission to. read it again because it is necessary for the comment I wish to make:
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any stich 'aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Upon that Council Canada could technically have representation, but practically
TMr Fielding. 1
she cannot. The Council is composed of the representatives of the Five Great Powers who are always to be members, with four others to be chosen by the Assembly, Canada will have her vote in the Assembly. She could be chosen to be one of the members of the Council, but is it conceivable that the thirty odd nations are going to name Canada to fill one of these places when the British Government aueady has a seat on the Council? I do not think it. is possible. Technically, it is possible. If you say that. Canada could be chosen by all these small nations, I do not dispute that fact, but that it ever will be chosen is highly improbable. Therefore it seems that Canada by Article X is going to be, I will not say at the mercy, for that is not the right word, but at all events subject to the will in matters of vast concern of a Council on which she can have no representative. I am justified in making that statement. Instead of having an improvement in our status, I am going to submit to the House that we have an impairment of our status by this Treaty, unless we take pains to protect ourselves. What would be the position if we take absolutely no action? If this session had never been called, and if the Treaty had been ratified, as it will be ratified, by His Majesty; the King, what would be the effect upon Canada? It would bind the whole British Empire. It would bind every foot of soil which is under the British flag. But it would bind Canada subject to the terms of the Canadian constitution, and while Canada would be technically bound by that ratification no power under Heaven but the Parliament of Canada, so long as the British North America Act remains, could issue an order to send one Canadian soldier overseas. That was the position in 1914, Immediately the declaration of war was made in August, 1914, Canada was at war, because Great Britain was at war. If the German fleet had the next day bombarded Quebec; St. John or Halifax that would have been entirely within their rights. We were at war, but no power other than this Parliament could determine what part we would take in that1 war. That was our position then; that is our position today. The ratification of the Treaty by His Majesty the King would bind Canada, but it would bind her subject to the terms of the Canadian constitution. We are going to lose that power if this Treaty be ratified without any reservation whatever. I think it must be clear that under Article 16 this Council may determine that an act of war has been committed and can demand of any country within the League of Nations

that it shall contribute a certain proportion of the forces necessary to enforce the commands of the League. I do not^think there ought to be any doubt about that. However, I must speak with deference, because my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council said the other day that that was not the proper interpretation. I noticed my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) indicate just now by a movement of his head that he did not agree with me. He also claims, no doubt, that the interpretation I put upon it is not the correct one. I am only going to ask them to admit this, that it is a debatable question. It is a question upon which men may differ, and have differed. Able and brilliant lawyers in the United States have said that that is what it means. My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council says it does not mean that. The Prime Minister has said on different occasions that in anything that may be done with regard to our status the autonomy of Canada is going to be preserved at all costs.
I think he said so in his speech the other day. Again and again at different sessions the Prime Minister has declared " Do not be afraid of any of our negotiations. Whatever else may happen we are going to stand for Canada's autonomy.'' He brought a resolution to that effect from the Imperial Conference quite recently. All I ask my hon. friends opposite to admit is that it is a debatable question. They may be right; other men will think otherwise. Since my hon. friends opposite are of that opinion, I am going to ask them to join me in protecting the autonomy of Canada by an amendment which I am about to move; not an amendment to the Treaty, that could not be done, not even a reservation, but a declaration that in approving this Treaty we have no intention of abandoning Canadian autonomy. I beg to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), if I may use his name, that the following words be added to the resolution:
That in giving such approval this House in no way assents to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion, but declares that the question of what part, if any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, is one to be determined at all times as occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I would be very sorry indeed to be any party to adding any contribution to anything that may have sounded discourteous in the present debate. I
congratulate this House that in the course of this debate there has hot been anything of that kind unless it be found in the somewhat emphatic expressions which the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fielding) has seen proper to apply to men whose actions he would not belittle to save his veTy life. Inasmuch as he told us that the man who would belittle the ministers who went over to the other side to represent Canada would merely belittle himself,
I should like to ask him what we are to think of a man who spends from an hour to an hour and a half belittling, not any individual men, however great they may be. but belittling his own country. I ask the hon. gentleman to reflect on that. From start to finish of his speech he was intent on showing how insignificant Canada is, how utterly useless was any contribution to any question interesting the people of this world that might be made by the people of his own country through their representatives. We were implored to see how absolutely absurd it was to suggest that perhaps Canada, on any question that, interesting as it .might be to Canada was interesting at the same time to any body else, might like to say a word about the whole question. We were implored to confine ourselves to things that interested Canada and that by no possibility could be of the slightest consequence to any body else. We were lectured, because, forsooth, we were of opinion, and acted on that opinion, that in this world Canada holds a place, and holds that thing which the hon. gentleman so greatly contemns holds a status that entitles her to respect, and entitles her to expect that people will listen to her voice and to claim her right to express by her own statesmen her own views on those things which, because they do interest the civilized world, interest this Canada of ours that is taking and means to hold its place of influence among civilized nations. Mr. Speaker, if we are never to speak about any matter or any question that is not exclusively a Canadian question, might I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) why we felt called upon to send our 500,000 soldiers to pour out their blood upon the battlefields of Europe, and why we have imposed upon ourselves a financial burden which it will take us and our children after us years and years to discharge? There was no question in that war that interested Canada exclusively. Great Britain, the British Empire, France, Italy, Belgium, the civilization of the world, were interested in the questions at stake; and if the hon. gentleman were

logical, he would have asked: Why should Canada spend money and send men about a matter that did not interest her exclusively? I say, Mr. Speaker, that that language is language that belittles our country. The hon. gentleman stated that in what he was going to express he would probably find himself differing from other hon. gentlemen even on his own side of the House. I am glad to believe, even more glad to know, that in what he said in that regard he does differ from many men on the other side of the House, as well as, I venture to say, from all men on this side.
The hon. gentleman told us that this was a good Treaty, taking it as a whole. He told us that the Covenant of the League of Nations, taken as a whole, was acceptable to him; and upon a motion to approve that Treaty he proceeded to give us an argument directed to demonstrating the absolute inferiority of Canada's position as compared with any of the other nations of the world, and her position of absolute supordination within this Empire to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And he did this because, he said, we had made on this side of the House extravagant claims with regard to the progress made by Canada in the paths that lead to nationhood. Then at very considerable length he fought with a bogey of apprehensions which he seemed to consider existed somewhere about the future relations between Canada and other parts of the Empire. He was at great pains to fight these apprehensions. He inquired again and again what reasons there were, and why it was that people were clamouring for a change. Mr. Speaker, I had not heard any clamouring for a change on this side of the House, but I had heard-and for the benefit of the hon. gentleman I shall endeavour briefly to repeat it-I had heard it pointed out that our country had grown from being a colony-that title which the hon. gentleman loves so much-to being a nation, just as the child grows from childhood to manhood.
^ It has not been claimed on this side of the House that this Treaty made Canada a nation; nor has it'been claimed that anything that happened at the Peace Conference made Canada a nation. Canada has grown to nationhood and Canada is a nation; and she does not go seeking anywhere to any of the Allied or Associated Powers, to any foreign power, to Great Britain herself, to the entire Peace Conference, to confer upon her the gift of nationhood. Peoples, starting under 
the tutelage of other countries that have sent forth their sons to establish colonies, in the course of time, as they grow, come to acquire qualities that belong to no colony. What is the proper position of a colony as towards its mother country? Why, it' is the position of the child in the nursery. It takes .the directions of its mother country; it follows the mother country without any question in whatever line of action that mother country chooses to adopt as governing its conduct towards the outside nations of the world. And when that line of conduct leads to conditions that call for the facing of those outside nations in arms, while the relationship is purely that of guiding and governing mother country and dependent colony. Then it is the business of the mother country to provide not only for her own defence, but to carry upon her own shoulders the burden that may result from the line of conduct which she and she alone has chosen to adoipt; and if her child colony over there, that had nothing to say about how those conditions were brought about, is exposed to danger, it is for the mother country to defend it. Was that the situation in regard to Canada? Nationhood is a matter of fact; it is not a question of what is written in a statute-book or what is declared by one nation in relation to another.
Nations may recognize the nationhood of another nation but nations do not make the nationhood of another. It was in the position of a nation that we in this country found ourselves at the outbreak of the recent great struggle and that, indeed, is the condition which had existed throughout all those preceding years in which the late distinguished leader of my hon. friend, without the mental reservation that he suggests, proudly proclaimed that Canada was a nation.
We went into that struggle as a nation and we played a nation's part. We played it nobly-our soldiers did-and we -who stayed behind did our best to make the glorious effort of our soldiers successful. We played a nation's part. We did not as a colony run to cover and say to the Mother Country: Oh, it is for you to do the fighting; it is for you to protect yourself and us too. No, we sprang to the front as a nation among the world's nations. We took our place side by side with the men of other nations and we did our share in the achievement of the victory1 that has made the world safe for civilization. We have never suggested that our growth or anything that happened in connection with

this Treaty, took us out of the British Empire. Our standing-I will say " standing " because I do not want to shock the sensitive ears of the hon. gentleman more than need be by the use of the word " status "-was voluntarily and willingly recognized on the part of all nations of the British Empire, led by the United Kingdom long before this war broke out. The hon. gentleman haa referred to the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1917 which recognizes that any arrangement looking to the organization of the different component parts of this Empire should have as its starting point and its necessary condition the preservation of the rights of the Dominions as autonomous nations of the British Empire. Then, why should the hon. gentleman be so stirred up by that affirmation? Is it 5 p,m. that he does not want the country to be a nation?
.Mr. FIELDING:	If the hon. gentleman
means:	" Do I want this country to be
a nation separate and apart from the British Empire?"-no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said a moment ago,
and I hardly needed to have said it, that we have made no claim for this country as a nation separate from the British Empire. There is nothing farther from our thought or our desire than that. But does the hon. gentleman know what the British Empire is? What is it that he does not want to be a nation separate from?


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend will not regard me as being discourteous but I really cannot understand his question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The British Empire is composed of different countries living together under one king and all these countries have unanimously and repeatedly recognized the fact that they-I am speaking now of the self-governing dominions and the United Kingdom-constitute a group of nations which group of nations is the British Empire. There is not some country somewhere rto which Canada is attached and which country is the British Empire. That would leave us outside of the British Empire, attached to it. if you will, a "dependency" of it-another word that the hon. gentleman loves. But that would not place us in the British Empire and that is where Canada is, in the British .Empire and one of the autonomous, self-governing nations that constitute the group which is known to the world as the British Empire.
I might perhaps advance -a little in the order in which I would follow the hon. gentleman if I followed him in the order in
which he spoke and refer in this connection to what be looked upon as a triumphant demonstration that the recommendation of this Government that His Majesty the King should sign the Treaty on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiaries recommended by the Government and that this should be stated in the preamble to the Treaty was not acted upon. He said: "You will not find the word 'Canada' mentioned in the preamble of the Treaty." Thqn he reads the preamble. He found the "British Empire" mentioned in that part of the preamble which defines the contracting parties but he did not find any special mention of Canada. But when the British Empire came to act what did he find? The British Empire, acted in the making of the Treaty by His Majesty ithe King, the sole treaty-making power within the Empire. WKen it came to the matter of getting the signature of the British Empire to that Treaty His Majesty the King acted for and on behalf of these different nations that compose the British Empire by plenipotentiaries representative of each one of these nations and appointed on the advice of the Governments of these different nations which enjoy constitutional government. When His Majesty the King came to act and the signature of the British Empire had to be attached to the Treaty, to provide the signature of the British Empire there were required the signatures of those statesmen specially representative of the United Kingdom and of the Crown colonies and dependencies plus the signature of Canada, plus the signature of Australia, plus the signature of New Zealand, not because they pretend to be nations separate from the British Empire but because they are the nations that make up and compose 'the British Empire.
Now, the hon. gentleman said that this proceeding of ours to-day is a waste of time, a colossal, humbug, and I am not sure that he did not also describe it as a piece of tomfoolery. I wonder if the hon. gentleman understands what it is that we are doing to-day. His Majesty the King has the treaty-making power of this British Empire, and he has the ratifying power with regard to treaties made by this British Empire. In the olden days the King exercised that power of his own authority, but as the Constitution grew and the people came to count for something, His Majesty exercised it with the advice, and only with the advice, of his responsible ministers. This Treaty will be ratified by His Majesty-I say " will be," not " has been."



The hon. gentleman read from a newspaper that the Parliament of the United Kingdom had ratified or approved of the Treaty, and that that settled it. It is not in the power even of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to ratify the Treaty. What that Parliament did was to approve the Treaty-not in the form precisely of this resolution, which has been introduced for expedition's sake-but by passing an Act on the lines of the Bill which will be submitted to this House, empowering His Majesty in Council to take all steps necessary to give it effect. By doing that they expressed their approval, and that having been done, the ministers of the United Kingdom are ready to-day to give their advice to His Majesty that he should ratify the Treaty.
But what is His Majesty waiting for? His Majesty knows, if the hon. gentleman does not know, that there are other nations composing his great British Empire than the "very great United Kingdom which is at the centre of it, and he is waiting for the advice of his constitutional advisers in Canada. And those advisers are here before this House asking for its approval, because they feel, and I am sure this House feels with them, that in this the first participation in our own right as a component nation of the British Empire in the actual work of treaty making we should start the good precedent; that treaties will not be ratified until the people, through their representatives, have expressed their approval of such treaties. That is what this "bamboozling tomfoolery" means. This "bamboozling tomfoolery" is participated in by His Majesty the King as the Head of the Empire, and the same "bamboozling tomfoolery" has been participated in by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and, as my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) pointed out, has been or is to be participated in by the Parliaments of all the self-governing dominions. But we forsooth are told in the superior knowledge of the hon. gentleman-who would not for any consideration in the world have it suggested that his country is a nation-that this, is a piece of " bamboozling tomfoolery."
Now, having belittled his country, in the process of doing so the hon. gentleman thought it wise to belittle the usefulness of the men who went over to the Peace Conference-he would not for the world belittle the men individually; indeed, he had to give them a certificate of capacity as individual men. What paralyzed them? They were Canadians. " Why," he said, " the 
interests of labour were at stake; Mr. Gompers was there, Mr. Barnes was there; what need was there for Sir Robert Borden and for my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton)?" Why, he asks, was there need for any Canadians; surely the outside world produces the men of ability-our friends to the south of the line, our friends in the United Kingdom, they produce all the great men of this world; no Canadian is any use anywhere; He would not for the world belittle the individual men. But what is he doing when he uses such language? And let me tell him that though he may forget, the men who went over to represent Canada were not unmindful that there is a great labour population within this Dominion that has its own interests, its own points of views, and its own rights to be preserved and protected. And let me tell him further, that when he reads that part of the Treaty dealing with the great organization which has been created to give protection to the legitimate interests of labour

to give effect to those pious aspirations at which the hon. gentleman sneered as being contained in the declaration of principles which the right hon. the Prime Minister moved at the assembly of the conference-if he will look at the Covenant which establishes that organization, he will find that in the composition of that body the employers and the workingmen of Canada will have their representatives in equal number with every one of the nations of this earth other than the five great powers, and that they will have not only an equal number of representatives but an equal voice and influence in and an equal eligibility to the council of that great body. And may I tell the hon. gentleman-and I will be violating no confidence when I tell it-that it was not Mr. Gompers and it was not Mr. Barnes who secured that right for the industrial interests of Canada; it was the right hon. Sir Robert Borden and my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton). It was not by sneering at Canada that it was done. We did not go over and say: Oh, we are a little colony; please, now please do not listen to us on any question that might possibly interest anybody outside of Canada.
Please be good enough to understand that the contention of the hon. gentleman is that our vision is absolutely circumscribed, and that, in the world's peace we are not interested in the slightest degree. The peace of the world was broken through causes that did not interest Canada; sixty thousand

Canadians gave up their lives and the rest of us were called to the sacrifices that I have mentioned1-yet the question did not interest Canada. V^hen you are dealing with the matter of how things are to be disposed and ordered upon the continent of Europe- and it was conditions on the continent of Europe that gave rise to the war-when you are settling and determining those conditions in such a manner as may best tend to avoid the recurrence of such a war, be good enough-the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) would have us say-not to listen to any Canadian; will you kindly send us home again, because we are an economical country and the cost of living is high in Paris.
It was because we took an attitude very different from that that Canadian labour, the Canadian employer and the Canadian Government, vastly interested as it is, vastly interested as this whole country is in everything that affects the conditions of labour, will have a voice adequate and equal to that of all the other nations, with the exception that I have mentioned, in the determination of the decisions to be arrived at by the great international body that is to give effect to those high principles which evoke nothing but a sneer from the hon. gentleman.
The hon, gentleman (Mr. Fielding) asks: What was there over there that Canada was interested in? I have mentioned this labour organization. May I tell him that Canada was very materially interested in the proposed convention with regard to aviation, and in the legislation contemplated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in that regard? In order that he may realize that Canada is sometimes very much interested in matters that he is satisfied to leave to be settled by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Gompers, may I mention the fact that legislation was projected to govern aviation, not only outside this country, but actually, in a general sense, within the limits of this Dominion? I am sure he will be surprised that the Canadian delegation protested emphatically -and what is more, protested effectively- against any such action. Yet, the British North America Act never took legal power away from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to enact that legislation. But over there, as among people in Canada who concern themselves with looking carefully into what is meant by the British Constitution, they know that the " fine-drawn distinctions," as the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) called it, of the President of the Council between legal power and the constitutional right to exercise that power,
13J
is as plain as daylight, just as plain as it is to every man who has ever opened or looked at a book on the law of the British Constitution. Recognizing that notwithstanding that legal power they had no constitutional right, as we affirmed, to pass legislation to govern the internal conditions of Canada, whether on the water, on the land or in the air. They yielded to our representations. We, therefore, will make our own legislation in connection with such matters, and that is an assertion-an awful assertion, I am sure, in the mind of the hon. gentlemen-of Canada's possession of one of the qualities of a nation; her absolute right constitutionally to govern herself in accordance with laws made by the Parliament of Canada. That right was recognized, although it is undoubtedly true that as matter of law the Parliament of the United Kingdom might have passed that legislation.
Just one word more upon the subject of the need of our representation on the other side. The hon. gentleman virtually asked what we were doing there. Does he realize what that gathering was? Does he realize that it was a gathering of the representatives of the triumphant powers of the world and that we had taken our part in achieving their triumph? Yet he says: Oh, Canada should not have had any representation there that derived its authority from the democracy of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am not lacking in respect for the great statesmen of the United Kingdom. But if in the dealings of this Empire with the outside world Canadian affairs are to be carried on on democratic principles, then Canada's participation in such dealings must be by representatives who hold their authority from the people of Canada and from no other source. And in the great world's democracy the great Canadian democracy i.s going to hold its place and have its say through the representatives who owe to it their authority.
The hon. gentleman sneered at the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden having anything to do with the fixing of the boundaries of Greece. There seems to be a horror of Greece on the other side of the House. The member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) told us the other evening that he might believe that the President of the Council was bringing to Canada the, by him highly appreciated, gift of nationhood, but he held back and he trembled because, he said, he feared the Greeks even when they bore gifts. The hon. gentleman is horrified because a great Canadian statesman repre-

sentative of this nation of the British Empire ventured to take part as representing that entire Empire in .a settlement of the boundaries of Greece. Does the hon. gentleman know that hound up in the question of the boundaries of all those different countries over there is the question of the future peace of the world? Yet we, who are certainly interested in that future peace, are to be condemned because the representatives of the British Empire as a whole thought that there was a Canadian man who would give valuable service in settling one of the most critical questions with which the Peace Conference was called upon to deal. Surely a prophet is not without honour save in his own country, at least in that very little country which Canada is in the eyes of the hon. gentleman.
I do not want to detain the House unduly as I know other hon. gentlemen are anxious to take part in this debate. I should like, however, to say a few words with regard to the subject of this Treaty itself. Before passing to that, however, might I just say a word of two in answer to the references made to Newfoundland's position and the argument drawn from the fact that Newfoundland was not represented. I do not know why it was that the representatives of Newfoundland were willing to forego representation; I do not know why it was that they did not assert their right. That is their affair; it is for their representatives who did not assert their right to settle that matter with the people of Newfoundland. I think we might safely say that Canada had a stronger claim for representation, because there is some difference between 250,000 people and 8,000,000 people. With all the good will that 250,000 people can possibly have, they cannot play the same part within the Empire as 8,000,000 people can. But it is not for me to tell the reason why Newfoundland was satisfied to go without representation. Canada was not; Australia was not; New Zealand was not, and I am satisfied that the people of those three countries will endorse the action of their representa-ives who insisted upon that representation.
As regards the constitutional question, the hon gentleman has told us, and a number of others have also stated, that we have a written constitution and that that is the last word. We have a written constitution enacted for what purpose? It was enacted to distribute throughout this Federal country the powers of legislation. The Privy Council is on record as having said that the whole field of legislation had been by

that Act conferred upon the Dominion of Canada, either upon its central Parliament or upon the Parliaments of its provinces. When that was done the last work that a written constitution could do was done. But because we had that written constitution, we did not cease to live under that British constitution that is not written in books, that rests upon the continued practice of the British people-of the people of the British Empire, which includes us Canadians as well as the people of the -United Kingdom. I was surprised the other evening to hear the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) say that the British constitution was limited to the United Kingdom, as though we had not all of us for years boasted-and no man did it more frequently nor more eloquently than the late great leader of the Liberal party-of our enjoying all the benefits and advantages of the British constitution-and it is not all written in the British North America Act. The British North America Act said the last word that could be said in the way of determining what our legislative powers were, but it left us there with those legislative powers, in the condition in which we then stood, still within the British Empire and enjoying the benefits and advantages of the British Constitution. And one of the principal of them is the, possibility of growth from smaller things to greater things, and we have gone on and we have grown from those smaller things to greater things and one precedent after the other has occurred, each going on broadening from one to the other and making more clear our right of self-government, our constitutional right to that self-government even though there be legal power in the .Parliament of the United Kingdom to enact laws binding on us. I am not going to weary the House with particular instances, but we have the instance of the discussion of the copyright with the result of the recognition that although the British Parliament had legal power, we exclusively had the constitutional right to legislate. There was the question of naturalization when a few years ago the British Parliament started.out by enacting a naturalization law that was to be effective in Canada. There is no question that they had legal power to enact that law, but we asserted our right and told them that they had no constitutional right to exercise that power, and they recognized that and they did not exercise their legal power. I have referred to the recent discussion with regard to the aviation law. Over in Great Britain they recognize our national status and that con-

stitutionally the whole field of Government of Canada is ours. It is only in this country that you find the little man who wants to hang on to the colonial status of his country and to insist that she is subordinate to and to- be governed by another portion of the Empire. However great that portion may be-and we all respect it, we all recognize what she was the source of for us all, and we shall all be happy to recognize her as the first among these equal nations-we contend that, as a matter of fact, we stand as an equal nation within the Empire.
The hon. gentleman pointed out things we could not do. We were told for instance that, when the Prime Minister wanted to communicate with the King the other day by an Order in Council of the Government of this country he had to hand it to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He could not address it directly to the King, and we were told that all these things go to show that we are not a nation. I am not clamouring for a change; I would not like to disturb hon. gentlemen, but what these things go to show is simply that it may, perhaps, be necessary that in the performing of these functions which our nationhood brings to us we should find a different machinery. But because of our own free will, we should choose to communicate with His Majesty through His Majesty's Prime Minister in Great Britain, or because, if you will, that is the only practical method existing to-day of having that communication reach His Majesty, how can that be said to affect that other question of fact; whether or not we have all the attributes of a nation. That fact has been recognized not only within the Empire but by the assembled nations of the world. As I have said, I do not contend that any body on the other side, within or without the British Empire, has given us nationhood.
We have grown up to nationhood, and it is ours. What came over there was the recognition of our nationhood. May I read just two paragraphs from the rules of the conference. Surely there can be no better place to go to to find out what Canada is in the eyes of the other Powers who sat in that Conference than to that Conference itself. When that Conference was called upon to make rules as to who should sit in the Conference, and how those who sat in it should be divided, what did it do? It provided:
The Conference summoned with a view to laydown the conditions of Peace, in the first place
by peace preliminaries and later by a definitive Treaty of Peace, shall include the representatives of the Allied or Associated belligerent Powers.
The belligerent Powers with general interests (the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan) shall attend all sessions and commissions.
We have there five great States, one of them the British Empire, of which Canada is a part. To continue:
The belligerent Powers.with special interests (Belgium, Brazil, the British Dominions and India, China, Cuba, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, the Hedjaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Pa-na'ma, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia, Siam, the Czecho-Slovak Republic), shall attend the sessions at which questions concerning them are discussed.
Now in the outside world we rank with Belgium, with the much despised Greece perhaps, with every one of the nations outside of the British Empire and of the four great States who constitute the principal Allied and Associated Powers. We rank with them in the eyes of all the outside world and are entitled to speak with the same authoritative voice that they do, and to be listened to as they are entitled to be listened to. And yet, forsooth, we are reproached because here within our own country we venture to call our country a nation. Let me add just one word on this point, and it is to present a wonderful contrast. The other day my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) fought for hours with the bogey of Imperialism that was hidden away somewhere in this Treaty or could be traced somewhere in the words or actions of somebody on thu side of the House. To-day, lo and behold, we have the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) his heart sad within him because we have started to break up the British Empire. The hon. gentlemen can perhaps reconcile these two views when they get together.
Now I proceed to the amendment which the hon. gentleman has moved. He has proposed that the following words be added to the resolution:
That in giving such approval this House in no way assents to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion but declares that the question of what part, if any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, is one to he determined a* all times as occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament.
The amendment raises in the first place, I think, the question of what is the real meaning of Article X, not what is the nature of the obligation imposed upon Canada but what is the-effect of the second

phrase of that Article. A great deal has been said with regard to Article X in this House, and outside of it. and in this country and outside, and I am perfectly free to admit that there is a great deal to be said pro and con with regard to the nature of the obligation that is by it imposed upon and accepted by all the nations who are parties to the Covenant. I do not purpose here to take up or discuss the nature of that' obligation, nor whether it is one which the nations generally or Canada in particular should assume. I heard no criticism from the point of view of the nature or scope of the obligation. I do not purpose to express an opinion one way or the other upon that at the present time, for a reason which I will give very shortly. The amendment directs itself, if I understand it, to that part of Article X which deals with the manner in which the method of fulfilling the obligation is to be determined. The hon. gentleman, I think, shares the apprehensions of a number of other hon. gentlemen that by the second part of Article X " In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat* or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled," Canada's right to determine the question of what part, it any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened is in some way put in danger. I think if he will read carefully the wording of the Article he will see that his fears are not well grounded. This is not an article which Canada alone is asked to sign; it is an article which all the nations who become members of the League are asked to sign. All of the members of the League undertake in unqualified terms the obligation to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of all the other nations who are members of the League. For the moment we are not concerned with the question wjhether or not they should have undertaken that obligation. What has given anxiety to the hon. gentleman and to other hon. members is the manner in which provision is to be made for the carrying out of that obligation. The second sentence of Article X reads as follows;
In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
There it is stated in words as clear as the English language affords that the Council
[Mr. Doherty. 1
is to exercise an advisory function, not that it is to order any 'of the nations to do anything. It seems to me inconceivable that it should be suggested that because the Council has that advisory power,-the power to advise how Canada ought to fulfil its obligation-that it can claim in any way power to step in between the Government of Canada and the citizens of Canada and order a single soldier away from Canadian shores, or . impose upon any Canadian citizen the obligation of contributing a dollar. I quite understand that when that advice is given there will arise a situation in which it will be for the people of Canada, who will be acting then through their Parliament, as they act now, to determine whether or not they should accept and act upon that advice; and it will only be if the Parliament of Canada decides to accept and act upon that advice that it will proceed to send soldiers and to raise money. Between the people of Canada and the operations of the Council, under Article X, there will always be standing the undisturbed power of the Parliament of Canada, and the same thing will be true with regard to the constituted authority, whatever it may be, in any of the countries which are members of the League. Now, it is to be admitted that the entering into this obligation will at that date put this country and every other country that subscribes to it in a position where it will have the duty of giving very serious thought to that advice. And I believe, with no hesitating belief, that if that advice presents itself in those days to the minds of the representatives of Canada as advice that is based upon a fair consideration that there has been unjust aggression such as is contemplated here, and that under the circumstances it is fair that Canada should be called upon; and if such advice as the council may give concerning the proportion of aid is fair advice, I have no doubt that the Parliament of Canada will accept it and act upon it. But if the views of the Parliament of Canada should be all the other way, there is absolutely no suggestion of any machinery in the Covenant of the League of Nations whereby a solitary soldier could be raised in Canada or a dollar of Canadian money spent. And as I have said, that is true of all the nations that take part in the Covenant. What the Article does is to recognize the soundness of the principle and the policy of a joint guarantee, so to speak, of the territorial positions and political independence of all the members of the

League. I am not dealing with the question of the nature of that obligation, and whether in its nature it is one that ought to be assumed. But when you come to the question of how far the power of the Council threatens the power of the Parliament of this country, I say without hesitation that it is impossible to suggest that there is any danger in that regard. More than that however, the advice that Canada should take part can never by any possibility come from a Council upon which Canada will he unrepresented; and coming from a Council upon which Canada will be represented it will not come unless it is unanimous; that is to say, unless the representative of Canada, who doubtless will be acting under the direction of the Parliament of Canada, has concurred in the advice, that Canada should act.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend assumes that Canada will have a representative, but does he show how?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is just what I am going to do. My hon. friend the President of the Privy 'Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell), I thought, showed that clearly the other day.


William Stevens Fielding: He showed us that we could have a representative but not that we would.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I purpose to read the
provision which says that we shall have a representative under certain circumstances. There are three categories of people who may sit upon the Council. There are the representatives of the five great Allied and Associated Powers who are to sit there for all time. There are four representatives of the Powers with special interests who are to be elected by the general body of the Powers with special interests, and among whom Canada may be one of those elected. As to the probabilities of Canada being elected it is not worth while speculating. And when it comes to a question affecting directly any power among the Powers with special interests which is not represented on the 'Council, then that Power will have the right to send a representative to sit as a member of the Council; and when it will be a question of what part or interest Canada should take in any future war, surely no one will suggest that that is not a question in which she has a special interest. Even my hon. friend, who is incredulous about any special interests of Canada, will, I think, concede that that is a question concerning which Canada will have a special interest.
Article 4 provides:
Any member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send a representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council during the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that member of the League.
iMr. FIELDING: That would mean if that member were a party to the dispute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are two distinct
things which my hon. friend must bear in mind-


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose that there is a dispute in which Canada is concerned. Let us admit that Canada would be entitled to send a representative. That is debatable and I do not admit it; but suppose for the sake of argument that Canada would be entitled to have a representative. Suppose that Canada is not a party to the cause except that twenty members are directed by the Council to contribute soldiers. Will each one of the twenty have a seat on the Council?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If they discuss a question affecting each of the twenty at one and the same time, at the same meeting, then every one of those twenty will have a seat on the council.


William Stevens Fielding: Only when it is a party to the case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are provisions for the Council dealing with disputes or cases, and there is a provision that stands by itself as to when there is no dispute, -when nobody is suggesting Ihe existence of a di-pute upon which the Council is to pass. The facts provided for in Article X are these: Someone, referring no dispute whatever to the Council, is guilty of unjust aggression upon the territorial integrity of a country. There is no question or case submitted to anybody. That country has violated its obligations; it has submitted no case, but has gone to war. Under Article X it is the duty of every other member of the League of Nations to take its part 'to defend and preserve that integrity, and the 'Council meets, with no dispute before it, to determine as between the nations which of them should take part and what should be the proportion of each. When the question arises someone suggests in that council: "Well, Canada ought to take a hand in this," and he gives this, that or the other reasori why it is proper to call upon Canada for a couple of hundred thousand men. The moment that is introduced to the Council, you have a meeting

to consider matters specially affecting the interests of Canada. That is the way that everybody I spoke to in Paris understood that section. I do not think I ever heard an explanation of Article X that did not conclude with the pointing out of that fact.


William Stevens Fielding: Under that interpretation the whole assembly would become members of the Council.
/


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the Council chose at one and the same meeting to consider the duties and obligations of all of the members of the League who were not members of the Council, and if it was thought necessary that they should be considered at one and the same time, then the consequence that the hon. gentleman points out would come to pass. But let me suggest that that condition is highly improbable. Supposing it happened, what would be the harm? If it was a question of all the member nations of the League joining in apportioning between themselves the share of each, the most right and proper thing in the world would be that all the members of the League should come to the meeting. But that would happen rarely and infrequently. If the Council, dealing with a situation of that kind, had to determine what they would do with the small countries that would not be represented: Belgium, Poland, or, perhaps, (Canada, that would involve the presence of a representative of any of these countries. The Council of Ten, in dealing with the Treaty, proceeded on the same basis. When the question came up where a nation not represented on the Council was specially affected, they called in a representative of that nation. That only meant that when they were dealing with something that affected, say, Poland, and another country, they called in a representative of each. If they were dealing with something that affected only one of the smaller nations, they called in a representative of only that one nation. The thing worked satisfactorily and I do not see why it should not work satisfactorily under this system.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is it dependent on the Council's decision whether, say, Canada would be called in or not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the Council contemplated advising that Canada ought to take part in a war, then the Council would have to call Canada in, because the provision is that any member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited when-

ever there is a question specially affecting its interests.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In what capacity?


Charles Joseph Doherty: To sit as a member.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Having a vote?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Where is that stated?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All the members of the Council have votes, and it is provided that this gentleman shall sit as a member and his right to vote is not negatived.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no special provision for the vote of a member who is invited to act as a representative. The evident purpose is to afford representation to the country that is invited to be present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think you will find a provision that each member of the Council has a vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend knows that it is specified that the Council shall be composed of nine.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly, excepting on these occasions. You make a provision that every member of the body shall have a vote and then in the next line you say that on certain occasions John Jones shall be invited to come in and sit as a member. Surely he has the vote that a member has.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice)-Resuming: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at 6 o'clock I was answering the suggestion of the bon. .member .for Beauoe-(Mr. Boland), that although, when our interests were especially affected, we would be entitled to a representative to sit as a member of the Council, that did not, in his view, give us a right to vote. I have pointed out that the provision itself is for the sitting as j. member, and that where it is intended that a vote should not count special provision is made in Article 16. But there is something which is more direct and more absolute than that.. In the first place, -Article 4 provides in the last paragraph, that:
At meetings of the Council, each Member of the League represented on the Council shall have one vote, and may have not more than one representative.
So that at meetings of the Council, each member, without distinction, represented

there shall have one vote. But what perhaps is more conclusive is the provision in Article 5.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will the hon. minister
allow me to interrupt him at that point? Each representative can have only one vote; that is .what the hon. minister has read. The British Empire already has one vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How can Canada have one vote also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because Canada, as a member of the League of Nations, is distinct from the British Empire. If the hon. gentleman will turn to the provision determining who are the original members, he will find himself referred to the schedule of t'he signatories of the Peace Treaty-one respect in which it was worth while for Canada to be a signatory by itself. But in the schedule itself he will find specified as the members of the League the British Empire, then Canada, Australia, and so on. So that the British Empire is one member of the League and Canada is another member.


Arthur Trahan: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?-But as a part of the British Empire. Because if you look at the appendix you will see that Great Britain, or the British Empire, is mentioned as a heading, and Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India are mentioned as sub-headings, indicating that they are members of the League of Nations, but as forming part of the British Empire.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are in a list under a sub-heading. But to give the interpretation the hon. member puts upon it is to suppose that the representatives of the United Kingdom conceded that the United Kingdom was not a member of the British Empire. That is not a complete list of the members of the British Empire; it is a list of those members who are distinctively members of the League of Nations, and the United Kingdom is not a distinctive member. To put the interpretation that the hon. member does on the mere fact of a difference in printed type means that he has to conclude that that is a list of the component parts of the British Empire, which forces him to the conclusion that the United Kingdom is no part of the British Empire. We have heard invoked as conclusive on the subject of interpretations the authority of the President of the United States. Might I point out to the hon. gentleman that upon this question which he is now raising my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) the _ other evening put upon Hansard the authoritative interpretation of Mr. Lloyd George, of Mr. Georges Clemenceau, and of Mr. Woodrow Wilson, in which they specifically state that each of the Dominions is eligible as among the Powers of particular interests entitled to have elected on the Council a member of the League each for itself.


Arthur Trahan: But-if you will allow me-when the British Empire is interested in a dispute concerning the British Empire as a whole the Dominions - will have a right to sit on the Council, but they will not have a right to vote because they will be members interested as part of the British Empire.	.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may possibly be true if you are dealing with matters which concern the British Empire as a whole.


Arthur Trahan: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But when that happens, Canada will be entitled, as within the British Empire, to state her views as to who is to represent the British Empire. But once you come to the case-and that is the ease we are dealing with-where Canada has a particular interest as Canada, where the question is: How many soldiers shall Canada be called on to furnish, then Canada will have her special representative sitting as a member on the Council of the League of Nations, and that, notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain has a member sitting there.


Arthur Trahan: If such member is elected by the Assembly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. I do not think the hon. member was here this afternoon, when I pointed out that when the day shall arrive that the Council is considering what part it will call on Canada to play in any particular war, then Canada will be invited to send a representative to sit as a member of the Council.
I was going to point out that there is not only the provision in the last paragraph of Article 4 that at meeting of the Council each member of the League represented shall have one vote, but there is more than that. Article 5 provides:
Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assem-

bly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
Now, Article 4 has said that at the meeting when they are discussing what con-tri-bution Canada shall be asked for, Canada shall have a representative to sit as a member; and Article 5 says, that every decision shall require the agreement of all the members of the League represented at the meeting. Therefore it is impossible to conclude otherwise than that when it will be a question of calling upon Canada, or rather of advising Canada-for it is not a question of enforcing an obligation-of advising that Canada shall make a certain contribution in men or money or otherwise, Canada will be sitting there as a member of the League, and for any decision at that meeting there will be required the agreement of every member represented thereat. Words could not be clearer. It is impossible combining those texts to persist in the suggestion of a doubt on that point. As io the sub-heading, I think I have sufficiently dealt with that. I may say that not only the three outstanding great powers understood that as I understand it, and said so, but if you understand it as the hon. gentleman does you must determine that the United Kingdom has ceased to be a member of the British Empire, because you treat this as a list of the component parts of the British Empire and the United Kingdom is not there. ' I need not say that that is an impossible conclusion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come directly to the amendment and the proper method to deal with it. The hon. member has said thq.t we should add this amendment to our resolution because' the question which we have been discussing is at least debatable. Although the particular feature of it to which he attaches importance and which he looks upon as objectionable and seeks to correct by this amendment 'has been debated, with ai'l the profound respect that I entertain for those who in this House and outside of it have debated this question,
I oonfess that it does not seem to me to be debatable. But if we suppose for a moment that it is debatable, then one o.f- two things is true. Either that portion of the article does mean whiat the hon. member fears it may mean; either it imposes an obligation upon Canada which constitutes .am impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion and makes the question whether the part, if any, that the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, one which is not to be de-
	,
termined at all times as the occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament, or it does not. If it has the effect that the hon. gentleman attaches to it, then certainly it imposes, not upon Canada in particular but upon all the nations that subscribe to it, a most important derogation to their respective sovereignties. If this clause means that, it is certainly a most important clause of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the suggestion that our approval .should be accompanied with ia declaration such as is contained in this motion amounts to nothing more or less than a refusal to accept this condition of the Covenant. A vote for this amendment, therefore, is, in effect, a vote to reject this provision of the Covenant; and you cannot reject the Covenant for part and adopt it for part; nor can you reject any part of the Covenant and imagine that you are adopting the rest'vf the Treaty -it is one whole. So that if the hon. gentleman's fears are grounded, this proposal is that we decline to approve o.f the contract because we approve subject to the striking out of a substantial provision. On the other band, if the article does not mean what the hon. gentleman apprehends, then this resolution is absolutely useless. So that 'I cannot, for my part, contemplate for one moment the acceptance of the proposed 'amendment.


Lucien Cannon: Does the 'hon. gentleman consider as an amendment to a treaty a reservation made by one of the contracting countries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A reservation made by one of the contracting parties either involves an amendment to the treaty or is absolutely worthless and of no effect. The hon. gentleman would not suggest to me that having been presented with a contract which I am asked to sign in my every-day business, I could sit down .and sign, the contract, and, simultaneously or a moment before, sit down and write a reservation. If I signed that contract, I might stack my library with reservations or load up the other party to the contract with them, but the .contract would mean just what it said and I would be bound by what I had signed. The only way that this amendment could be made to produce any effect would be if it were transmitted with our resolution of approval and if His Majesty, or whoever might represent him, when he came to impose his signature to the ratification, should insert that reservation

above his signature. But if he did that it would be saying, in effect: I do not sign the contract as it is; I sign it provided something else is put into it. And what about the other parties to the contract who have never agreed to that reservation? The hon. gentleman knows that a contract involves the consent of two parties in idem. The. hon. gentleman gave us a little Latin the other night; I should like to show that I know a little, too. If a reservation affect the substance of the contract; if His Majesty's ratification signature on behalf of Canada is subject" to a reservation that modifies the contract, then we stand as having refused the Treaty. If the hon. gentleman will turn to any of the books on international law he will find that instances are given. I recall in particular the instance of a treaty to which the United States was a party-I cannot recall the name of the treaty. The Senate agreed to it with reservations and all the rest of the parties t.o it said: Well, the United States has not agreed to it. And the treaty never became effective. If reservation is to have effect it can only have effect if in some way all the other parties to the contract assent to it.


Lucien Cannon: Would not a reservation be considered as our mode of interpretation of a clause?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, but that, I think, does not better the hon. gentleman's position. Let us come down to the simplest thing in the world and put this question: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that if a contract is presented to me in precise terms stipulating that I lease his house for $1,000 a year I can sign it and interpret it as meaning that I have to pay $500 a year? Is that a contract? These reservations or interpretations may be worth what they may be worth to salve the conscience of people who are hesitating to accept particular provisions. But if they modify the contract and have effect at all, it simply puts one of the parties in the same position as he would be in if he had not signed the contract.


Mr. JACOBS:: I suppose that a treaty could be signed with a mental reservation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I am afraid that a mental reservation would not be any help to the signatory. The hon. gentleman, entertaining that view, will, I fully expect, vote against the amendment, because the amendment is down in writing and he can have his mental reservation. All of us can
have many mental reservations about different provisions in the Treaty.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Do I understand the minister to refer to the amendment that is now before the House as affecting the Peace Treaty itself?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is it not an amendment to the resolution which is under discussion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, it is an amendment to the resolution, and the resolution is that we approve of the Treaty.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the resolution will not form part of the Peace Treaty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but it is the basis upon which this Government will have to act in advising His Majesty whether he should ratify this Treaty -on behalf of Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I thought that that would be decided by the Bill based upon the resolution.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. If the hon. gentleman will read the Bill, he will see that its purport is to empower the Government of Canada to give effect to the different provisions of the Treaty, but the advice that the Government of Canada is by His Majesty called upon to give as to whether His Majesty should ratify the Treaty, will be advice given pursuant to this resolution, and if this resolution be that this Government should advise His Majesty to ratify the Treaty with a declaration that His Majesty, acting as he will be on behalf of Canada:
In no way assents , to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion, but declares that the question of what part-
And so on. If that means anything, if it affects in any way the Treaty, then, as I have said, His Majesty will not have ratified the Treaty on behalf of Canada. If, on the other hand, it does not affect the Treaty, that is to say, if nothing in the Treaty at the present time impairs the rights referred to, then it is absolutely purposeless to make such a reservation. We are face to face with this proposition:	Do we purpose approving- the Treaty and advising, on the part of this Government, His Majesty to ratify the Treaty, or do we not?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guystoorough):: Does
the minister consider that this reservation affects the meaning of the Treaty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my opinion, it does not in any way affect the meaning of the Treaty.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have not the Treaty
under my hand, but as I remember it, the preamble of the Peace Treaty begins with the United States, and the second Power is the British Empire. Does not the British Empire, whether we ratify the Treaty or whether we do not, whether we accept this reservation or whether we do not, act through the King?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the British Empire acts through the King. -Canada is part of the British Empire. His Majesty entertained the view that when he purposed signing a Treaty on behalf of the British Empire, the way to do it was to sign it on behalf of each of the nations that compose the British Empire, and, therefore, he named plenipotentiaries to sign that Treaty on behalf of this nation that forms a part of the British Empire, and through them he signed that Treaty for Canada. His Majesty is proceeding now to ratify the Treaty, and he purposes following the same course, that is to say, he is going to sign it for the whole British Einpire, and in his judgment, whatever may be the judgment of hon. m'em-bers, he desires the advice of this nation of his Empire as to whether he, on behalf of the whole Empire, which will include us, is to ratify that Treaty. And before his Canadian advisers take the responsibility of giving that advice, they are asking this Parliament whether it approves their doing so. That is the absolutely simple operation which is taking place.
I have endeavoured to make clear the reasons why the proposed amendment seems to this Government absolutely unacceptable. One reason, and to me a conclusive one, why we should not adopt an amendment of this kind is that if it can be of any effect its effect will be to place us in the same position as though we had disapproved the Treaty.
But there is another reason why we should decline to entertain this amendment, and it is a reason to which I should like to call the attention of every hon. member who- and I think many hon. members are in that position

while he approves the general principle and the general plan of the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as of the Treaty as a whole, entertains doubts, and in some instances, very serious doubts, with regard to certain provisions and I am not going to say that the objections made have not been supported by arguments that deserve very careful consideration. But I

want to point out to all the members of this House and more especially to members who have raised the objections to which I have referred, or who may find that the Covenant is open, even to objections that have not been raised, that there is a method of having those objections met, which will be an effectual remedy, provided only that we approve the Treaty and having so approved it, and having, therefore, had it ratified on our behalf, we become a member of the League of Nations.	*
The Covenant of the League of Nations is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, it is not a thing that is insusceptible of alteration and improvement. This great League of Nations is a new association that has been brought into existence. It is true that it has been furnished-a most unusual procedure-with a constitution to start off, which has been prepared and agreed to in advance by a certain number of those who contemplate becoming members; but there is provision in that Covenant itself for the amendment of the Covenant and there is furthermore provision for a right of withdrawal from the League for those who have gone in. Let me ask hon. gentlemen who entertain objections, that, in their judgment, are serious, to certain clauses of that Covenant: Is it better or wiser, because they do not like those particular clauses, because, in other words, this Covenant, the first attempt at making a proper constitution for this new association of an absolutely new kind, is not in every particular in accordance with their views, to reject it, with the consequences that would follow rejection. I do not imagine that our rejection would affect the continued existence of the League of Nations and its proceeding to do the good work that we all hope is before us, but it would leave us outside of the League of Nations.
Mr. DEViLIN:	It would. There is no
doubt about that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my judgment, there is absolutely no question about it, and the converse proposition involves that Canada can be forced into the League of Nations against her will; and with all the respect that I entertain for hon. gentlemen who have suggested that it is -constitutionally within the power of the United Kingdom to force us to become members of the League of Nations, I for one do not believe that to be true.
And in the second place I am convinced, as I am sure we all are convinced, that if the United Kingdom had the power to do

20S
that she would not exercise it. The day has long gone by when there is any desire on the part of the United Kingdom to deal with Canada-or, with apologies Jo the hon, member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding)-with the other nations of the Empire with any assertion of the right to coerce.


Lucien Cannon: In what position would
the United States of America be as regards the Treaty if the American Senate adopted the report which has just been sent to them by the Foreign Relations Committee?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am assuming that the report referred to-I have not seen the last text-involves substantial modifications of the Treaty. If that be so, and the United States Senate adopts those reservations, the United States will in effect have declined to become a party to the Treaty. While on that point I should like to point out that there is a substantial and material distinction between the position of Canada and the [DOT] position of the United States with regard to this Treaty. The same distinction exists between the position of the United States and the position of Great Britain and possibly with some exceptions of the other nations that signed the Treaty. In these other nations there is one authority that has the treaty-making power. With us His Majesty the King has the treaty-making power. Now all treaties require to be ratified, unless under exceptional circumstances there is a stipulation to the contrary, before they are binding, and the authority which can ratify or authorize ratification is provided for in the constitutions of the different countries. The position of the United States is different. The President of the United States cannot make a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, so that up to the present time the United States has not actually made a treaty. We have made a treaty subject to ratification. The United States, having acted by the President of the United States alone has only acted by a part of its treatymaking power, and if the other part of the treaty making power should undertake to say:	" Well, so far as the President goes
he has made this Treaty, but we do not advise or assent to this Treaty being made unless this, that, or the other modification is made," it will in, effect be declining to become a party to the Treaty. I say this subject to correction. It is a perilous thing to undertake to expound the constitution of another country.	-
Coming back to the question of the Covenant of the League of Nations, there is in it provision for amendment. Speaking for myself I should have been glad to have seen provision making amendment more easy, but there is provision for amendment. What does that mean? It means that at the first meeting of the League, and it is expected there will be a meeting shortly-at one time the meeting was expected to be in the month of October, but the delays that have occurred in different countries with regard to ratification have made that date impossible-any member represented in the assembly, and nobody 'has disputed that we will be represented there, will have the opportunity of putting forward his objections to whatever provisions he finds objectionable, and there face to face with everybody concerned, face to face with the body that can effect a remedy without delaying or affecting the Peace Treaty itself, in any way, he will have the opportunity of lodging his objections and having the matter settled. With all the respect that I entertain for the great Conference that has delivered to the world this draft of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I permit myself to say that probably in that first assembly of the representatives of the members of the League you will find a body, I will not say more competent, but probably more favourably situated to consider calmly, quietly and deliberately such proposals as may be made and to give reconsideration to such clauses of the present Covenant as may be called in question. I say that without any reflection on the Conference, but one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Conference, in addition to dealing with this weighty problem of the creation of the League of Nations, had in addition intricate and complex problems of the very first importance that had to be solved to bring about the Treaty of Peace itself. I would therefore appeal to every member of this House who sees objection, and serious objection, to certain clauses of this Covenant to join with us in expressing that approval which will bring about ratification of the Treaty and ensure our membership in the League of Nations. Having done that, we shall have done our part to put in motion that great machine, if I might use the expression, with whose intended purpose I am sure we are all in absolute sympathy. Let us do our part to get that organization into active existence, helping thereby to set on foot and make -a practical thing what the world has sighed for and dreamers

have dreamed of for centuries. Nobody in the present day -can take to his soul the flattering unction that he conceived the idea of a League of Nations. There have been projects for a League of Nations for centuries past, different projects put forward by men of great weight in their day. They, all of them, failed of realization. We having got so far, let us have to-day no responsibility for the failure of the realization of this project to the extent of bringing it into existence so that it may start on its great work. And if part of that great work should be the amendment and improvement of this Covenant, its own constitution, the sooner it is put in a position to consider the desirability of taking that action if on mature consideration it is found necessary, the better for the whole world.
In conclusion, therefore, I have but to reiterate what I have said with regard to the position which the Government finds it necessary to take upon the proposed amendment, and to repeat my hope that this House will see its way to adopt the resolution unanimously. I think that, with what I have pointed out with regard to a better opportunity that will come for dealing with this Covenant, if it requires improvement, as soon as the League of Nations has been brought into existence-with that present to o'Ur minds, and with this further fact present to our minds, that if any of us consider modification essential or of great importance, or if this House upon further consideration should come to the conclusion that modification in connection with Article X or any other provision is necessary, it will be perfectly open and competent to this House, when it sends its representative to the League of Nations, to send him there with instruction as to the amendment, whether it be this or any other that, in the opinion of this House, is essential or necessary or desirable in the interests of Canada,
I trust that we shall unanimously adopt the resolution. You will send your representative, as I have said, to a place where, if he can persuade the other nations that the amendment is desirable he can have it effectively dealt with and should his effort so to persuade fail, then it is always open to us to withdraw should we so desire.


Lucien Cannon: May I ask the minister one question? Should Canada withdraw from the League, after giving proper notice, who would then decide if Canada had fulfilled her obligations to the League?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question, I may
say, does not seem to me from a practical * 
point of view to be of very great importance, because I cannot conceive that Canada during any period in which she would be a member of the League would put herself in, a position in which it would be questioned whether she had fulfilled her obligations or not. But if we do assume that Canada finds it necessary to withdraw, and if she be of opinion that she has fulfilled all her obligations and somebody in the League of Nations is of a different opinion, whoever it may be that may seek to hold Canada within the League of Nations, notwithstanding her withdrawal, because she had not fulfilled her obligations, will have incumbent upon him the duty of proving that she had not fulfilled them. So far as my reading of the Treaty goes, there is no tribunal established to determine whether or not a nation has fulfilled its obligations.


Lucien Cannon: Could Canada withdraw and the British Empire remain in the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In my opinion, I do not see that there is anything to prevent Canada withdrawing from the League of Nations even though the other nations of the British Empire determine to remain within it. Gentlemen all speak as though Canada were one thing and the British Empire another. Canada is part of the British Empire, and if Canada withdraws part of the British Empire will have withdrawn.


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to interrupt the minister because I realize he must be tired, but this is a very important point. We are a distinct member of the League of Nations, according to the hon. minister. Would we then withdraw as a distinct member and nevertheless remain a part of the British Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Everybody who agreed to the Covenant agreed that we, while remaining a part of the British Empire, should become a distinct member of the League of Nations. If we could become a distinct member-I say "distinct"; I do not say " separated from " or any other, word that implies that we are not still in the Empire- if it was possible for us to become a distinct member of the League of Nations, then I cannot see how it can be contended that such a distinct member cannot withdraw.


Lucien Cannon: What would be our position then as regards the British Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That would be a matter to determine between the different members of the British Empire. If that question

should arise, just as if any other question should arise as to what the members of the British Empire, or the British Empire as a whole, should do with regard to external matters, and if it should be impossible to arrive at an agreement as to what should be done, all I can say is that we would find ourselves face to face with a very serious situation. We would be a partnership whereof the members could not agree, and what the consequence would be I do not want to, foretell. I have confidence, and I am sure we all have sufficient confidence, in the sound sense, the common patriotism, the desire to meet each other that prevails among the different members of the British Empire, to go to bed and sleep .peacefully without worrying our heads with fears of what is going to happen when it is found impossible to agree. It is no more probable that we should find it impossible to agree as to membership in the League than it is that we should find it imppssible to agree upon any other question affecting the relations of the British Empire, or the relations of any of the nations of the British Empire with the outside world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that with the co-operation of quite a few members of this House I have taken up more time than I should have had I been all alone. However, no one will dispute the importance of the question. I have had numerous appeals made to me for such information as it was in my power to give, and so far as I have been able to recall such questions as have been put to me, I have endeavoured to answer them to 'the extent of my knowledge. I venture to repeat my hope and my confidence that this House will reject the amendment and adopt the resolution purely and simply, and I trust that it may do so unanimously. After all, as I have pointed out, if you make the very most of the objections to which any one or more of the conditions of the Covenant may be open -our accepting it as it stands makes us members of the League, and thereby we create for ourselves the opportunity to urge our case for modification before a body that can grant effective modification. If our effort should fail there and we should still be convinced that there are insuperable, fundamental, important objections to any of the clauses of the Covenant, or if experience should show that they do involve us in a responsibility beyond what we understand to-night, or beyond what we may then consider it just or right that we should assume, there is always the open door for us.
What then do we risk by lending our aid to the attainment of what has been so long the world's most glorious ambition the leagueing together of the nations for the maintenance of Peace even if we think the plan has some defects? If any member feels that it has objectionable features what do we risk if we by our votes ratify this Treaty and place ourselves in the League of Nations thus providing ourselves with a proper forum in which to obtain improvement? If we should fail there to obtain any amendment we may deem essential, we shall be free to walk out of the door as untrammeled as if to-night we should vote to reject the Covenant in toto, or any of its conventions. Of the ultimate object to be attained the importance cannot be exaggerated. The risk to be taken is assuredly small. To those who doubt I would say have the courage to take it.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, the question with which the House is confronted is one of those problems in regard to which there might appear to be so much prejudice that^ it is with great diffidence indeed that any member of this House undertakes to participate in the debate. But the question is of such magnitude and 'it carries with it such a heavy burden of responsibility that I feel in duty bound to give my modest and humble contribution to the debate. My task indeed is rendered more arduous by reason of the fact that I 'am following the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who 'has had the privilege of attending the Paris Conference and who has introduced into the debate a lot of explanations. If I may be permitted to express an opinion upon the address which has been delivered by the minister, I would say that I was ' more favourably impressed by the last part of it than by the first. The last part was more the speech of a statesman than the first part, although I do not w.ant to show any disrespect towards the minister. He has charged my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) with trying to belittle the country and the plenipotentiaries who were sent to Paris. This may be good tactics hut surely it is not what might be expected from an hon. gentleman of the status or the standing of the Minister of Justice. We have been called upon to attend this session of Parliament, we are sitting here as members of Parliament, and when a gentleman of the standing and experience of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens rises in his place to offer criti-

eism and to take part in the discussion of so important a document as the Peace Treaty, he can do it on his own responsibility without being charged with trying to belittle his 'country or the representatives of the country who went to the Conference.
The Minister of Justice asked a question which was so to speak, the infancy of art. He asked: " Was Canada interested in the war?" Certainly our country was interested in the war. We had a war session and we gave a blank cheque to the ministers of the Crown. We suspended the laws of the country; we introduced conscription; we enlisted an army of some 500,000 men. There are 60,000 of our soldiers who lie entombed in the soil of France. Were we interested? Why did we participate? Because we decided to join hands with the Mother Country. We decided to take part in the war and to cast in our lot with the Allies in order that Prussian autocracy should be smashed and that future generations of Canadians should enjoy the liberties that our forefathers had won for us. We were interested in the war, and we have done our share. I would ask the ministers of the Crown:	"Are we not interested in
securing peace"? They say: "Yes," and I say " Yes " also. If we are interested in securing peace, and, if it be true that we cannot secure peace and obtain a cessation of hostilities until this Treaty is ratified by the proper authorities, why 'should the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) ask the King to wait, to stay his hand, and not ratify this Treaty until this Parliament has been consulted? It was first ratification, it was next approval, and it is sometimes approbation that is asked; -it may be concurrence or endorsation later on; we do not know what it is. But we claim, and we have a right
9 p.m. to claim, so long as we offer honest criticism, that the act which is asked from this Parliament has no value whatever. Have we not a right to our opinion if we have the courage to express it in a fair way why should some hon. members try to mis-state our position and to tell us we want to remain a colony and that we are Little Canadians? I believe that such criticism is out of the question and ought not to be introduced into a debate such as this. The question is too serious to try to make political capital out of it.
The Minister of Justice has said that Canada has grown from a colony to a nation. On this argument I wish to join issue with him. I would ask the House:

When did we emerge from a state of dependency to a state of nationhood? Was it before the war, was it during the war, or was it after the war? As a component part of the British Empire we were at war as soon as war was declared by Great Britain. We could have been attacked. We did not wait to be attacked, we decided to participate. But when our soldiers reached the soil of Europe they were incorporated into the Imperial army and formed part of it. Some hon. gentlemen claim that Canada being one of the sister nations forming the British Empire surely she was a nation. The day before yesterday the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) read before this House two documents, in one of which it was stated that we could not get copies of certain papers without securing the consent of the Imperial authorities.
'Ships that had been commandeered by the Admiralty could not be restored to this country and registered here without first securing the assent of the Imperial authorities. Is that the status of a nation? Did we acquire nationhood during the war? I say no. The only answer-and this is where we cannot agree-the only answer which need be used to refute the argument that we have changed from being a component part of the British Empire to become a nation is contained in the Order in Council appointing the plenipotentiaries who were supposed to go to Versailles and affix their signatures to the Treaty of Peace on behalf of .the Dominion.
I submit, Sir, that nationhood on our part cannot be attained except by the act of three powers: First, the Canadian people, who would manifest their intention of changing their present dependency for nationhood; second, a parliament regularly elected with a specific mandate; but I believe that in our position even on the initiative of these two powers, nationhood could not be secured without the participation of the Mother Country. And here is what I base my argument upon. Canada was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris in 1763, together with a population of 65,000, to whom and their successors were preserved certain privileges and prerogatives, and Greaj: Britain pledged herself to safeguard them. In 1774 we had what we call the Quebec Act, and the same safeguard was embodied therein. Afterwards we had the Constitutional Act of 1791, followed by the Union Act of 1841, and finally the Act of Confederation of 1867. The privileges and prerogatives so preserved to the former population and

to their successors have been safeguarded by the Crown of England, and we claim, Sir,-I do not hold the same opinion as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding); I hope that at some future time Canada will have her independence and become a nation-but I claim that when that time shall arrive independence could be given to us only by the will of the people, duly declared by Parliament, and concurred in by the Imperial authorities, so that the privileges and prerogatives granted under the signature of the King of England may be maintained for the benefit of the successors of those who were ceded by the Treaty of Paris.	.
Some hon. gentlemen want to believe that we are a nation. I claim, Sir, it is impossible for us to be a component part of the Empire and at the same time to be a nation. My hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) this question: Supposing that Canada, as a distinct nation, should retire from the League, and that the British Empire should remain in the League, what would happen to Canada? Well, Sir, Canada being a component part of the Empire, she would have to remain in the League. She would come out as a distinct entity, but she would remain there as a component part of the British Empire.
The Minister of Justice -gave us many explanations of the Treaty provisions, and I was very glad to hear them, because I had read in the New York Times of August 30' a report which made me feel somewhat uneasy. I was under the impression, from the explanations that we had had so far from the representatives of Canada at the Peace Conference, that this article referred to the Minister of Justice, as it is in this form was correct.
We quote from a statement made recently before the United States Committee on Foreign Relations (Part 17 Treaty of Peace with Germany) by Mr. Frank Walsh, who was one of the delegates sent to the Peace Conference on behalf of Ireland. Speaking before the Senate Committee, Mr. Walsh's statement is reported as follows:
" Senator Brandegee:	At the time this covenant was accepted by the plenary Conference was there any attempt to elucidate its provisions, to explain the various provisions in it, or any debate upon it, other than the formal set speeches of the heads of the nations which presented it to the Conference?
" Mr. Walsh:	Not a particle. It had been
presented before, there were some objections made to certain parts in it, and it went back, and this meeting was called, and I talked to one of the most powerful members of the Conference outside the Big Four. He is a lawyer of very fine ability. As we are going in to
have everything open, I will say that it was Judge Doherty, of Canada, representing the Dominion of Canada, and the night before he did not know what was in it."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: If this report is correct I suppose that the hon. minister since his return to Canada has had all the time necessary to study the Treaty, because he gave quite an explanation of its provisions.
He said that we have a written constitution. Sir, it is because we have a written constitution that I consider-and I do not want the expression I am going to us to be regarded as showing a want of respect for the hon. minister or of other hon. members who share his opinion-I say it is because We have a written constitution that I claim it is absurd, without amending this written constitution, to state that we were a colony yesterday and that we are a nation to-day. Why, in a matter of this importance, should hon. members play with words? They may be pompous, sonorous and consoling, but no words however strong or grandiloquent can alter the written constitution that we have in the British North America Act; it is an impossibility.
The hon. minister (Mr. Doherty) in answer to a question put, I believe, by my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), said that there was a difference between the American Senate and this House. I believe so, Sir; and the reason is very clear and very simple. The United States of America are a nation, we are not; they have sovereignty, we have not.
The President of the United States cannot be a pajrty to a treaty on behalf of the United States without the consent of the Senate; the representatives of the great powers cannot make treaties; they must go back to the proper authority-to the authority which is representative of the sovereignty of the land. The comparison, therefore, which my hon. friend seeks to make really does not exist.
I now come to the amendment proposed by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I listened with a good deal of attention to the speech of the Minister of Justice and I must say that I cannot agree with him. It is debatable whether we are a nation or not. I say that it is debatable, because some hon. members on the other side contend with a good deal of seriousness that we are a nation, while there are gentlemen on both sides of the House who affirm that we are not a nation. But whether we are a nation or not, we do not



want our privileges 'to be impaired. Why should the Government, through the Minister of Justice, refuse the amendment which has been proposed? If we are a nation, we are entitled to all the privileges of a nation; why should we not keep those privileges unimpaired? If we are not a nation, why should we take away from Parliament the privileges accorded to it by our constitution? The amendment of my hon. friend is a safeguard, whether we are a nation or not-but the minister does not want to accept it.
Let me put this question. Having always in mind the fact that the amendment is merely the addition of a safeguard and that it does not impair the resolution, can it be denied that when our representatives, holding a mandate from this Parliament, sit in the conferences which will subsequently be held, their position will be made stronger with this amendment than it would be without it? Why should 'the Government refuse this amendment? It is all very well to appeal to the generosity, to the philanthropy, to the sentiment of members who do not feel disposed to swallow this proposal without discussion-having first covered them with abuse of all kinds. Sir, I will try to explain why the Government does not want to accept the amendment, even though it would safeguard our privileges and strengthen the hands o' cur representatives at future conferences.
Basing the nomination of the plenipotentiaries who were supposed to represent Canada on an Order in Council passed under a law which was of a very exceptional nature, and doing so without consulting Parliament, the Government has, through the Canadian delegates to the Peace Conference, entered into the Covenant of the League of Nations which is embodied in the Peace Treaty. To my mind, the Peace Treaty proper is what marks the cessation of hostilities; the , League of Nations is simply a preventive of future wars. By this Order in Council, then, the Government took upon their shoulders a responsibility which they were not obliged to take. Why did they assume that responsibility? I am speaking only for myself, but I have my own suspicions. A few moments ago the Minister of Justice said that the nation of Canada would have to provide for the defence of this country. Well, Sir, that is no new obligation; that is an obligation which rests upon us under our constitution. >So that there must have been some other reason; what was it? The Minister of Justice says that the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) agitates

the bogey of imperialism. Who was interested in setting in motion the machinery which caused the Prime Minister of Canada to go to the Prime Minister of England, not at the request of the Prime Minister of England, but to ask a favour? Who was interested? Was it the British Empire? No; if they had been interested, they would have indicated their interest by requesting the Prime Minister of Canada to do that. Was it Canada that was interested? No; the people of Canada were not consulted about it. Who, then, were the parties interested? I contend, Sir, that the Prime Minister was obeying orders that did not emanate from the British authorities. In Great Britain there is a school of men who believe that the British Empire cannot attain its objects and ideals and realize the form of Government which Britain has given to the world without linking together all the Dominions which are the component parts of the British Empire. Our own imperialists are not satisfied with the sacrifices that Canada has made for the sake of freedom and liberty. They refuse to open their eyes to the significance of the events which brought ruin aijd devastation to the German Empire, that country whose imperialists and junkers of the Wilhelmstrasse declared war in order to create their proposed system of Mittel Europa and German domination over the world. They refuse to be enlightened by this example, and to-day the German war lord who at one time had the audacity to proclaim himself the partner of God is an exile in the'castle of Amerongen.
What is going to happen, Sir? Hon. members opposite have hurled across the floor of the House expressions which indicate if not their contempt, at least their disregard for the people whom I represent. But these things have no effect upon me; I stand by the rights accorded to my people under the constitution which was granted by my King, and within that constitution I want to remain.
It satisfies me, it is the safeguard of my privileges, my prerogative^ and my liberties, and I want to keep it; and whenever Britain will acknowledge that the time has arrived to grant us the full sovereignty of nationhood, I have confidence enough in Great Britain to say in advance that the nation which has affixed her signature to the documents that I have quoted will see that these privileges and these prerogatives will be safeguarded. We are not secessionists; we want to remain with Great Britain. And, may I be permitted to say, our only safeguards are His Majesty the

King, the Union Jack and the British authorities. I have confidence in no other. Do hon. gentlemen believe that we would be foolish enough to cast away our protection and our safeguard? Let them not be afraid. We will remain British subjects and we will remain faithful British subjects; but we claim that it is our privilege to look in advance and when we see dangers, when wreck threatens, we believe it is our right, oun duty, to say to the Government: Halt, stop and consider what you are doing, and beware that the act that you are committing to-day is not the beginning of a repetition of the sad story which the exile of Amerongen is at present weeping over.
Mr. FRED. LANGDON DAVIS (Nee-pawa): Mr. Speaker, it is almost certain that any speaker coming into this debate at this late hour will have to repeat some of the things that have already been said, and I trust that in that event I shall have the patience of the House. A little over five years ago, Germany entered on the destruction of the world, a world that had in a little over a hundred years built up a mercantile system, a system of economics and finance, which was unknown before that time. The greatest factor in that great development had probably been Great Britain. She had developed first her system of manufactures; she had developed the theory of free trade; she had seen that in the development of the world and in the development of nations lay her greatest safety and her greatest profit. Her moneys were spent in the United States of America, in Argentina, and throughout the dominions of the British Empire, building up other nations with which she might trade. During this time Europe, with a feeling of uncertainty, was trying, nation by nation, to build up a system by which each would be sufficient to itself. Even when alliances were formed for the protection of some balance of power, there were strategic territories which each sought ' to acquire for itself, and which its allies sought that it should acquire.
Such, p'erhaps, was the explanation of the aggressions of Germany when she sought Schleswig, when she sought Alsace-Lorraine. Such too was the attitude of mind of Austria when she acquired Bosnia and Herzegovina in direct conflict with the Treaty of Berlin. Such was the condition ol Europe. And when Germany upset the balance of the world and tried the strength of her system against all the remaining strength of the world, her hope of

success lay in one direction and in one event alone, namely, the speedy gain of her ends through her greater preparation. That end she was not able to attain for all her century of preparation. She first had adopted the system of conscription; she had gained the territory she needed for her support; she had the arms and equipment together to make an attack upon civilization. What beat her in the end was the system which Britain had supported. At the end of the struggle, we found Britain with every nation which had a surplus of food supplies her ally. All those were supporting France and freedom from the aggression of the military states. So Germany's attack upon the economic system of the modern world, upon its financial system, and throughout the war upon its social system in her denial of the tenets of Christianity, failed in the end and miserably failed, and now she faces the payment of the penalty for her offence. And great indeed was her offence. She has set back social and domestic reforms in all democratic States for probably two or maybe three or four generations. The moneys that were needed .for certain purposes we have had to put into the effort to defeat her, and should we now attempt to carry on the work upon the old separatist principle, that setback will undoubtedly be the result. It is only through a system which is made possible by a League of Nations that it will be possible for this world to recover itself and to put itself upon the road towards renewed freedom for social and domestic reforms.
It seems to me that when we speak of British Imperialism, we should draw a distinction between that and every other Imperialism the world has ever known. The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that the British Empire grows from its circumference, that its Imperialism arises on its confines and not at its centre. It has been truly said by one that "the expansion of England is carried forward by the Overseas Dominions; that British statesmanship did not broaden the Empire, but British statesmanship is coloured by the expansion of England. And such, indeed, is the fact. If we go back even sixty-five or seventy years, we shall find that Britain was prepared to see each of her colonies set out on a road of independence. That road was not taken because of the choice of those colonies. We in Canada hoped for a greater thing. Lionel Curtis, in his book, has said, and I think truly said, that "we will have a higher organization of the commonwealth

when that is the road to a higher freedom." Such to-day we do not see. Indeed, it may be said that in the development of the outlying parts of the Empire, we have taken the road of autonomy; we have gone so far along that road that now it is practically unthinkable that we should turn back and reverse ourselves and be an Imperial federation.
Indeed, if you will read the reports of addresses upon that ninth resolution of the Conference of 1917, you will see that all who spoke upon it spoke with one mind. They spoke then of equality of nationhood; they spoke of the colonies as nations. In listening to this debate I could not help thinking that it would be well if some of our friends on the Speaker's left were to recall the time when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came back from the Jubilee and spoke of Canada as a nation. The Conservative party then called his expression mere rhodomontade, and it seemed to me that that word was in the minds of many of those who have spoken in this debate, when similar expressions as to Canada's status as a nation were heard from your right, Sir. The fact is this: It is recognized not only in the confines but at the centre of the British Commonwealth that we are citizens of one Empire, subjects of one Kiiig, and that the citizens of one part of the King's domains are not sovereigns over their fellow-citizens in another part. That is our comprehension of our situation. It is -true that we have been granted a charter in the British North America Act for this nation of ours. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr Fielding) properly drew a distinction between the ways in which that word "nation" is used. The word "nation" may be used when you speak of a sovereignty, and also when you speak of a people. For instance, we see resuscitated to-day, after a hundred and fifty years of submergence, the "nation" of Poland. Who will say that Poland through the years of her disasters has not been a nation? She knew no tie of sovereignty, she governed not herself; but she was a nation. What makes us a nation? Is it not the thought and the aim in the hearts of you and me and the people like unto us? Indeed, it is that thought that makes us Britishers, and while that thought is the same for Britain we shall be Britishers, and when that thought and that sympathy cease we shall cease to be Britishers-God forbid that the time should come soon; I doubt if it will ever come, but that is the fact. Why, to-day, have 
we no feeling of inferiority, when we meet this British citizen whose vote -may settle our destiny? Do you or I, when we meet him, ever have that feeling in mind? No. Why? For this reason: The grant that has been made by the British Crown to us can never be taken back, and it lies in our hands to make that grant complete. If this Parliament or any other Parliament chooses to declare Canada a sovereign state Britain will raise no hand against it. Our fate lies in our own hands. That we have not gone on to independence in the past, that we do not seek to. go on to independence now, is because we have a higher and a greater hope. We know that in the British Empire we can be a greater force for righteousness, a greater controlling influence in this mundane sphere than ever we could be .as a separate state. Once an American asked me why we did not think of becoming Americans. I chanced to think of an illustration and took a coin from my pocket and said, " When that coin is worn to a wafer that you can .twist between thumb and finger the effigy of His Majesty can still be discerned upon it," and I said " Such is the spirit of the people of Canada." That I believe; that I know. We sent 55,000 men to their death not merely to- defeat militarism and to maintain the freedom of the world, but to demonstrate our oneness with the British Empire.
With regard to the League of Nations, I fully agree with what the Minister of Justice has said as to the meaning of Article 10, and I cannot see the effect or importance of the amendment which has been proposed. I think that if hon. gentlemen will read Articles 16, 4 and 5, after reading Article 10, they will see that there can be no other meaning than that we as a nation coneerned shall be consulted, and on that consultation we have a veto as to' any demand that may be made upon us. That, after all, is hut a sensible provision. If Canada should be asked in a case of that sort to contribute forces and we did not wish to do so, there are a dozen ways in which we could refuse without declining outright the request of the League of Nations. We could so delay in making our preparations that our forces would not land upon the field in time to be of any use. It would be no use trying to compel any state to take any such action unless there was good will and co-operation behind its efforts.
The Covenant of the League of Nations also recognizes, most sensibly, that there

will yet be wars among states, and recognizes that there should probably be defensive alliances. That I understand to be the meaning of section 21-that there may still be defensive alliances between states for their protection. That is what France has been demanding for herself. She is not, I believe, willing to rely entirely upon 'the conditions of this Covenant, but seeks rather the assistance of those tried and true friends, Great Britain and Italy. It is true that the League of Nations does not live up to all that some of us would like to see, but then very few of us ever make a bargain even between man and man that turned out just as we would like to have it; and that the nations of the world should come together and be able to form a covenant that would be entirely in conformity with any one's ideals is unthinkable. It is true that Italy at one stage left the Conference because *she could not get her way with regard to the Dalmatian coast, and that Japan seized that opportunity to raise the question of Shantung. It would have been fatal to the League had two great associated powers left it, and in the circumstances a concession was made to Japan that is certainlv contrary to the spirit of the League, and that future times, I hope, will correct. This Covenant is but the prospectus of the development we hope to see. We hope that some day the League will be a great success.
With regard to Canada's part, I think that in the past we have been satisfied to be in the position of members of a company. To-day we are asked, to go beyond that; we are asked to take the position of one of the directors who shall guarantee the company's liabilities. For my part, I do not think it would be advisable for us to decline. As for the contention that we are but a colony, it is. true that we are a dependent province of Great Britain, that we lack many of the rights of sovereignty. We cannot take away or add one foot to the territory which the British North America Act has given us to govern; we have not control over our merchant shipping; we have not treaty-making powers; we let our appeal cases go to the High Court of the Empire, the Privy Council. In many respects our sovereignty is still incomplete, and that is a matter that rests entirely in our hands. I observe also that there is not a complete uniformity about the way this Treaty is made. The Dominion of Newfoundland is not a party thereto. As I understand the situation, treaties are brought
before Parliament, in modern times at least, because Parliament holds the purse strings.' In the past the Executive signed treaties without reference to Parliament, although when fiscal measures have been necessary Parliament has usually been, and now always is, consulted. The Parliament of the United Kingdom, it is true, has the right to ratify this Treaty, and our approval perhaps is not strictly necessary. But there are fiscal provisions. If you will look at sections 6, 23 and 24 you will see that there are certain measures that call for the expenditure of money, and I have little doubt that the Dominion of Newfoundland has expressed her assent to the Imperial Government, for which reason she is not a party to the Treaty. We as a greater State and a more important section of the British Empire, upon whom these obligations may some day lay claim, are asked here to approve. Holding as I do the view that there is no reason at all for the amendment and that our autonomy is protected-and I think you will see New Zealand particularly taking that position, for Sir Joseph Ward says he will never be a party to the control of the defence forces of New Zealand going into any other hands than those of New Zealand-I think that the proposition would not have been put up to us in any other way than in the light in which the Minister of Justice has propounded it. I purpose, therefore, to vote in favour of approval without the amendment, which in my opinion is' entirely unnecessary.
Mr. EMMANUEL B. DEVLIN (Wright): Mr. Speaker, I did intend to say a word to the House, but I find that there is no member of the Cabinet present, and I should like to know if the Cabinet has resigned. There is some information which I desire to ask of some member of the Cabinet if it is at all possible to have one present, and I ask in all seriousness, Sir, who is at present leading the Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The call of the blood is irresistible.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks this'evening will be very brief. I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) for coming into the House and giving to a member of the Opposition the attention that one would naturally expect he would give, as he has done this afternoon in the enlightening speech which he has delivered. I have listened with considerable attention to a debate in this House relating to constitutional law. Men eminent in constitutional law have given us their views, and

the only clear, concise and useful information that has been given to the House in order to guide it upon this momentous question which we are called upon to decide was given this afternoon by a man who is capable of giving and is authorized to give views upon the legal aspects of a case referred to us by the Crown, and that is the Minister of Justice. This question respecting the Peace Treaty is one which may mean absolutely nothing to the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament, as some have argued to-day, or it may mean a total change in our relations with the Empire, it may mean a total change in the status of Canada. I have carefully weighed the question in order that I might take that action which I believe that, as a representative of the people, I should take, independent of political parties, or of what others may think or say, and wishing only to do towards my country what I consider to be in my country's interest.
At times it must have been amusing to the House to hear some eminent gentlemen argue that the Empire v as ours. This proposition has been quite seriously put forward by hon. gentlemen on previous occasions. It has been suggested by the right hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Porden), who, I must say, I regret is not enjoying at present the best of health-and 1 want to say that although I am speaking upon this question to-night I will not vote upon i't, because I am paired with the right hon. gentleman. I felt, Sir, that I could not refuse, when asked, to pair with the Prime Minister, because he is not as well as he generally is, and I was informed that he was confined to his bed. Nevertheless, I shall be constrained at times, in the course of the very few remarks I intend to make, to refer to him. For instance, the right hon. gentleman, speaking in the year 1915, said:
The events of the past six months mark a new stage in our nationhood; a new chapter in the hook of our destiny has been opened. The strength of our Empire


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is the King another country?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is he King of Canada.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: He is the King of Canada, but you cannot divide the personality of the King. The King is one being. The King is the King of Canada, he is the King of the other dominions beyond the seas, he is the King of Great
10 p.m. Britain and he calls himself the Emperor of India. I respect my hon. friend but I cannot follow him in so far as to say that the personality of the King can be divided. But if my hon. friend would like me to apply that, and I am sure he would, I would refer him to the preamble of the British North America Act. It reads as follows:
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswiok, and the Government thereof, and for purposes connected therewith. *
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to he federally united *into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:
And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, hut also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:
And whereas it is expedient that Provision^ made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:
Be it therefore enacted and declared hy the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, hy and with
the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and hy the Authority of the same, as follows:
Mr. [Speaker, there came the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal-some have called them the Booze Barons, others have called them the Industrial Barons, and names have been applied to them that made me shudder, Sir; hut, nevertheless, they are the Barons who, with the Lords Spiritual and the Commons, too, of England, gave us authority to exist as a Confederation of Provinces.
No doubt my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) remembers, through reading Lord Carnarvon's and other interesting speeches of some of the Lords Temporal, that the Canadian delegates who went to London did not like the name of "colony," and therefore they said:	"We
do not want to he called a colony any more." "Well, what name do you want to be called?" they were asked. They replied, " We want to be called a Dominion." " All right," the answer came, " We will call you a Dominion." And a Dominion Canada was called, nothing more nor less. That is how we got the name " Dominion," through the authority of the Queen, the Lords Spiritual, and the Lords Temporal, and the Commons of England. Other colonies of the Empire found that the word " Dominion " sounded rather big, so they wanted to be called Dominions too. They made representations to England, and England said, " Well, to satisfy you all, we will call you Dominions." And hence England refers to us as " of her Dominions overseas"-existing, mark you, toy the authority of the King, and the Lords Spiritual, and the Lords Temporal, and the Commons ol England.
Now, Sir, I am not citing this to make an argument; to me it would be ridiculous to argue so plain a matter. I do not mind hon. gentlemen calling themselves a " Dominion," 1 do not mind hon. gentlemen calling themselves a "nation;" but I do take some objection to my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) wishing us hack to the family of colonies. May I be personal for one moment and say that on one of my first trips to England I went to see London, the West End and the East End, and therefore I went to the West End in the afternoon. There I saw the wealth of London displayed. I saw the King in his box looking at a horse show, I also saw our departed and good friend, Lord Roberts, sitting in his box; in fact, I saw a number of the

Lords Temporal, but I did not see any of the Lords Spiritual, and few of the commoners of England.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At a horse show!


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: At a horse show. And, if I am not mistaken, the delegates from Canada went to horse shows, too, when they were over there. If they did not go to horse shows they should have done so, and they would have seen some good horses. They went to dinners and banquets and theatres-I speak not of any hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) when I say this, because he has been referred to by other authorities as one of the most eminent legal gentlemen before the Commons-but-whilst he was enjoying a well rested night, others of his friends were going to banquets and theatres,-and they could have seen good horses if they had followed His Majesty's example or the example of the Lords Temporal.
Whilst the wealth of London was enjoying this horse show-and only the wealth of London could enjoy it-<many of the commoners of London at ten o'clock at night were engaged in the pigeon market buying pigeons, and not only pigeons, but pieces of fish so as to have something' to eat. I presume that the jarvey who was .showing me London must have been more familiar with the pigeon market than he was with the West End. He drove me along Victoria street-I think it was; this is many years ago-where Canada had an office, and he said to me, with his chest well out, "Sir, that is an office of one of our colonies." I said, "One of your colonies?" "Why, yes," he said, "one of our colonies." I said, "What colony?" He replied, "Canada, Sir, Canada."


Jacques Bureau: A nation!


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I said, "Do you own Canada?" "Oh, yes," he said, "we own Canada." Well, Sir, I am not quarrelling with the jarvey any more than I am quarrelling with hon. gentlemen who want to own the Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There is one word that I want to say in all earnestness, and I hope the hon. President of the Privy Council .(Mr. Rowell) will convey it to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), if the Right Honourable the Prime Minister is in a condition to have it conveyed to him. If the hon. the President of the Council does not care, for personal reasons, to himself convey it, I would ask
[TistAaa -jiv]
him to go to the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), or to some other member who is not in disagreement just at present with the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, and get him to act .as messenger. It is a formula that has been used upon other occasions and that bears repetition at the present moment, the formula of the Kaiser: "There is no will but my will. There is no law but my law, the law which I myself lay down." My hon. friend the leader of the Government has been laying down laws which are not the laws of Canada. My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council-and I have no * personal quarrel with him-has also been laying down laws which are not the laws of Canada. They are the laws which those two hon. gentlemen have laid down, in regard to which I want to say right here, speaking in the name of the common people of Canada: Beware of laying down laws for Canada that are not found in the British North America Act.
Sir, I find that there was some fighting over on the other side. It has not been told us in .so many words upon the floor of the House, but it has been hinted that some of our delegates had to " fight like blazes"-excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker; I am simply repeating their words.


Rodolphe Lemieux: An historic expression.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is an historic expression now. They' had to fight like blazes to get a "show" in the Conference. I would like to get some of our newspapermen who went over there to tell us the facts; but it is a secret. As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sir-ton) put it very well, he would not be quite prepared to say who objected on the part of Great Britain to Canada having a "show" in the Conference. But I find that Hansard sa.vs that to give this information might make trouble between one nation and another. If my ears caught the words aright, it was explained that to do so might create war. Having Scotch blood in me, Sir, I at once pricked up my ears when I heard the word "war" and said to myself, "Let us have peace."
This very serious aggregation of men set out to the Conference not with the authority of Parliament. The common people of Canada must not think that Parliament sent them; they were sent out-the Prime Minister amongst them, mark well-by Order in Council. I do not remember when Sir Edward Kemp was sent over as a delegate. I do not believe much of what the

newspapers have heen- saying during the last few years-and I want to be candid with the press, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see a free press in this country; I have always fought for a free press, hut in many things they have reported-well, they are not a free press. But the Associated Press of Canada have a good deal to do with these matters, and they sent out certain messages which may or may not be familiar to the ordinary member of Parliament. I did not get any inside information, so I took what the Associated Press sent, just as you did, Mr. Speaker, who are the First Commoner. The Associated Press told us wonderful things. I know it is against the rules of the House to quote from newspapers -and that is the best rule of the House.
I will not, therefore, quote the messages which I have in mind.


Jacques Bureau: Speak from memory.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: All right. But let me first say, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad to know that a new Canadian delegate was appointed in the person of Sir Edward Kemp.
I am glad to know that he is to sign the Treaty with Austria, although I have not yet learned that Canada ever declared war upon Austria. His signing will do us an awful lot of good, and I feel very grateful to the Government for having been so thoughtful as to have Sir Edward Kemp sign that Treaty. If it does not do anything else it will provide for the removal of a difficulty from our way in case a difficulty should arise.
Speaking from memory, then, on the 29th of November, 1918, the Associated Press informed us that the Prime Minister of Canada was in	London-not in
Paris, mark my	words-and	that
His Majesty the King was in Paris. In London the Prime Minister of Canada was being banquetted. Now, the Prime Minister is a cool and collected man and generally weighs every word he utters. At a banquet over there he said that there could be only one alliance that would hold the peace of the world, an alliance between Great Britain and the United States. No peace conference, none of your Canadian delegates, could do anything to bring about peace in the world; according to the report of the Associated Press-I have the despatch here if any gentleman doubts my word-only an alliance between the British Empire-(dfd he say the British Empire? No, I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon; he said "the Britannic Commonwealth")-and the United States of America could do it. " Commonwealth " is a good word; I specially commend it to the President of the Council when he makes another of his very able speeches. Use the word " Commonwealth"; the people are tired of the word " Dominion."
Now,' what was His Majesty the King, who alone has the power to speak constitutionally for this country, saying in France? He was speaking of an alliance between Great Britain, the United States and France. Just think of that; the Prime Minister says that to ensure the peace of the world it is absolutely necessary to have an alliance between the United States of America and the " Britannic Commonwealth," but His Majesty the King differs from the Prime Minister; on that same day he says in France that the alliance must be between France, Great Britain and the United States. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I ask the President of the Council, on behalf of myself and the electors whom I represent in this House, whether at the present moment there is in existence a treaty, secret or otherwise, between the " Britannic Commonwealth " and United States of America, as advocated by the Prime Minister in November, 1918?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL,: I have no knowledge of any.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has my hon. friend a certainty that there is no such treaty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I might answer my hon. friend by saying that if it were a secret treaty possibly I would not have a knowledge of it; I do not profess to be familiar with all that takes place in London or Washington. I have never heard of such a treaty; that is all I can say.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then I assume that there is no such treaty; I am glad to know that that is the case. When the Prime Minister urged an alliance- between the United States and the " Britannic Commonwealth," I thought that he was giving wrong advice; that the exclusion of France from such a treaty as that would be detrimental to the Empire and to the world.
That statement, however, was made, and I take it now that that is not so.
There is other great proof of the dangers of entering into this Peace Conference without further knowledge of the conditions surrounding the whole treaty, and that this railroading of treaties of peace through the House is not the proper course to follow. Let us cease this railroading through the House. Let us cease all this camouflage-to use the word. This session was

called especially to consider the Treaty, and we were allowed, through your very kind permission, Sir, to take up the discussion of Article 10, although you could have stopped that discussion. What I would have liked to see was the discussion of the Treaty clause by clause, and then to have the opinion of the House whether they would adopt the Treaty or not. But we are asked to consecrate the principle of the Treaty without considering it. This session was called for no other purpose than that of ratifying the Treaty, and we ought to have the time to consider it, but still the Government, at least what is left of it, is in power, and it controls matters.
I believe in Canada, I am not a pessimist; I do not believe in taking the dark view; I believe the time will come when Canada will pick up, under changed conditions; it will never pick up with a Government that is dismembered; with sullen followers behind it, with dissatisfaction in the ranks, with four or five leaders and would-be leaders-and I say it with all due respect to the hon. gentlemen. But how can. we go on? We have not even a Minister of Finance in the House, and I want, on behalf of Canada, to make a special appeal to the hon. member who has already so honourably occupied the position of Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I know that his holding of office for years has meant great sacrifices; I know that he acted at a time when he was broken down in health, and had to leave the House. I know that, not through anything he ever said to me, but from a statement that was made by this Government to the soldiers in the trenches. This is the statement contained in the paper called the Canadian Daily Record, of March 23, 1918; and I will ask your special permission, Sir, to read this article, and that you will not consider it a breaking of the rules of the House:
Finance Minister's health.
Sir Thomas White granted six months' leave of aJbsence.
Post filled by Hon. A. K. Maclean.
(Daily Record Cablegram.)
Ottawa, Friday.
I suppose the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) sent it.
In the House of Commons last night, the Premier announced that the condition of Sir Thomas White's health necessitated his absence during the session, and that the Department of Finance would be entrusted to the Hon. A. K. Maclean. Sir Robert added that tne Finance Minister had intimated that he would not object to being relieved of his duties, but that he had been asked to continue for the present.

The Prime Minister, upon promising a further statement later, said that the health of the Minister of Finance had been so seriously impaired by his enormous responsibilities and unremitting labours since the outbreak of war that his physician had ordered him to take six months' rest.
There is not the slightest doubt, continued the Premier, that Sir Thomas White desires to he relieved of his present responsibilities, but on the other hand he finds himself confronted witn the duty of remaining at his post, if it is at all possible, until the conclusion of the war, and his colleagues will gladly undertake to carry on the work of his department in order that he may have the necessary rest.
The Prime Minister added, however, that Sir Thomas might not find it consistent with his idea of duty to remain absent from the House and still continue in office.
The House agreed to the Finance Minister being given six months' leave of absence.
Sir, we have differed at times-not always-before and during the war, with the then Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, but I do not think that there is in this House any man who is not big enough to say that, during the war Sir Thomas White as Minister of Finance gave what was best in him towards his country and towards the war. We find him now back to his usual health, and in his seat in the House. We find ourselves in this House without a Minister of Finance. The Hon. Mr. Maclean is not in his seat-I do not know why, perhaps he is not well. We know, however, by the incidents of the last few days that the Government of the day has lost confidence in Mr. Maclean as a Minister of Finance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask the hon. member not to refer to another hon. member by name.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Very well, I will not refer to him by name, and I would not say this except It were with your rights. I want, personally and on behalf of the electors I represent, to appeal to the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) to resume his former position, at least until the horizon is clear. There is peace in the air, but there is war in the clouds; we do not know what may happen at any moment; we were told yesterday that if we did not ratify this treaty, or if we wanted too much information, the nations might get warring again. In view of that fact, I ask the exMinister of Finance: Will he not make a further sacrifice whilst there is no other Minister of Finance in the House and no one on the opposite side of the House capable of filling the position of the Minister, of Finance, and say to the Prime Minister that for the sake of Canada he will undertake a third great loan?

Hp has made a success of two loans and perhaps- he is the only man on the opposite side of the House who could make a success of a third. To save Canada's finances will he not promise the right hon. gentleman to act as Minister of Finance for a very little while longer? In making this appeal I am not authorized by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House; I am speaking on behalf of my electorate.
My last word is this: I sincerely regret, if it is true-I have only the Associated Press report for it-that Great Britain has sold some $400,000,000 of Canadian securities to the United States of America. I regret that, because I think that Canadian securities ought to have been good enough for Great Britain to hold. I do not believe that the people of Canada want to be annexed to the United States, but annexation is the inevitable outcome if the United States possesses our securities, our credit and everything we have. In conclusion, I trust that the ex-Minister of Finance will be prevailed on to give his services to Canada once more, not merely while peace is in the air, but till we have peace upon the earth.
Lt-Col. CYRUS W. PECK, V.C. (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to-night with a deep feeling of gratitude because I have been spared from the vicissitudes of the war to come hack to the Parliament of the country I love so well, and take part in its deliberations on the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations, If there was one thing that impressed me during the war as we passed from stage to stage and from victory to victory, leaving behind us that long swath of comrades, (the finest men God ever put breath into,) it was the thought that was expressed by every thinking man that it did not matter whether his poor life or the lives of a hundred or a hundred thousand men were spared or not so long as the great rampant power of Germany .was crushed and peace was once more restored to the world. I had hoped that this debate would have an elevated tone and that the gentlemen who took part in it-I am not reflecting on any one in particular-would drop parochial politics, realizing that they were dealing with one of the greatest questions that have ever came before this Parliament, and before the world. So you will understand my feelings, Sir, if I speak to this House with some emotion to-night. I phal'l endeavour in my remarks to eliminate everything in the nature of controversial politics.	[DOT]
I want to say one thing, however, in justice to a great man. I was a follower and a great admirer of the late Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, the great leader of the Liberal party. He was one of the statesmen in this country, if ever there was one, who stood for Canada's autonomy.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
COLONEL PECK: I am very much obliged for those cheers, but I want to say that that great statesman is scarcely cold in his grave before his followers come here and scoff at a Government that has put into execution the ideal for which he stood during his whole career.. If that revered leader was in his seat here to-night, while he might criticise some of the features of the Treaty, there is one thing he would not criticise, and that is that our plenipotentiaries went to that Conference and insisted that this nation should have full representation as an autonomous power, and take its full share and independent action in the deliberations of the Conference. I do not want to delay the House at this hour, and my only apology for rising is that I have hoped and lived for this very hour.
In my opinion the plenipotentiaries vire sent over to Europe did everything they possibly could along the line of the progress of autonomy and independent action. They could have done nothing more unless we were to become an independent state, and if hon. gentlemen think that we should become that they should say so. I do not think so; I think we are very well as we are-not that I partake in any of the Crown colony ideas that have been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Before I sit down I want to refer for a moment to the speech that was made the other day in the course of this debate by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). I always listen to that hon. member with the greatest possible interest and emotion.
I say emotion because, if I may trespass upon the tender ground of memory, we all in this House know that that hon. member endured a long and cruel imprisonment during which time he suffered all those bitter and poignant griefs that flesh is heir to, but during it all he borq himself with a courage and dignity and fortitude which not only reflected the greatest credit upon himself but was the admiration of every member of this House. I know that hon. gentlemen of all shades of opinion will feel honoured to have been associated with him on the floor of this House. There was one question, however, he raised in his speech


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to tender to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Peck) the congratulations of hon. members on this side of the House for his magnificent speech-magnificent in conception, splendid in delivery and notable above all for the fine and lofty tone in which it was uttered. It must be to him indeed a satisfaction to come and discuss this Peace Treaty before this House when he played such a noble part in the victory which has made the Treaty possible.
I propose to discuss the matter before the House to-night, if I oan do so, on the high level which has been assumed by the last speaker. I do not propose to approach this subject in any manner which can be thought of as being tinctured by party feeling or prejudice.
I	am glad that the Treaty is before the House, and I will give the reasons for my gladness. First, I believe it is a step towards (the democratic control of foreign relations and I believe that the fact that in all the countries of the world, except perhaps the United States and a few of the lesser powers, the shaping of the foreign
II	p.m. policies of the different nations
has not been under the control of the people but has been confined to small groups, has been one of the fundamental causes of this war which has brought such terrible suffering to the world. I am .glad that the Treaty is before the House because it is a step in the direction of open diplomacy. In addition to the arrogant power of Germaiy, one of the things which led to this war was the fact that international relations between the different countries were not controlled by the people of those countries but were the

business of small groups o.f men who often plotted even against each other without the _ knowledge of the citizens of those countries and, aye, sometimes without even the members of the Parliaments of the countries which they represented knowing anything about the matter. Let me give just one striking example. We learn after this war is over-indeed I think we learned while the war was on-that the action of Great Britain which made it inevitably necessary for her to join France- land I do not say for one moment that Great Britain should not have joined France- was the result of a decision taken by three o.r four members of the British Cabinet without the other members of the Cabinet knowing anything about it. I think that is wrong and it is one of the things that have led to this awful war.
I am pleased again that this Treaty is submitted to this Parliament because it constitutes an evidence of our nationhood and I for one want my country to be a nation. There have been those who have been at pains to' show that we are not a nation. May I be allowed to crave the indulgence of the House even at this late hour to bring some evidence before it as to oui status of nationhood? Let me say this, because it should be first said: There are those who say that we have a written constitution, that a written constitution is not capable of being developed by growth and that, being a written document, it can only be changed by another written document I cannot agree. I appeal to the history of my country for confirmation of what I say. As late as 1905 the Canadian Government asked the British Government for permission to negotiate certain treaties either about trade matters or copyright-I forget which. That permission was refused, but a very few years after permission to treat on such subjects was granted. There was a distinct advance along the path of nationhood without any written change in our constitution. As evidence of my pretension, let me first call as a witness Lord Milner who is not renowned as being an autonomist and may be, is rather regarded as belonging to those gentlemen mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) who after fine dinners(lament the fact that the bonds of Empire are not closer than they are. Lord Milner says:
The only possibility of a continuance of the British Empire is on a basis of absolute out-and-out equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. I say that without any kind of reservation whatsoever.

I next call Colonel Amery, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies :
We have got to decentralize our conception of Empire-
Oh, how true .it was what the hon. member for Skeena said that in all the history of mankind there have been men who liked the idea of power being centralized in one place and then radiating out, I think we might say, like the spokes of a wheel, to different parts of the world. Every Empire founded on that principle has gone down, because it is opposed to the instincts of freemen who, although living far removed perhaps from the original home of their race, wish to enjoy in the outlying marches of the world the same rights, the same privileges, the same powers, the same liberties as their cousins who stayed at home. Colonel Amery says:
We have got to decentralize our conception of Empire and realize that every member of the British Commonwealth is equal in status to every other, and, from its own point of view, the centre of the whole.
Mr. Lloyd George addressing a South African deputation said:
Finally, I would point to the status which South Africa now occupies in the world. It is surely no mean one. The South African people control their own national destiny in the fullest sense.
Sir Robert Borden, our own Prime Minister, speaking at Cardiff, on the 25th of July, 1918, said:
Upon the basis of equality of nationhood the future of the Empire must be worked out. A common spirit, a consciousness of nationhood in the true spirit, had arisen since the war, which would not be satisfied with any status within the Empire except the status of equal nationhood.
Hon. C. J. Doherty, ^Minister of Justice, said:
Canada's admission to the League constitutes the most formal recognition of her national status. Through it she takes her place in the international family as one of the group of independent nations which make up that League of Nations which the British Empire has grown to be.
I could quote similar statements from the , late General Botha, from General Smuts and from Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, but it is not necessary. All these men claim for 'their respective parts of what is called-improperly, I think-
" the British Empire ", the full rights of nations. Why do I say improperly called the British Empire? Because the word " Empire " connotes one head State surrounded by a group of subordinate States,

and I say, Mr. Speaker, that that does not correctly set forth the relationship between Great Britain, and New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Australia or ourselves. I like much better the word " Commonwealth ", and I like better still the word " Commonwealths " because there are five of us: There is the British Empire, which is composed of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, India and the Crown dependencies and colonies, and alongside are the four great self-governing Dominions. To call the relationship which exists between these self-governing Dominions and the Metropolitan an empire is to say something which is not consonant with the facts. 'It is of paramount importance not only for a correct understanding of our own relationship, but in order that our relationship and our status may properly appear before me world and be understood by all that this use of the term " British Empire " should cease, and that the words " British Commonwealths " should be given to Great Britain, to ourselves, to New Zealand, to Australia and to the Union of South Africa. There has been a beginning; I notice with some pleasure that a little while ago the Prime Minister while he was in England stopped talking about the British Empire and began talking about the Britannic Commonwealth.
But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have a better witness than those whom I have summoned-better because I behove his evidence fits in more nearly with the facts. I refer to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). He has not in this House always enjoyed my full approval or strong commendation, but I trust that the fog of partisanship will never so becloud my mind that I will be unprepared to give the meed of praise when it is due. I listened with care and with pleasure when, rising in his seat the other day, he declared himself as strongly opposed to the Milnerite plan- to the plan of that young apostle of Imperialism, Lionel Curtis, who has been going around the British Empire for many years preaching his conception of Imperialism, a young man endowed with great ability and sincerity, and backed with ample funds by the Imperialists of the old land. I admire the stand of the President of the Privy Council when he says: " When I spoke in 1912, setting forth what I believed to be the Liberal conception of the true relationship which should exist between the great overseas Dominion and Great Britain-and in order that I may avoid, Mr. Speaker, the imputation of party poliDas. I sav it is the
true Conservative view as well, the view of Sir John A. Macdonald "-I am endeavouring to quote more or less roughly the words spoken by the President of the Privy Council-" when I spoke as I did in 1912, I believed I was right, and I believe I am right to-day." I commend him for his words. So that no objection can be taken to my quotation, let me read the note which I have made of the words he used:
He says truly that our status is in a state^ oi transition; we are reaching out to the position ot a sister nation of equal status with Great Britain and Ireland.
That is a true statement of our real position. We have hot acquired all the sovereign powers of a nation. We are a nation because we have acquired a great many of the powers incident to nationhood, but there are certain other powers which we have not yet acquired, and we are reaching out to the position of a sister nation of equal status with Great Britain and Ireland. In his speech he gave credit to many Canadians-to Macdonald, to Galt, to Blake, to Cartwright, to Mills, and last of all to the great chief of the party to which I belong, that -man who was so universally admired throughout Canada, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. And I say, Mr. Speaker, without fear of successful contradiction, that if our representatives at the Peace Conference-and I am glad they were there-were able to take the stand that they did take, they owed it in no small measure to the attitude taken years ago at Imperial Conferences by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he withstood Chamberlain face to face and defeated his plan to centralize the British Empire and take away our [DOT] name from among the nations of the earth.
Now, during the debate the President of the Privy Council asked this question of the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) : How can our constitutional position be improved? It is not hard to answer that question. The President of the Privy Council has just come in, and I might repeat for his benefit for a moment that I was praising him highly for the attitude he took in insisting upon Canadian nationhood. I am now endeavouring to answer the question he propounded to the member for Kamouraska: How Canada could improve her constitutional position? She can improve her constitutional position by insisting upon all those sovereign rights which she does not now possess, the acquisition of which will make her a sister nation equal with the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland.

What axe those rights? Great Britain has complete command of her own ships; we have not. While the war was on the British Admiralty commandeered Canadian ships without, I think, obtaining the consent of this Parliament. Am I wrong in that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I think the Government of Canada took the position that the British Government had no right to commandeer our ships, that that action could only be taken by this Government; and I think we co-operated in the action taken.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Government has not continued to co-operate. It has asked for the return of those ships. Those ships are being returned subject to certain obligations placed upon them when they were under the control of the British Government.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I speak subject to
correction, because I am not familiar with the details of the matter which my hon. friend is now discussing. But I think that the hon. gentleman is incorrect in that. Certain ships are being returned subject to certain conditions imposed by the, British Admiralty, but these are ships that were transferred from British registry to some other registry, the British Admiralty imposing the condition on the transfer that they should be subject to all obligations to which they would have been subject had they not been transferred.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As I understand it, these ships which are being transferred from British to Canadian registry are Canadian ships, owned by Canadian companies or individuals. I am not criticising the Government for this action. I am merely pointing out that if we are to have a status equal to that of Great Britain, we should absolutely control the fate of our own ships.
Great Britain appoints her own ambassadors; we do not appoint ours. I do not wish to say at this time that ambassadors are necessary or that their appointment would justify the expense which would, thereby be entailed. But if we are to reach out for the position of a nation having equal status to that of Great Britain, then we must be given the right to name our own ambassadors.
I imagine that if we are to have this full sovereignty-and I wish it for my country -we should have the right to name our own Governor-General. It would be wise,
I think, to bring a Governor General from
IMr. MoMaster.l
some other British dominion in order that he should be free from all possibility of party bias in our politics. But it would seem to be a proper development that the Governor General should be named by our own people. In making this suggestion I make no reflection upon the choice which has been made by the British Government in times past or at the present time; Canada has indeed been fortunate in the character ' and attainments of her Governor Generals.
These are a few of the greater powers of sovereignty which at the present time we do not have and which I believe we should quietly, courteously and insistently aim to attain so that we may come to the stature of a fully sovereign power. We should certainly, Mr. Speaker, decide our own cases at law. The idea that in some provinces if a case involves over $2,000 the litigant should be subject to having his case taken to courts in another country, no matter how able the judges there may be, seems to me to ill comport with the claim of complete nationhood.
Now, why do I want this nationhood for tmy country? Is it merely .because of a feeling of pride? I grant you that pride has its place. I grant you that I, with Scotch blood in my veins, see no reason 'why, living on the North American continent, I should have any less powers or should belong to any less sovereign State 'than my own cousins who stayed in Scotland. That is pride, and I think it is proper pride. But there is something more 'than that. ,A sentiment of nationality or nationhood will breed a sense of responsibility, not only in the nation's statesmen but also in the individuals of the nation, rwhich will have an ennobling and uplifting 'effect upon our party politics. Moreover,
:I believe that in the fierce and ardent fires of a true national sentiment much of the dross of racial, religious and sectional prejudice will be burned away and thus will be left in better slApe the pure gold which is found in the character of the Canadian people.
1 I pass from this question of the status of Canada and I shall take up a few moments in referring to the League, of Nations. The League of Nations proposes a new plan of international life. It proposes a plan founded on the principle that we are members one of another; that no nation, *no matter how small, no matter how remote [DOT]from the great centres of population of the iworld, can be careless or heedless of what, goes on in the rest of the world. I support the League. I support it because it pro-

poses a new plan and because the old plan has been such a ghastly failure. I am surprised that any militarist in the world dares to open his mouth against the League of Nations. What is a militarist? Not merely *a military man. There are many military men who are not militarists; those military [DOT]men who are in this House, I know, are not militarists. A militarist has been defined by Bernard Shaw as one who believes that all power is armed power and that iGod is always with the biggest battalions. That, I think, is a good definition of a militarist. What has been the outcome of [DOT]the old plan Is it not true, 'Mr. Speaker, that armaments have entirely failed to protect the taxpayers who were bled white to *support them? Before the war was on, [DOT]what nation had a more wonderful military machine than the Germans, yet what nation suffered worse than the Germans? Great Britain was proud of her navy, and well she might be. But was the navy able to protect adequately and completely the commerce of Great Britain or even the shores of Great Britain during the war? No; over the North Sea, over the English Channel, high above the ocean, over the straits pf Dover, came the death-dealing Zeppelins to rain down death and destruction not only upon soldiers, but, alas, upon women and children. By ruthless savagery and by considerable ingenuity the Germans developed an arm which operated under the sea; and if recent statements are correct there was a time when things looked desperately bad for Great Britain and for the Allied cause owing to the submarine campaign. Armaments, therefore, have not protected; .not only that, they have been one of the great causes of the war. When one nation built up a great military machine another nation did the Sams'; the thoughts of different nations centred on their respective armies; the thought of mankind was direct in too large a measure to organizing schemes for the killing of man. I grant that when one nation led the way it was almost impossible for other nations not to endeavour to keep step. I know the difficulty, therefore I welcome with all my heart this proposal which looks toward the cessation of war and the substitution of arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. We in America may be very proud of this, because Canada and the United States showed the way in the creation of the International Waterways Boundaries Commission, which was the first international tribunal set up for the settlement Of international disputes.
I do not minimize the'difficulties that are in the way, but these are my grounds for hope. I think mankind is sane, and I say that if mankind goes back to the former competition in armaments, mankind is not sane, mankind is mad. Surely we have had a lesson in this war; surely mankind is going to find some way out; surely the appeal to force is not going to be the ultimate arbiter. I think it was Viscount Bryce who wrote to a great meeting convened fox the purpose of furthering this project of the League of Nations': "We must destroy war, or war will destroy us." Surely, that has been driven home to the minds and hearts of mankind. I am not sure whether the present civilization could stand another war like the one that has just closed. There have been wonderful civilizations in the past; Greece had a wonderful civilization; Rome-had a wonderful civilization; and they are gone, because they were founded upon force and unless our civilization can be founded upon something other than force, there is a danger that our civilization will go too.
There are certain necessary conditions to the success of the league. It should include, as soon as possible, all nations. I know that is a hard saying for some to accept; I know men who have suffered in their bodies by the infamous tactics of the Germans, may find it hard to accept that view, but is there any other way out? Those who framed the Peace Treaty saw this. At page 5 of the Reply of the Allied and Associated Poiwers to the German delegation on the conditions of peaije, we read:
The Allied and Associated Powers look forward to the time when the League of Nations established by this treaty shall extend its membership to all peoples ; but they cannot abandon any of the essential conditions of an enduring league.
On page 6 they say:
The Allied and Associated Powers regard thr Covenant of the League of Nations as the foundation of the Treaty of Peace. They have given careful consideration to all its terms and they are convinced that it.introduces an element of progress into the relations of peoples which the future will develop and strengthen to the advantage of Justice and of peace.
The text of the treaty itself makes it clear that it has never keen the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers that Germany or any other power should he indefinitely excluded from the League of Nations. Provisions have accordingly ibeen laid down which apply generally to States not members of the League and which determine the conditions of their admission subsequent to its formation.
Further on, they say:
Provided these necessary conditions are assured, they see no reason why Germany should



not become a member of the League in the early future.
There are those who say that1 Germany should be immediately included. I do not know sufficient about the matter to say whether that should be done or not; but I say that if Germany and our other enemies are not included in the league, this will inevitably happen: You cannot permanently enslave a nation of 70,000,000 people, and that nation of 70,000,000 people will become a regular cave of Adullain to which all dissatisfied' nations will resort. Then what' shall we be back to? We shall be back to the League of Nations on the one side and another League headed by Germany on the other, we shall be back to the old balance of power theory which is responsible in Europe for more graves, more widows, more fatherless children than any other principle that we can imagine. In saying what I say, I utter only the words which were uttered years and years ago by Richard Cobden and John Bright. There are those who are pleased to regard the Manchester school as merely concerned with the trade questions, with a favourable balance on the books, but that is not right, they were humanitarians, they were statesmen, and the ideals which they preached three-quarters of a century ago are the ideas which Wilson preaches today, are the ideals which are found in the League of Nations itself.
The next necessary condition is that Germany should, as she is bound to, disarm, and that then all other nations should follow her example. That is an absolute condition of a lasting peace. For us, who have preached that this was a war to end war,-I remember a lad who left my office, one of my law students (and he is dead now); he said to me before he went away: Mr. McMaster, I would not want to go if I did not think I was going to fight a war to end war. Well, we owe it to those generous 'hearts who went in that spirit to see that our professions are made good, to see that after having made those murderers who started this war, disarm, we disarm ourselves also, retaining only such military and naval power as is necessary for the proper policing of the world.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt his magnificent speech? The Babylonian Empire was overcame by the Assyrian force, is that not true? Greece was attacked by the Dorian hordes and decimated. We know that it was Xerxes

who burned Athens. Is it not true that the Roman power overcame Greece and took possession of Greece? And is it not true-that the Roman Empire was overcome by force, because she was not able to defend herself?


Andrew Ross McMaster: manity and the future happiness- of the world, that the League of Nations had been brought forth under more favourable auspices. I regret that the League at its very inception was unable bo put a stop to these wars and disturbances which are upsetting the peace of the world. The circumstances attending its birth are unfavourable, but they should not in themselves determine its rejection unless there are within the Treaty itself and within the Covenant of. the League of Nations vices which emphatically demand its rejection. We are told that the League is of such a nature that we, the Canadian Parliament, the representatives of the Canadian people cannot amend it. We must accept or reject it in toto. To my mind that is an Illogical mode of procedure; but one which doubtless seems perfectly reasonable to our plenipotentiaries who have during their long sojourn in Europe acquired by their close association with the statesmen of the world a different point of view to that of the average Canadian, whose misfortune it has been not to have rubbed elbows and exchange opinions with the world's distinguished statesmen. However, as it is the average Canadian of this and future generations who is being obligated under the Treaty, and who has to accept the responsibility in connection with the League of Nations, I prefer to take his point of view and to attempt, by placing myself in his position, to draw certain conclusions.
We have become confused of late, it is true with regard to our so-called national status. I have neither the constitutional knowledge, the time no-r the ability to discuss this matter at great length, but. it strikes me that either we are a dependent nation, even though self-governing,-and in that ease we have no business to sign the Treaty-o-r we are an independent, bound to the Mother Country only by ties of common interest, of blood and sentiment, and by a common King. For myself, I have no hesitation in proclaiming and approving of the latter proposition, and I think that this is the saner and truer conception of our status. It is from this point of view that I intend to discuss our present question. Having proceeded -thus far towards the goal of our national aspirations and towards the fulfilment of our national destiny, it behooves us not to hesitate in consolidating and strengthening our position. We are an independent nation and proud o-f -the fact, -and as such shoul-d be jealous of any invasion of our rights; and

should this covenant imply any such invasion we should, if it cannot be amended, reject it. Rather than lose one atom of the self-government which we have so far attained, I would cheerfully reject the Covenant of the League of Nations, -and the Treaty of Peace if need he. I would do this rather than lose any of the liberty the preservation of which has cost us such untold hardships and sufferings and the loss to our country of 60,000 of its best brain and braiwn,-men whose blood, spilt with those of our allies has rendered more holy the sacred soil of France. I submit, Sir, that the Treaty so interferes with our autonomy, in that it takes away from the Parliament and -the people of Canada the right to decide on the question of war, a question -which hitherto -has been -exclusively within the province of this Parliament; for no war can be waged without a certain amount of money being appropriated for it, and the moneys of the people of Canada must not be appropriated without the consent of Parliament. This right is ceded to a council foreign to our body politic, -a council on whi-oh, notwithstanding the assurances of the Minister of Justice, I am convinced we shall have no representative and in which we shall have no voice. The Treaty interferes with our autonomy in matters which are purely domestic. For instance it interferes in matters of immigration and trade. To take one example: Should China feel aggrieved at our immigration laws she could appeal to the League of Nations. In the League, there would be our friend and natural protector, Great Britain; but bound as she is by her ties of alliances and friendship with Japan and bound as she is by fear of ever-uneasy millions in her Asiatic possessions, I am afraid she would not be a very great help to us. Supposing last session we had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) and approved what I might call the Cronyn line of Europe, we would very shortly have been in conflict with a large number of our Allies, our fellow-members in the League of Nations. And the history of the Ashburton Treaty and the Alaskan dispute are still too fresh in our memories for us to fondly imagine that Great Britain would come to our rescue in such a position.
I had intended to criticise the time which is allowed us for withdrawing from the League, and I sincerely hope that when the next Government comes into power it will see to it that we do withdraw from it. I had intended further to criticise the pro-

visions with regard to our withdrawal and the unknown responsibilities and obligations with regard to territorial delimitations which are guaranteed. Can the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Works give me, for instance, the territorial delimitations of Hedjaz which we are called upon to guarantee? I doubt it. Yet we are supposed to guarantee the territorial integrity of Hedjaz when we do not know what it is.


Jacques Bureau: That is why we guarantee it.


Mr. POWER:: In my opinion we as a young people just entering upon nationhood should not, impetuously endorse something the consequences of which we cannot foresee. I should like to examine the Treaty from another angle. I doubt very much whether those who framed it and signed it have remained true to the high purposes and ideals which should have inspired them. I think not. As I have already pointed out the first accompaniment of the Treaty was a state of war over half the world, and the second result of the Treaty seems to be the aggrandizement of the five principle powers. Great Britain has obtained a large number of the colonial possessions of Germany. She has also obtained the destruction of the German mercantile and naval fleet, and she has been rid for at least half a century of the menace of German trade competition. France obtains Alsace-Lorraine and the Saar Valley and is guaranteed against future German aggression. Italy obtains Leu Irridenta; she obtains the mastery of Tripoli and large concessions in Albania. Japan obtains thirty-three millions of unwilling Chinese and a free hand in the East. The United * States has her munition debts paid out at usurious interest, and with the loss of less life than any of the other nations which are parties to the Treaty, she screams imperiously that she won the war in six months. True, a certain number of smaller nations of .Europe and Asia have obtained autonomy. But, Mr. Speaker, you will note that not one of these nations was situated within the borders of the entente. It was easy to make autonomous nations out of portions of an enemy empire, but it was very difficult, so difficult as to be impossible, to make autonomous nations


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. member pardon an interruption? If the League of Nations had been in existence prior to 1914 the United States would have been
in the war from the beginning, and the great probability is that there would have been no great war.


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression that the United States would probably have been too proud to fight whether there was a League of Nations or not. I do not know, and I cannot conjecture what the future may have in store. As I was saying, there was autonomy for a certain number of nations belonging to other powers than the Allies. It was easy to give freedom to the Ukranians, the Serbs, the Czecho-Slovaks, the Slovakians and even to the musically sounding Hedjaz; but it was very difficult, it was impossible, it was a domestic question, to give to the Irish freedom from that bondage against which they never _ ceased to protest for seven hundred years. Under the League of Nations the Home Rule Bill becomes a scrap of paper, and self-determination a myth. As has been said in the House on many occasions, there may be a hidden hand in this country, but in Ireland there is the bloody hand of Ulster steeped in treason and treachery to the country and Empire and responsible for thousands of persecutions, evictions and outrages.
It was impossible to give self determination to Ireland although three-quarters of its population had emphatically expressed themselves in favour of it at the polls. The League dare take a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine and Schleswig-Holstein but they dare not take a plebiscite in Ireland. The valour of the Irish troops throughout the war, at the landing at Gallipoli, in the Balkan passes and in the wild charges at iMonchy and Guillemont, the glorious onslaught at Messines Hill, the gallantry of Irishmen throughout the war-all were forgotten. Forgotten too were the thousands of Irishmen too, in spite of adverse circumstances, enlisted in England and Scotland in both the army and the navy. Forgotten were the thousands who went from this and other countries of the British Empire, and forgotten were the 800,000 Irish members of the American army and navy. As a result Irishmen the world over reluctantly and sorrowfully are driven to the ranks of those who proclaim that England's extremity is Ireland's opportunity, that the leopard has not changed his spots and that there is no more faith to be placed in the rulers of to-day than there was in those days long gone by when the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick were violated before the ink with which it was written had become dry. Ireland has appealed to the sense of justice

of the peoples of the world and instead of recognition the League of Nations seals its fate and confirms its thraldom. With these thoughts in mind, with the memory of this rank injustice fresh before us, we cannot, we should no't, acquie&e in the League of Nations.
There is one .more reason for rejecting the [DOT]	Covenant which I cannot pass
12 p.m. over. Some hon. gentlemen may call me a little Canadian, I may state in advance of this objection that I am proud to be a Canadian whether it be little or whether it be big. We as Canadians have our destiny before us not in continental Europe but here on the free soil of America. Our policy for the next hundred years should be that laid down by George Washington in the United States for the guidance of his countrymen-absolute renunciation of interference in European affairs-and that laid down by the other great father of his country in Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier-"freedom from the vortex of European militarism." I believe this policy to be the true expression of a Greater Canadianism. I believe the people of Canada will approve of this policy, namely, to let Europe be the arbiter of its own destiny while we in Canada, turning our energies to our own affairs, undertake our own peaceful development strong in the faith that we have within our fiational boundaries and within ourselves the material to become a great and powerful nation.
I am convinced that our soldiers have returned from overseas more proud than ever before of that " Canada " badge which they bore so proudly on their shoulders; convinced, too, that they are as good men in peace and war as the poilu and Tommy Atkins, their Allies in many a desperate * conflict, their comrades on many a blood-sodden field. They have learned nothing from European culture or continental civilization. The eagerness with which they demanded demobilization, their happy faces when they reached their native shores, were proof positiye that above all they longed for their loved Canada, their home.
In conclusion, may I quote a paragraph which, I think, sums up the situation and admirably expresses the thoughts which I have had so much difficulty in conveying, and which I think should summarize our national aspirations:
Nationality is our .first great object-the nationality which inflames and purifies our people with the lofty and heroic love of country-the nationality of the spirit as well as of the letter -a nationality which may come to be stamped upon our manners, our character and our deeds
[Mr. power 1

a nationality which will embrace the Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter, French, Canadian, Irish, Scotch, English, the Canadian of twenty generations and the stranger who has arrived within our gates-not a nationality which would prelude civil war, but one which would establish internal union and external independence-a nationality which will be recognized by the world, and sanctified by wisdom, justice and prudence.


Mr. GEOEGE PARENT (West Quebec):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this matter has already taken a certain amount of valuable time, but for once I have noticed, the members who have spoken have presented various- views in different ways. It is an acknowledgment that the subject is extensive in its nature and could well have afforded a more thorough discussion. It seems therefore regrettable that only three days have been allotted for the study of a question which, as far as I can judge, means a radical change in the status of Canada. This change comes in smch a way and appears so extraordinary that after giving some thought to the subject, the whole scheme appears to me a mere evolution towards complete surrender of Canadian autonomy. In other words, Imperialism is coming; imperialism has come!
If this sudden change means imperialism, and I think it does, I do not hesitate to say that I am afraid of its consequences and that for this reason, the Treaty and particularly the Covenant of the League of Nations, as submitted to this Parliament for approval, should not be accepted with-cut reservations.
If Canada were a nation, I would have nothing but words of praise for those who framed this Treaty and who frankly admit that after days and months of strenuous study and work, they have not obtained all that they desired but have secured all they could. But Canada is not a nation. It has many of the elements that constitute a nation, but it has not them all. We are a colony. True, we have been told over and over again that in this country we enjoy such privileges, such independence in various ways that most of our statesmen, Cartier, Macdonald, Laurier and the present Prime Minister, have often repeated "Canada is a nation!" But these words are only words, they have been said in a way of appreciation of British institutions, they were good enough for the purposes that these men had in mind but they have no effect on the real "status" of Canada.
If we were a nation we would have in this country no Governor General to represent the King or the authority of another country to which we belong. If we

were a nation we would have consuls or consular agents to represent us in the dif-.ferent countries of the world. Everybody Is aware that there are no Canadian consuls. If we were a nation we would not have to communicate with other countries through Downing street, we would be .attending to our affairs as we thought best.
I -therefore say that no doubt can be entertained on this point and that we might as well surrender to the truth and keep on calling ourselves " colonials " and colonists.
If we are colonials-and we are; if we are a colony-and we are; I fail to see why Canadian signatures appear on the treaty -and what benefit the Canadian people will derive from entering the " League of Nations."
Far be it from me to criticise those nations who having the status of a nation, have thought it wise to enter this League. Their purposes are worthy: they want to unite their efforts in preventing the renewal *of the most terrible disaster that the world has ever witnessed. No one can find fault with that. But it is a League of Nations, not a League of Colonies, and 'Canada being a colony has no status to take part in it. I may be retorted with this argument:
Why should you not be satisfied if all the other nations, England included, are willing to consider you as a nation and take you as such?" This to my mind is no *argument. Such feeling of condescension may be a compliment paid to the valour and heroism of our gallant soldiers. It cannot be anything else. I am, however, more Inclined to believe that it is a way by which English diplomacy wants to bring Canada by a pledge of this Parliament to participate in all future wars on the European continent or in other parts where British interests may be involved. If these are the purposes of the Imperialists, it is my earnest belief that we should be very cautious before pledging the people of Canada to such views, or to such policy.
From now on, the Tories say: "Canada is a nation, Canada has the status of a nation " 1 Who believes them? I do not. Do you want to test 'their sincerity? Just force them to vote on a resolution that in *the opinion of- this House Canada should be independent. You will soon come to the conclusion that the whole scheme of the Government is not sincere, does not and cannot stand. These men do not want to see 'Canada an independent nation, but they want Canada to have such close relations with the British Government that
they are ready to sacrifice our undeniable right to participate, or not, in wars which Britain may see fit to declare or enter. In other words, these men favour Imperialism, while I stand for 'Canadian autonomy-
" Daughter am I in my mother's house, but mistress in my own ".
I have said 'that ratification of the Treaty and of the Covenant of the League oi Nations can bring no benefit to this country, more so when we have, constitutionally speaking, nothing to do with it and when, in ratifying, we are affirming the will of Canadian people to enter any war without securing the people's assent. Let me further explain. The signing of peace on behalf of the British Empire is a prerogative of the Crown. The King himself signs, either in person or by others duly appointed by him for the purpose. In the case of the present Treaty, this principle is well recognized:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, by:
The Right Hon. David Lloyd George	
And for the Dominion of Canada toy:
The Right Hon. Charles Joseph Doherty, etc.	.
His Majesty, through the gentlemen above mentioned, has signed the peace treaty on behalf of the United Empire, which includes Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and India. Nothing else is required. The sole constitutional authority having given his signature, the contract entered into has been completed', no other signatures on behalf of Canada or for Canada could give more force and effect to the meaning of the Treaty.
Yet there appear other signatures; we find that the various British colonies are represented by men of their own, who have also signed as mandatories of the King, in the manner I have just read. How can this be justified is the question.
So far as the Peace Treaty proper is concerned, I have no fault to find with Canadian names appearing thereon, for in my opinion it means nothing, and I venture to think and to say that were it not for the Covenant of the League of Nations we would not have been called in a special session to ratify the one which includes the other.
Why is approval required if not because our representatives have the feeling that in subscribing to the Covenant of the League of Nations they have exceeded their powers, their jurisdiction in sacrificing Canadian autonomy when they had no authority to do so? Many articles of this

around the central sun, have of late experienced a further amazement in contemplation of the simultaneous movement of immense bodies of British subjects from all parts of the world to a common destination, ready to do their part in the cause .of freedom and liberty. In this desire to uphold a common cause is found the basis of the strength of the British Empire. I for one wish that this Empire shall be maintained in order that the happiness of those who belong to it-and, indeed, of the whole world-may be perpetuated.
The war has given incontrovertible evidence of the futility of immense armaments, and has demonstrated that nations should follow the principles of fraternity, right and justice. The victory of the Allies has brought forth a Treaty which is now before this Parliament for consideration, a Treaty in which is embodied a League of Nations. Before considering the Treaty and the League of Nations as it affects Canada, I wish to discuss the Treaty in a general way.
The League of Nations is an outcome of the terrible war through which we have passed, and if the world wishes to have peace in the future it can only have it through such a body as the League of Nations. But a League of a few nations only will be no guarantee of peace; let us hope that other nations will come within the League in a short time and thus enable it to carry out its purpose effectively.
The Treaty of Peace and the League of Nations may not be altogether what they were expected to be. The people that dreamed of a universal peace are somewhat disappointed at the constitution of the League of Nations such as it is to-day. We may say, however, that while it is not altogether symbolic or expressive of that dream or aspiration of universal peace that is as old as the world, it contains the fundamental point that the brutal material force of nations must make way for the moral force of right, under a certain adequate, reciprocal distribution of arms according to rule and guarantees necessary for the keeping of public order in every State, and the effacement of large armies, there being substituted for these the institution of arbitration. It claims', after all, the application, the exercise amongst the nations of the virtues of fraternity which have bound together the many Dominions of the British Empire. -More is left to be done by the League of Nations than what has alre.i^' been included in the Treaty. I do not say this in an offensive spirit, realizing the difficult

position in which the representatives of the many allied nations were, in their strenuous endeavours to bring into harmony the needs, aspirations and expectations of a large number of nations, for the first time brought together in a spirit of conciliation for the betterment of the world. Many things have to be done yet. Disarmament is not complete. We are speaking of peace, and in the meanwhile many nations in Europe are still at war together, while today even one of the Allies, Roumania, is fighting and refusing to come into the League of Nations.
In the early days of this debate the bon. member for Edmonton West (Brigadier-General Griesbach) brought to the attention of the House and of the people of the Sountry the sufferings of our Canadian soldiers at the front and the cruelties and barbarities of the Germans during the -war. Certainly, while he was there, he added lustre to his name, and we listened with attention and respect to his words, as well as 'to the words of another brave soldier who addressed this House this evening, the hon. member for iSkeena (Lieut.-tCol. Peck, V.C.). I join heartily in the praises extended to him by an orator who preceded me, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MeMaster). They are well deserved. Meanwhile, to-day, when we are endeavouring to frame a treaty of peace for the world, we must not look merely at the cruelties of the past, we must not be guided merely by a sentiment of revenge, and the reparation that is to be demanded from the conquered nations must be decided upon by the sentiment, if not of charity, of justice and right for which we have fought and which we are proclaiming to the world to-day. For the consummation of the future peace of the world, we must endeavour to educate the nations which, in the past, through its militaristic education, has corrupted the minds of its own people by making them militaristic, by inducing them to believe that their own nation was the only one that deserved to have the heavens, and which has thrown its innocent fellow-nations into other sins through the education which has been given to their youth and for which to-day, innocent as they were, many of those Germans, Austrians and Hungarians with their families are suffering. -All this was due to the false education given to them through Bismarck, who at that time used his influence for the captivation of the men at the head of the University of Vienna and other great universities in those districts, their influence giving weight to

that false education which has brought the -calamity of the war during the last four or five years.
"A soldier will, no doubt, say that the 'German people cannot be. civilized. I say that they must be civilized. They can be *civilized only by the example of the League of Nations to-day, and it is our duty- to use the eloquent words expressing the same thought, uttered by the hon. member for Brome-(Mr.MoMaster).a few moment :ag0j_to see to it that Germany must. be brought into the League of Nations at the earliest possible date. We have seen the effect of the good-will extended by the members of the League of Nations, more particularly by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, towards enemy nations. We saw that only the day before yesterday when the Austrian Chancellor went before Premier Clemenceau and signed the Treaty of Peace with a smile of peace and harmony for the future, bringing China in the same way to sign a treaty and China will trust to the good-will of the Empire of Japan for the administration, of Shantung in the years to come.
But many things have yet to be d-one if we want to have peace within the world, if we want to have peace within the League of Nations. Ireland, a nation in the League of Nations, must be given relief, home rule of some kind, if the nations of the League wish, and more particularly, if Great Britain wishes to maintain the happiness of her subjects throughout 'the world. One need not be an Irishman to sympathize with the people of Ireland. Any man with human feelings, who wants .minorities to be recognized and smaller nations to grow independent, will certainly feel for Ireland as -others have felt for the small nations that were under the yoke of German and Austrian peoples. Ireland must be recognized ,and must be pacified and brought into the League of Nations in some -way acceptable to the people of that country. Much has been said of Ireland's position during the war, but the world at large will recollect. .that when one day the generous smile of Albion fell on Green Erin, in the enactment of a Home Rule programme which is awaiting the sanction of the King, under the beneficent influence of the smile and the promise which it gave to Ireland, on the 4th of August on the proclamation of w.ar, thousands of Irish soldiers hurriedly crossed the channel, went across Belgium into the fighting line in the first days of the war and mingled their boldness and valour with the heroism of the Belgian
soldiers. If a change took place, it was certainly	merely	due to	the
change which had taken place in the direction of the administration by the British Government of the cause of Erin.
I am sure that every British subject who is proud of the generosity of Great Britain to the Dominions of the Empire must feel that Ireland, remains the one dark cloud in the bright heavens of the Empire, and the cloud must be dissipated by the British Government and the League of Nations at the earliest possible moment. Let me say for the edification of the House and the people of Canada that this question to-day is troubling the mind of no less a man than General Smuts who has succeeded General Botha as the head of the- Government of South Africa. On many occasions during the war his words in England have arrested the attention of the world, more particularly when he has been speaking of the status of the Empire and the aspirations which she should nurse for the future. On the 17th of July last when he was bidding farewell to Great Britain he addressed a large delegation, and the Associated Press gives an account of his speech from which I will quote a few words:
Dealing with questions concerning the Empire and the Dominions General Smuts says the most pressing of all is the Irish question. " It has become a chronic wound whose septic effects are spreading to our whole system, and through its influence on America is -beginning to poison our most vital foreign relations," says General Smuts. " Unless it is settled on the great principles which form the basis of this Empire this Empire must cease to exist."
These are serious words given to the world at large, and more particularly to the nations that had signed the Treaty and entered the League of Nations. Much has to be done yet, and I trust that the members of the Government of Canada whenever they come in contact with the ministers of the Crown of Great Britain will do everything they can to bring about a settlement of the Irish question.
As I said before, we are living under a written constitution, with the means provided for any amendment or alteration or betterment which occasion may dictate. Did the representatives of Canada in the position which they assumed at the Conference which resulted in the League of Nations seriously consider that their power was limited bv the letter of the constitution of Canada? It is true that evolution has given to Canada and the other Dominions in the last twenty years a greater measure of autonomy than

it had enjoyed for many years before that, and I do not hesitate to say that a great deal of the credit, in fact most of the credit is due to the advocacy and influence and eloquence and great vision of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which attracted the attention of the diplomats of Great Britain. But he was always careful to keep within the constitution of Canada, and every one of his efforts resulted in an advancement rather than a retrograde movement in Canada's autonomy. I claim that the result of the efforts of the Canadian representatives at the Peace Conference at Versailles is a retrograde movement rather than an advance, and furthermore, it is against the constitution. Truely the wise and learned Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) has said that the people have to be consulted before any change is made in the constitution. He says, however, that when the change is for the better it is not necessary to consult the people, but only when the change is for the worse. I am not disposed to accuse the Minister of Public Works of intending to impose upon Canada a worse condition than it enjoyed before, but I say that the change is for the worse, and that whether a change is for the better or worse it can 'only be made with the consent of the people of Canada. I repeat, I do not think the change in our constitution has been for the better. Up to.to-day we were not a nation in the full sense of the word. Sentimentally we have made great progress as a nation or as one of the nations of the Commonwealth, if you prefer that phrase, but we have not come to the point of being a distinct and separate nation of the British Empire. If we were a separate and distinct nation we would have our own King or president. If we are a separate nation, I ask you who is our king or president? You may say that Ve belong to the British Empire and that we are just as independent as if we were a separate nation. No Canadian from the Atlantic to the Pacific wishes more to remain under the protection of the British flag than the modest member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), but in the meantime we are not a nation. Those who are so anxious to call us a nation ought to take advantage of the presence of the Prince of Wales in this country and ask him if he will not be crowned king of Canada.
We have not the power to declare war or make peace, and no people is an independent nation unless it has this power. When we were at war we no doubt eagerly wished for peace, but Canada was power-[iMr. Turgeon.]
less to declare peace even if she considered it in her best interests to do so. If ever there was an obligation to consult the people on any question it certainly was in connection with this very important matter, and in view of the sacrifices which the people of the country generally have borne, and particularly the noble part which has been played by a section of the community amounting to twenty-five or thirty per cent of the population, I think it would be only constitutional and right to ascertain the views of the people of Canada on this subject. Some 300,000 of our men, after making every possible sacrifice, are to-day returning, and together with their families and dependents they form probably one-third of the population of the country, and they should have some right to be consulted in regard to a radical change in the constitution of Canada by which its voluntary efforts, through love and admiration of the British Crown, will give place to a dictation by a council of nine representing different nations of the world. This movement is altogether unconstitutional, and I repeat that if ever there was a time when the people should have been consulted it is at this very moment; for by the change which is proposed the soldiers themselves may be called upon to fight without an opportunity of expressing their willingness or otherwise, simply at the dictation of a council and not at the request of Great Britain. In the past we have served voluntarily and have not even waited for Britain to seek oui participation. As soon as the war was declared in 1914 the Prime Minister volunteered the services of Canada to the Empire, and the leader of the Opposition of that day immediately .joined in tendering his hearty co-operation and that of . his followers in order to help the Mother Country as much as possible to maintain the welfare of humanity, liberty and democracy. By this Treaty, however, it may happen that we may have to fight even against Great Britain herself. The Article distinctly lays it down, and the possibility has been demonstrated by previous speakers. The council of nine may call other nations to arms against Britain, should Britain find it expedient to declare war on some other country, and our soldiers might be summoned to respond not to an invitation of the Mother Country, as in days gone by, but to the dictation of a council of nine administering the affairs of the world.
With these few remarks I shall conclude, hoping that the League of Nations may succeed in bringing about a condition that has

hitherto not existed, and that every member of the League will realize' the necessity - of bringing Germany as quickly as possible into such a position a>& to make her eligible for inclusion in its membership. I trust that the League of Nations will soon become an effective organization, and I will gladly support it because it is the beginning of a combination of civilized peoples which we hope will grow in influence from day to day, and which it is the universal desire will make war in the future a thing of remote possibility. Let us not make light of the inclusion of Germany and Russia; for we must realize that with a discontented Germany and Russia and other nations around them we shall have not a League of Nations, but another balance of power which will keep the League busy manufacturing munitions in the future as in the past. An amendment has been introduced by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). It is merely an -assertion of the independence of Canada and our love for the constitution of our country, and I will vote for it because it maintains intact that constitution. Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I beg to repeat my hope that before very long the League of Nations will be the means of establishing the peace of the world on a lasting foundation.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): It is not without great concern and a sense of deep responsibility that I would have risen tonight if the opportunity had been offered me to express myself upon the motion now before the House for approval by Parliament of the Treaty of Peace. I say, if I had been given the opportunity, because I fully reali-ze that the opportunity is not. being given to me any more than to many other hon. members at this late hour. However, let me assure you at once that I will not inflict upon the House a speech of any length; I will take the few minutes at my disposal to enter a protest against the manner in which this debate has been conducted and against the impropriety of having A discussion of this importance closed in the way in which it is going to be closed to-night. This session of Parliament has been convened for the sole purpose of ratifying the Peace Treaty. The speech from the Throne says that we are called together for that purpose. It says that we are to ratify the Treaty of Peace, which implies, of course, that we shall not be given much latitude upon the point of deciding whether or not we should ratify. We are simply called upon to ratify the Treaty, and the Prime Minister has conducted the procedure of
the House in such a manner as to give every . hon. member distinctly to understand that we are here for the purpose of ratification and nothing else.
The speech from the Throne was delivered on the first day of the month. When we veie convened here to ratify this Treaty we expected at least to be able to read the Treaty before giving it our ratification. The Government should have been in a position to place the Treaty in the hands of the members upon the first day of the session. This was not done. It seems that there was some misunderstanding, but at .all events it was not done. On the following day, Tuesday, the Prime Minister moved the resolution that we are now discussing, made a speech, sat down and waited. What was he waiting for? He was waiting for the House to begin this debate. In the forenoon of Tuesday, the 2nd of September,
I went to the distribution office and could not get a copy of this Treaty; yet the Prime Minister stood up at three o'clock in the afternoon, made a speech and asked the House to adjudge upon and discuss this Treaty of Peace of which we had had so far no opportunity of taking communication. This is a challenge to this House, it is a deliberate challenge not only to the House but to every well-disposed man in this country who wants the country to be administered by men who know what they are doing. We are called here to examine, ratify, approve or disapprove of the most important measure that has ever been submitted to the Canadian Parliament since Confederation, and here is the Prime Minister pressing a resolution for the approval of a Peace Treaty the drafting of which took seven months of the time of the best men ih Europe. Yet, we were called upon to discuss this Treaty on the very same day that the Treaty was distributed.
My leader (Mr. McKenzie) was lucky enough to be able to have the debate on this measure postponed, for how long? Forty-eight hours. The Prime. Minister in his kindness granted us forty-eight hours to read the Treaty; that is to say, from Tuesday till Thursday, .and on that day we had to begin the discussion of the Treaty itself. What happened on Thursday? It appeared that some correspondence was exchanged between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. The measure was postponed until Monday of this week, but we have .to vote to-night. I dare to say, even although I am the most humble member of this House, that I have something to

say about it. I dare to say that other members in the House have something to say about it. But we cannot speak any more. It is one o'clock, we have to vote and neither I nor anybody else, I believe, on our side, will dare to impose a speech on hon. members on the other side of the House. This afternoon I heard the Minister of Justice say that the fullest opportunity would be given to discuss the matter. The minister was surely not serious when' he said that. If he was serious we would not be called upon here to-night to discuss this matter until the vote is takpn. The minister knows very well that the House cannot freely express itself and that hon. members cannot discuss a matter of. this importance at one o'clock in the morning and when everyone is waiting for the vote. The minister explained the policy of the Government. I heard him for two hours, and I was very glad to hear him, because I learned something from what he said. The fact that the minister took two hours to I a.m. (make his speech is sufficient proof that the matter is one of importance and that every opportunity should be given to hon. members to discuss it freely. The matter which is now before the House raises any number of questions-the question of the right of Canada to make treaties; the question whether or not our status has been changed since 1914; the question of the extent to which our ratification will be binding upon Canada in the future; the question of the part which has been taken by the Imperialists in providing for this ratification with which we have nothing to do; whether this ratification is ia political game or not; whether our ratification is necessary, whether we are not by this ratification surrendering the prerogative of Parliament. There are many other very important and solemn questions arising from this ratification, and yet we are debarred from carefully studying and dismissing this matter. I shall take my seat now but not. without protesting very strongly against the manner in which Parliament is being treated. It will be for the people themselves to judge of the conduct of the Prime Minister under these circumstances. I probably should go a little farther and say that in the way in which he has been .acting the Prime Minister has only followed the line of conduct which he has unfortunately pursued on several previous occasions when he has attempted to restrain the liberty of Parliament.

Mr. E. d'ANJOU (Bimouski) (Translation) : Mjr. Speaker, tlhe question which is now before the House has been discussed under all its various angles-'and at this fate hour and at this stage of the debate I do not intend to. prolong the proceedings. That my hon. friends opposite are anxious to vote on this question and to bind the country to militarism, I aim well aware, but I submit that every member, whether on the Government side or on the Opposition side" has a .right to obtain a hearing in this House and I am going to exercise my right but I desire to make my remarks as brief as possible.
I merely wish to. protest, .as the hon. member who spoke before me, din}', against the mode of procedure adopted by the Government under the circumstances. No wonder, when one remembers that it was this Government, who introduced the rule of the gag. They dtoi not resort to the closure rule to-night, because the hon. members on this side are courteous enough to agree .that the volte should, be taken now.
The .hon. gentlemen opposite who. have committed so many abuses of power, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, could not hesitate, even when matters of the utmost importance were under discussion, attempting to curtail the debate that they might the sooner obtain a ratification.
I wish to protest against Clause X in the Covenant of the League of Nations which *binds Clanada for the future and involves her in every war, without Parliament being previously consulted'.	*
The hon. Minister of Justice, in his speech, tried to. explain that we could hope for any possible guarantee and that, were it not stipulated that the Canadian Parliament is to be consulted before o.ur entering the war, we should naturally trust the present Government which, he hopes, will long remain in power.
For my part., I must slay that 1 do not trust this Government, that I never trusted it and now less 'than .ever; that we should behave cautiously and that am amendment like that- moved by the ihon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) should carry, so as to have guarantees for the future. But, as I said, after witnessing so many abuses of power that have been perpetrated, as the sending of our. soldiers to Siberia, without Parliament having been consulted', I have misgivings for the future, and it would be wise to insert a proviso in the Treaty so as to make sure that such abuses of power will not recur.

Besides, Sir, I see in that article X oi the Covenant of the League of Nations a step taken towards militarism and I submit that the hon. gentlemen opposite who pride themselves on being the only ones who induced the country to participate in the last war in order to destroy German militarism, should side with us to-day, and try by every possible means, whether through amendments or otherwise, to strike militarism a knockout blow, instead of endeavouring to implant it in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, should that Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations remain as it is now, it means permanent conscription in our country. When the Council sitting at Geneva decides that Canada is to participate in a w*ar and orders us to send over soldiers, do you honestly believe that those soldiers will really be volunteers?
We have made so many sacrifices during four years, we have bled the country in so many ways in order to destroy imperialism in Europe, that it does not behoove us to try implanting it in Canada.
In rising in my place to-night, I wished to protest, on behalf of my electors, and in the name of the country, against such a clause, and I shall vote with the greatest pleasure in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne.


Mr. P. S. SCOTT (South Waterloo):: * I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion, Sir Robert Borden for approval of the Treaty, agreed to.
On the Order being called for the House to go into Committee on certain resolutions of the Prime Minister:


Charles Joseph Doherty: These resolutions refer to appendices to the Treaty itself, the first of them dealing with the agreement made for the administration of the occupied territory on the Rhine during the period of occupation, and the second one dealing with the Treaty with Poland, which has already been the subject of some discussion. I understood that these two resolutions as appendices to the Treaty were to be passed with the Treaty itself. I would suggest that it is by error that the division was made. There was no occasion to take them in Committee, but as they are on the Order Paper in that way, if there is no objection, I would suggest that we might put them through this morning so the matter may be completed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing in the agreement I had with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but the resolution with which we have just dealt, and I cannot consent to any other resolution to which I have given no thought.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There must have
been some misunderstanding, because we gathered from the Prime Minister that what he did understand was that these two resolutions which I have mentioned deal with mere appendices to the Treaty were to be taken with the resolution dealing with the Treaty itself. Of course, if that was not so understood by the hon. gentleman, I woulcf not desire to insist to their being disposed of in the face of any objection from him. I think it may safely be said that, having regard to the first resolution, it is a matter that does not present any question affecting us-it is the agreement simply determining how thp administration of the occupied territory on the Rhine shall be carried on during the occupation; and the second resolution, as I have said, covers the Treaty which, in substance, practically imposes upon Poland the obligation of respecting the various minorities in that country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the Prime Minister made his speech, Mr. Speaker, he
 moved one resolution only, and I certainly did not understand that I was consenting to anything but the disposal of the resolution which he then moved.' For that reason, while I do not want to show any unnecessary opposition, I cannot agree to- a thing to which I have given no consideration at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As it was not so understood, I do not want to insist on the disposal of these resolutions in face of my hon. friend's Objection.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.30 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, September 12, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of Order in Council dated 12th September, 1919, advising that His Majesty do approve, accept, confirm and ratify the Treaty of Peace for and in respect of the Dominion of Canada.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.
Mr. .1. E. ARMSTRONG: This Bill is for the purpose of bringing under the control of the Railway Commission vessels plying ( on our inland waters and engaged in coastwise trade. At present only a f&w boats connected with the railways are under the control of that commission. The intention is to make such boats as I have mentioned subject to that control as regards tariffs, tolls, trade agreements, time of call, duration of stay, and many things of public importance connected with transportation on our waters. There are 4,500 boats on the Canadian register, and they employ 45,000 people.


Jacques Bureau: Is this the same Bill that the hon. gentleman presented last
year?


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Pretty nearly the same Bill. Last year I asked that the board should have control as regards maximum freight rates. That is embodied in this Bill. But there is another clause which

exempts sailing vessels and small boats; otherwise the Bill is practically the same as the one that I introduced last year.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the first time.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the House of Commons Act .and to provide that polling days at elections shall be public holidays.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Samuel William Jacobs: This Bill is similar to one -which I had the honour of bringing before the House at the last session, but aS Government measures were given precedence early in the session, the Bill was not permitted to go through the necessary stages. It proposes to amend the House of Commons Act and it declares that within sixty days .after the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery receives a warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member, the writ in question shall issue. In other words, it provides that the election shall take place automatically within a fixed period after the electoral seat has been declared vacant.
The second provision of the Bill is that persons elected for two or more seats must declare within a specified time for which seat they will serve. A penalty of $200 is provided for each day that then elapses *during which the member has not declared ior which seat he intends to serve.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the time specified?


Samuel William Jacobs: Thirty days. Finally, there is a provision which declares that polling day shall be a public holiday, both at general elections and at by-elections.
I may say that about ten years ago the present Prime Minister, who was at that time leading the then Opposition, brought in a Bill similar to the one which I have the honour of introducing to-day. For various reasons the Bill was not proceeded with, but as the - Prime Minister was in
favour of the Bill at that time, and I have no reason to believe that he has changed his views on the subject, I confidently look forward to having support for this measure from the Government benches. * I am sure that it will receive support from this side of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to ask the Government whether the Canadian Trade Mission in London is about to be abolished. I base my question on a report which appeared in the newspapers last evening to the effect that Mr. Lloyd Harris, chairman of the Trade Mission, has stated that Canadian trade, if properly handled, can continue to increase independently of Government control; and the report goes on to say that this creates the assumption that the Mission is about to be abolished. Has the Government any information to convey to the House on the subject?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There has been no decision to abolish the Canadian Trade Mission.



CANADIAN CREDIT TO ROUMANIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to put a question to the financial authority of the Government, whoever that may be at 'present, concerning our advance to Roumania. I read in the press recently that the $25,000,000 which we voted as a credit to Roumania has been exhausted and that we have no security or anything in the shape of security for the payment of that amount. Is it true that we have expended the $25,000,000, and if so, what security in the way of bonds or negotiable instruments of any kind have we in respect of that amount?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall communicate the hon. gentleman's question to the Minister of Finance with a view to giving him the information that he asks for.



GREAT WAR VETERANS' GRATUITY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council):	Mr. Speaker at the request of the Prime Minister I desire to make the following statement with reference to the position of the Government in the matter of a further bonus or war service gratuity to returned soldiers.
The position of the Government is set forth in a statement prepared by the Prime Minister on Saturday last for submission to the House in answer to a question placed upon the Order Paper by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Griesbaeh). idle Prime Minister intended to make this statement in the House on Monday but owing to his indisposition he was not able to do so. The statement, including the correspondence which has passed between the Prime Minister and the Great War Veterans' Association is as follows:
The Great War Veterans' Association, Citizen Building,
Ottawa, August 23rd, 1919. The Right Honourable Sir Robert L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.,
Sir,-I am instructed to request the early consideration by your Government of the resolution advanced by the Annual Convention of this Association, advocating the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission to determine the possibilities of a bonus re-establishment scheme.
The decision of the Government in this matter is being awaited with keen interest by returned soldiers.
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) C. G. MacNeil, Dominion Secretary-Treasurer,
G.W.V.A. of Canada.
The resolution inclosed is as follows:
The Great War Veterans' Association of Canada, Inc.
Dominion Convention, Vancouver, B.C., June 30th to July 5th, 1919.
Resolution No. 3.
Whereas it is due to the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, and imperative in the national interest that effective means should be promptly found for the re-establishment of the soldier and his assimilation into the civil life of the country;
And whereas it is essential that such reestablishment should be accomplished in such™a
[iMr. Doherty.]
manner as to place the soldier as nearly as-possible on an equal footing with those whose-business or professional career or other earning, power has not been interrupted by Military Service, and so that he may be adequately rehabilitated in civil life and the better enabled to bear his share of the immense burden of taxation which the War has placed upon the country;
And whereas it is desirable that such reestablishment should be accomplished with a minimum of administrative cost, so that the soldier may receive the maximum of benefit from the money expended and the burden to the country may not be unduly increased;
And whereas, in view of the serious unemployment problem that faces the country in the immediate future, to accomplish these objects in. a manner equitable to every individual citizen, under the varying conditions of this vast Dominion the most satisfactory system is one of. gratuity payments:
Be it therefore resolved that the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada in annual convention assembled this second day of July, 1919,. urge upon the Government of Canada the necessity of the immediate adoption of a system of bonus payments as the most satisfactory and. effective means of re-establishing the soldiers ;
And be it further resolved: that after careful thought and full consideration, we are of opinion that the granting of such bonus upon an equality basis be limited only by the Country's ability to pay, so as to enable the beneficiary to become efficient-re-established with, security and happiness. The classification of beneficiaries, the method of distribution and administration to be agreed and decided upon by a joint Parliamentary and G.W.V.A. Commission.
And that this bonus should be in addition to-any gratuity or pension for disability resulting: from service; And that in the case of members-of the Expeditionary Forces whose death occurred whilst in the service or after their discharge therefrom, such bonus shall be paid to* their dependents;
All of the benefits contained in this resolution.-shall apply to those resident in Canada prior to-4th August, 1914, who served in the Imperial Forces, and are now, or may be at any future? date domiciled in Canada.
The reply of the Prime Minister reads:
Prime Minister's Office.
Ottawa, Ont., August 27, 1919.
Dear Mr. MacNeil:-
Your letter of the 23rd instant is before me.. The Government has given very careful and attentive consideration to the resolution of the-Great War Veterans' Association, passed on the-2nd day of July last, which urges upon the Government the immediate adoption of a system of bonus payments as the most satisfactory :<nd= effective means of re-establishing the soldiers-
The gratuity which was provided by the Order in Council of December last is more liberal, I believe, than that granted in any other country. Its purpose as disclosed by the provisions*

respecting payment was to give generous assistance during the period in which soldiers were re-establishing themselves in civil life.
The announcement then made on behalf of the Great War Veterans' Association expressed the greatest satisfaction with the gratuity and went so far as to say that the allowance was even more generous than had been anticipate!
Apart from all this, however, the financial situation of the country is such as to preclude the Government from entertaining any proposal for a larger or further gratuity or bonus. The payments under the Order in Council of December last will run into at least $130,000,000. In addition the expenditure under the provisions of the Land Settlement Act will probably amount to at least $125,000,000, or $130,000,000. Besides this there will be a heavy annual expenditure for some years by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment in hospital treatment, vocational training, etc.
In the Budget speech delivered by Sir Thomas White on 5th June last, copy of which is sent for your information, it was pointed out that the interest on the national debt for the coming fiscal year will amount to $115,000,000, and that for a generation or more we must look forward to providing annually from 35 to 40 million dollars for pensions. In addition to this there is the ordinary expenditure required for the administration of public affairs, which usually amounts to $125,000,000, or more.
In addition, inevitable deficits in the operation of our railways and capital expenditure for the most modest extension of railway facilities will run into many millions every year. The country is face to face with a very serious financial situation which will call for rigid economy and careful retrenchment.
I hope that the officers and members of your association will realize that my colleagues and I much regret that the financial condition of the country has obliged us to reach the conclusion which I have indicated. You may be assured that it does not result from any lack of appreciation of the notable and glorious services which the soldiers of Canada have given in the war now victoriously concluded.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
C. G. MacNeill, Esq.,
Dominion Secretary Treasurer,,
G.W.V.A. of Canada,
P.O. Box 3S4, OttawTa.
To this the Great War Veterans' Association replied:
The Great War Veterans' Association, Citizen Building,
Ottawa, September 3, 1919. The Right Honourable Sir Robert L. Borden, Premier of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir,-After full consideration of your remarks of recent date, the Dominion Executive Committee of this Association would respectfully
request the appointment of a Royal Commission. three members of which shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council upon the recommendation of the Great War Veterans' Association, to inquire into the whole question of the re-establishment of former members of the forces and advise as to the steps that are still necessary for their efficient and economical reinstatement into civil life.
I would add that the three representatives, named by this association have been summoned to Ottawa and are now available should this request of the association be granted by your Government.
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd). C. G. MacNeil,
Dominion Secretary-Treasurer G.W.V.A. of
Canada.
The Prime Minister replied as follows: Ottawa, Ont., September 5, 1919. Dear Mr. MacNeil,-
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 3rd instant.
After my interview with the Executive of the Great War Veterans' Association on Saturday last, I discussed the whole subject with my colleagues with the result that we still feel ourselves bound to adhere to the conclusions expressed in. my letter of the 27th August last.
The facts which in the opinion ofrthe Government control our action in the matter are available and can be verified without the appointment of either a Committee of the House of Commons or of a Royal Commission. You will realize, I hope, that it would be undesirable to establish a Commission or appoint a Committee to inquire into facts which are within the knowledge of members of the Government. We are quite ready, however, to place all available information on the-subject at the disposal of a committee to be named by your association. If such a committee is designated to me I will see that it is put in touch with accredited representatives of the Department of Finance, the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment and the Department of the Interior, w'hich are those chiefly concerned with the matters in question.
I trust that this suggestion may commend itself fo the judgment of the Executive Committee.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. BORDEN.
C. G. MacNeil, Esq.,
Secretary Treasurer G.W.V.A.,
Ottawa.
Then follow a number of statements, tables, etc., which have been compiled by and furnished me by the departments concerned. The first is a comparative statement of War Service Gratuity in equivalent of Canadian currency paid by different countries based on three years' service for rank
[Stage Direction]
of private, compiled from information at present available:
complied from all information which is at present available.
-	-	Service Overseas.	Service at home.
		§82.73	$53.53
Australia	
New Zealand...	Married, $114.15 Single, 98.62 [DOT] Married, $54.55 plus §7.00 for each child	United States...	under 16. Single, 34.09 §60 and some additional states	are givingadditional grant of	$10.00 per	month fortwelve months.	$600.00	$300.09Single	420.00	210.00
Then we have a more detailed comparative statement, giving the amount of the gratuities awarded, depending upon the years of service. It would save the time of the House if, with the consent of the House, this statement might be extended on Hansard. If there is any objection I shall be glad to read it.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is most unusual that documents should go upon Hansard without having been read, but as I take it that this is of the utmost importance, with the unanimous consent of the House the rule might be waived in this instance.
The House gave unanimous consent.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Single	 210.00
Married

 300.00
Service in Canada only-
3 years or over	Single	 210.00
Married____ 300.00
2 years and under 3 years-
Single	 140.00
Married

 200.00
1 year and under 2 years-
Single....	70.00
*	[DOT]	Married

	100.00

MARRIEO	SINGLE
$600.00	$420 00

Next is a statement by the Dominion Secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, as published in the Ottawa Citizen of December 30, 1918. The extract follows:
Generous usage returning men receives praise.
The Dominion Secretary of G.W.V.A. says
Gratuity Order will give every soldier a splendid chance.
Mr. R. M. Stewart, Dominion Secretary-Treasurer of the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada, when asked for his opinion of the War Service Gratuity authorized by Order in Council P.C. 3165, made the following statement:	.
" X consider the Government is to be congratulated upon having taken such generous action, which means that the men of the returning army will be placed in an independent position for a sufficient length of time after their discharge to enable them to find the employment for which they are most suited, and which is most suitable to them.
"A married man, or a man with dependents, will be In receipt of an income of not less than $100 per month for a period of six, five, four or three months after his discharge according to the length of his service.'
"A single, man will be in receipt of an income of not less than $70 per month for a period of six, five, four or three months after hie discharge according to th'e length of his service.
"Men already discharged, who have seen service in an actual theatre of war, also benefit fully by the provisions of the Order in Council.
"Therefore, without taking into account the considerable balance of deferred pay which a majority of the returning men have to their credit, it can safely be said that no returned soldier, who is willing and able to work, will suffer any hardship whatever upon his. return to Canada. He will not be a suppliant for labour, forced to accept unsuitable employment at low wages in order to ward off privation. He Will be able to choose employment where the remuneration will be commensurate with his ability and the services he performs.
"In this matter Canada has treated her soldiers and sailors more generously than any other nation, and no one can complain of unfairness.
"The allowance is in fact much more generous than we ever anticipated it would be."
May I now draw attention to the further steps Canada has taken to reestablish the returned soldier in civil life.
1.	In addition to the grants which the Government has made by way of War Service Gratuity to assist returned soldiers the
Government has already accepted full re

sponsibility for:-
(a)	Providing pensions for the widows' and dependents of the gallant men who have given their lives for their country.
(b)	Providing pensions, according to the degree of their disability, for the men who have been wholly or partially disabled in the service of their country.
(c)	The retraining of those who have been wholly or partially disabled from engaging in their former occupation, so as to fit them for useful employment in some new occupation.
(d)	Assisting the returned soldier, when demobilized, to secure suitable and useful employment.
(e)	Appropriate and adequate provision to enable returned soldiers who desire to do so, and who possess the necessary qualifications, to settle upon the land.
2.	Legislation was passed last session dealing with the matters enumerated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) namely, pensions and soldiers' land settlement, and a Bill dealing with the work of the reestablishment of our soldiers in civil life and covering the matters enumerated in paragraphs (c) and (d) has already been introduced into the Senate. As, however, the Senate has adjourned till the 22nd of September, and as it is hoped that this session will be a short one, the Government has decided to introduce this Bill into the House of Commons at once, so that there may be ample opportunity to give full consideration to the matters covered by the Bill, and notice of its introduction appears on the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday. When the Bill reaches the committee stage it is the intention of the Government to move a reference of the Bill to a special committee of the House for consideration, as was done last session with the Pension Bill.
3.	I now beg to submit to the House certain comparative statements showing the provision made by Canada, other portions of the Empire, and certain allied and other Governments, for pensions, the reestablishment of the soldier into civil life, and Land Settlement.



BOARD OP PENSION COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
Country.
Widow only.
'Canada	
United Kingdom
New Zealand....
Australia__________
South Africa	
[DOT][DOT]United States..
France	
Italy	
Germany	 * *
$ cts. 576 00 253 06 379 60 253 06 253 06 300 00 160 00 121 66 96 35
Widow and 1 Child.	Widow and 2 Children.
S cts.	$ cts.
756 00	876 00
464 01	558 91
632 66	759 19
379 60	474 50
347 96	432 31
420 00	510 00
220 00	280 00
121 66	121 66
136 74	177 13
Widow and 3 Children.	Add for each Subsequent Child.
S cts.	$ cts.
972 00	96 00
634 74	75 92
885 72	126 53
537 75	63 26
506 12	63 26
570 00	
340 00	60 00
131 39	9 73
217 52	40 39
The rates for Canada include a bonus for one year to take effect September 1st, 1919.
* No account has been taken of benefits accrued from voluntary insurance A.B. 3-25. 11-9-19.
It will be observecHhat the figures for the United States in the above statement do not include insurance provision.
Mr. MeMASTER: In order to make a fair comparison, can the minister tell us just What would be the annual value of the insurance provision which the United States makes for its soldiers?
Newton Wesley Rowell: It is difficult to do that. We had that matter before the Pension Committee at the last session of the House, and my hon. friend will find reference to it in the evidence given before that committee. The insurance was paid for by the soldiers themselves, the cost being deducted from their pay; but they got the insurance at actual cost, that is, there was no loading for other purposes.
Mr. MeMASTER: I think the minister has failed to grasp the meaning of my question. The minister is giving us a comparison of the benefits accruing to widows with and without children as between Canada and the United States, and he stated a moment ago that in addition to the pension benefits given directly by the United States Government, there was an insurance provision. Now, can he tell us what would be the annual value of that insurance provision, because without it we cannot make a correct comparison?


Newton Wesley Rowell: One cannot make an absolute comparison, and therefore I have stated with respect to the United States that there is an insurance provision, but that all the insurance that .the soldiers get in the United States is paid for out of their own income.
The next statement is a comparative scale of pensions awarded to privates total'y disabled:



BOARD OF PENSION COMM USSIONERS FOR CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
Germany.
Country.	Pensioner only.	Pensioner and Wife.	Pensioner Wife and 1 Child.	Pensioner Wife and 2 Children.	Pensioner Wife and 3 Children	Add for 9ach subsequent Child.	Allowance for Helplessness.Canada	
United Kingdom	
New Zealand	
Australia	
South Africa	
[DOT][DOT]United States	
France	
Italy	$ cts. 720 00 506 13 506 13 379 60 379 60 365 00 480 00 243 33	$ cts. 9C0 00 632 06 759 20 569 40 506 13 547 50 480 00 291 99	$ cts. 1,044 00 727 56 885 73 695 93 601 12 669 16 540 00 318 75	$ cts. 1,164 00 803 48 1,012 26 790 74 685 36 790 82 600 00 345 51	$ cts. 1,260 00 879 42 1,138 80 854 01 759 20 912 48 660 00 372 27	$ cts. 96 00 75 92 126 53 63 26 63 26 Nil. 60 00 26 76	S cts. 450 00 253 06 253 06 126 53 442 86
From $175.20 to $316.33, according to nature of disablement.
From January 1st, 1919, the pension has been increased from 50% to 100%, according to nature of disablement.	s
* The rates for Canada include a bonus for one year to take effect September 1. 1919. [DOT][DOT]No account has been taken of benefits accrued from voluntary ^insurance.
I also have a comparative statement giving the details of the disability scale, and with the consent of the House I think it might be placed "upon Hansard in view of the importance of the information to the members of the House.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the House concede - its unanimous consent to this document being incorporated in Hansard?
The House gave unanimous consent.



BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
Per cent of Disability.	Country.	Pen- sioner	Pen- sioner and Wife.	Pensioner wife and 1 child.	Pensioner wife and 2 children.	Pensioner wife and 3 children.	\dd for each subs, child.	Allow- ance for help- essness.	Allowance for other Dependents.$ 720 00 506 13	$ 900 00	$ 1,044 00 727 56	$ 1,164 0*0	$ 1,260 00	S 96 00	$ 450 00	Unmarried men may632 66	803 48	879 42	75 92	253 06	be allowed up to $576.00 to support a dependent parent.506 13	759 20	885 73	1,012 26	1,138 80	126 53	253 06	The amount of pre-100%	379 60	569 40	695 93	790 74	854 01	63 26	126 53	enlistment dependency. A pension or pensions379 60	506 13	601 12	V 685 36	759 20	63 26	442 86	at such rate as may be assessed in any one case not exceeding $253.06.576 00	720 00	840 00	936 00	1,020 00	84 00	404 89	506 13	582 05	642 78	703 52	60 74	80%	404 91	607 35	708 58	809 80	911 02	101 22	[DOT]Partial Disability rates are	**	determined by the Pensions	Board having regard to the nature and probable duration .of the incapacity.	432 00	540 00	636 00	708 00	780 00	72 00	303 67	379 60	436 54	482 09	527 64	45 55	[DOT][DOT]Partial	Disability awards303 68	455 51	531 43	607 35	683 27	75 92	and allowances are calculated	60%	on the Imperial Basis, the	**	maximum disablement pen-	sion being $397.08 and the maximum children's allow-	360 00	450 00	534 00	594 00	654 00	60 00	253 06	316 33	363 78	401 74	439 70	37 96	ances being as above instead	253 06	379 59	442 86	506 13	569 39	63 26	of Imperial rates.	50%	*	**	288 00	360 00	432 00	480 00	528 00	48 00	202 45	253 06	291 02	321 3 S	351 76	30 37	202 45	303 68	354 29	404 9C	455 51	50 61	40%	**	144 00	180 00	216 00	240 00	264 00	24 00	[DOT][DOT][DOT]Disability cases are divided	101 22	126 53	145 51	160 7C	175 88	15 18	into 20 classes, the percent-	101 22	151 84	177 U	202 45	227 76	25 31	age of	disability increasing20%	*	by 5; o with the next highest	**	class.	Example:- Class 20- 5% to 9% Class 19-10% to 14% , Class 18-15% to 19% Class 17-20% to 24%

[Stage Direction]
CANADA	For a permanent disability of less than 5 per cent of total disability a
gratuity not exceeding $100.00.
UNITED KINGDOM For disablement less than 20 per cent of total, a gratuity not to exceed $973.32.
NEW ZEALAND These cases are dealt with specially.
AUSTRALIA	These cases are dealt with	specially.
SOUTH AFRICA	On Imperial basis.

[Stage Direction]
CANADA	No alternative pensions.
UNITED KINGDOM A pension based on his pre-war earnings and present earning capacity but not to exceed $1,265.33. The rate of such pension to be determined yearly from the Board of Trade figures of the cost of living.
NEW ZEALAND No alternative pension but to maintain a man and his dependents in accordance with their pre-war standard of comfort, his pension may be increased by $252.72 but total payable in respect of man not to exceed $1,265.33.
AUSTRALIA	No alternative pensions.
SOUTH AFRICA A pension on same principle as Royal Warrant, which would allow a maximum of $252.72. If man is permanently bedridden, or incapable of earning-an additional $189.80 may be granted.
Note:___The rates for Canada include a bonus for one year to take effect September 1st, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Pensioner.	United Kingdom.	Canada.	New Zealand.	South Africa.	Australia.Widow	$253 06 464 01	$ 576 00 756 00	$ 379 60 632 66	S 253 06 347 96	$ 253 06 379 60558 91	876 00	759 19	432 31	474 50634 74	972 00	885 72	537 76 [DOT]75 92	96 00	128 53	63 26	63 20Orphans.	151 83	360 00	189 80	Imperial Basis.	126.53 for 1 orphan up to 10 years. 158.18 for 1 orphan from 10 to 14 years. 189.80 for 1 orphan from 14 to 16 years.290 68 43 J 20	600 00	379 60 569 40	3 orphans	792 00	« <«	Each additional orphan	139 18	192 00	189 80	« u	N


[Stage Direction]
Dependency Pension up to $227.76 which may amount to $455.00 when dependence was on two or more sons who have fallen, or, need pension up to $227.76, or, flat rate pension of $62.92 which may amount to $189.80 where three sons have fallen.
A pension graded according to degree of dependency or need and which may amount up to $576.00 if there are no other dependents. Widowed mother of unmarried son $253.06. To other parents such rates as may he assessed by the Pension Board, not exceeding in any one case $253.06.
Widowed mother $189.80 to $379.60 according to dependence. To other dependent parents the amount of pre-enlistment dependency. To parents in need, such pension as the Board thinks fit.
Generally on the Imperial Basis, but may be granted up to $347.96 under the Defence Act.

[Stage Direction]
UNITED KINGDOM (1) Incapable of self support and in need up to $174.02 and bonu^.
(2) Not otherwise entitled, a gratuity not exceeding a year's pay of deceased soldier.	,
Unmarried wife-$126.36 per annum with children's allowance as per table.
Unmarried wife-In certain circumstances to be granted a widow's pension and allowances.
Dependent Brothers and Sisters-If no widow or children up to the same rates as children.
Unmarried wife-In certain circumstances to be granted a widow's pension. Others-Such rates as may be assessed by the Pensions Board, not exceeding in any one case $253.06.
Unmarried wife-No special provision, but may receive $253.06 whilst caring for man's children, with children's allowances. If dependent and in need she might also be granted a pension.
Others-The amount of pre-enlistment dependency.
Unmarried wife-On the Imperial basis.
Others-On the Imperial basis.


[Stage Direction]
Note:-The pensions to widows, motherless children, and dependents may be substantially increased under the Union of South Africa Defence Act, 1919.
Note:-The rates for Canada include a bonus for one year to take effect September 1st, 1919.
Newton Wesley Rowell: The next comparative statement I have relates to training allowances paid by the different countries to returned discharged soldiers being trained for civilian occupation. It is a rather lengthy statement and I should be glad if
the House would consent to have it incor porated in Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take it that the House will grant its unanimous consent in this case also.
The House gave unanimous consent.

Training Allowances paid by different countries to returned discharged soldiers being trained by them for occupations.



CANADIAN.

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a government institution.60 00	0 00	30 0085 00	101 00	71 0095 00	111 00	81 00103 00	119 00	89 00110 00	126 00	96 00T	116 00	132 00	102 00122 00	138 00	108 00Single man-dependent narent and 6 brothers or sisters	128 00	144 00	114 00
$6 per child, each child in excess of six.

[Stage Direction]
-	By Ministry of Labour.	By Royal Pensions Warrant.	When living at home	When living away from home	When living in a Gov't institution.	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a gov't institution.Single Man-No dependents	
Dependent parent	
" and 1 brother or sister. and 2 brothers or sisters. 3	" 4	" 5	" [DOT] 6 "	34 41 34 41	34 41 41 70 to 52 66	No provisions.	41 71 41 71	41 71 54 22	23 46 35 97
1.	Regulations do not provide for the payment of allowances inrespect of children of a dependent parent. 2.	The above allowances are paid in addition to pension.			1.	Regulations do not provide for the payment of allowances in respect of children of a dependent parent. 2.	The above allowances include pension. A bonus payment of 5/ ($1.21) per week is payable at end of course.

[Stage Direction]
- .	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a gov't institution.43 80	No	No62 56	provisions.	provisions.66 21	69 86	"	"73 51	"	M4 " " 	77 16	"	"80 81	"	[DOT] «6 " " 	"	1.	The allowance of $80.81 is the maximum and is payable in cases-where there are five or more brothers or sisters.2.	The above amounts are inclusive of pension.	.	,	[DOT]	.	„	,3.	Men undergoing training in Industries, except apprentices, are not paid the above rates, but are given allowances by the Government which will bring up the amount earned by the trainee to the minimum journeyman's rate for the District, exclusive
° pe4ns^pprenticeg who have resumed their indentures are not paid above rates but receive allowances which, with pension and amount earned, will equal the wage they would have earned had apprenticeship not been interrupted.

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a government institution...$43.80 to $62.66	% [DOT] No, provisions.	No provisions.
4 " " 				
			
6 " " 				
1.	No special allowances for dependent parents and brothers or sisters appear in regulations, but it is expected that each
case is treated on its merits.	1 r*	[DOT] ,	, [DOT]_
2.	Men receiving training in Technical schools and students receiving training in Professional or Commercial occupations, receive the lower rate inclusive of pension. Apprentices who have resumed their indentures receive the higher rate inclusive of pension. Approved trainees in private workshops receive the higher rate but exclusive of pension. In all cases payments by employers are deducted.
[Stage Direction]
UNITED STATES.			
-	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in government institution.
Single man-no dependents		$65.00 75.00 NTn nrnTriomr		
Single man-dependent parent				
Single man-dependent parent and 1 brother or sister				
Single man-dependent parent and 2 brothers or sisters,.		allowances in respect to brothers and sisters or orphan brothers and sisters.		
Single man-dependent parent and 3 brot hers or sisters				
			
Single man-dependent parent and 5 brothers or sisters				
Single man-dependent parent and 6 brothers or sisters

[Stage Direction]
Single man-1 orphan brother or sister. 2	"	"3	"	"4	u	u5	"	"	.6	"	"Married Man and Wife	Married Man and Wife-1 child	2	children....3	"	....4	"	5	"	6	"	7	"	8	"	
When living at home.
$80 00 88 00 95 00 101 00 107 00 113 00 85 00 95 00 103 00 110 00 116 00 122 00 128 00 [DOT] 134 00 140 00
When living away from home.
When living in
institution.
[Stage Direction]
$88 00 96 00 103 00 * 109 00 115 00 121 00 101 00 111 00 119 00 126 00 132 00 138 00 144 00 150 00 156 00
$6.00 per month each child in excess of these numbers.

[Stage Direction]
-	By Ministry of Labour.	By Royal Pensions Warrant.	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Govern- ment Institution.	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Govern- ment Institution.Single Man-1 orphan brother or sister	
2	orphan brothers or sisters	
3	
4	:	
5	*	
6	
Man and Wife	
and 1 child	
2	children	
3	" 	
4	" 	
5	" 	
6	" 	
7	" 	
8	" 	No special f appear ir is statec depender with a d< merits o 34.41 40.67 43.80 46.93 50.06 53.19 56.32 59.45 62.58	rovisions for the new Bri a single ma t, payments ipendent pare individual c 52.66 58.92 62.05 65.18 68.31 71.44 74.57 77.70 80.83	payments ir tish regulatic n shall not will be mad nt or as in the ases. d .2 is >
o g o. o £	respect of ns, but it is i>e paid allov either as in case of a mai 52.14 59.95 66.20 72.47 78.72 84.97 91.22 97.47 103.72	rphan broth expected that ranees for m the case of ried man acc 64.65 72.46 78.71 84.98 91.23 97.48 103.73 109.98 116.23	ers or sisters , although it ?re than one a single man ording to the 46.40 54.21 60.46 66.73 72.98 79.23 85.48 91.73 97.98The above allowances are paid in addi tion to pension.	-The above allowances include pension, A bonus payment of 5- ($1.21) per * week is payable at end of course.	
[The Speaker.]

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Government Institution.
			
			
	Special provisions made by the Commission according to the circumstances of individual cases.		
			
			
	$62 56 66 21 69 86 73 51 77 16 80 81	No provisions.	No provisions.
0			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
1. The allowance of $80.81 is the maximam and is payable in all cases where there are five or more children.
§; Men undergoin^trafning infndisufe^exce™' apprentices, are not paid the above rates, but,ire government which will bring the amount earned by the trainee to the minimum journeyman s rate for the District, exclusive
of Pen®lon^ tices who have resumed their indentures are not paid above rates but receive allowances which, with pension and amount earned, will equal the wage they would have earned had apprenticeship not been interrupted.

[Stage Direction]
Whei\ living at home.	When living away from home.
	
Single man-1 orphan brother or sister
When living in a
government
institution.
2 " brothers or sisters	No special allov	nances appear	in the regula-1 .. ** 	:::::::::::::::::	tions, but it is expected that each case	i - " :::::::	(	will be dealt with on its merits.	6 " " 	J	554 22 to $62 56]	57 87 to 62 56	61 52 to 62 56	65 17	No	No68 82	provisions.	provisions.
-	
1 The allowance of $68.82 is the maximum anil is paid in cases where there are four or more children.
2	Men receiving training in Technical Schools, and students receiving training in Professional or Commencal occupations receive the lower rate inclusive of pension. Apprentices who have resumed their indentures receive the higher rate inclusive uonb reuuve iuc^ .	..i l _______$ *1-	norKinn In all cases payments by
of pension. ^ Approved trainees in private workshops receive the higher rate exclusive of pension, employers are deducted.

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Gov't institution.No provision yet made for paying allowances in respect of brothers and sisters or orphan brothers and sisters.	$75 00 80 00 97 50	$95 00 105 00 112 50	
112 50	117 50	
	117 50	122 50	
	122 50	127 50	
6 " 		125 00	130 00	
No allowances for more than six children.

[Stage Direction]
When living with dependents.	When living away from dependents.	When living in an institution.
Witiower with 1 child				7 rrr nn
2 children		88 00 95 00		
3 " 	 				
4 " 	 				
5 " 				
6 "[DOT] 				
7 " 				
8 " 	 '"	125 00	133 00	103 00

[Stage Direction]
By Ministry of Labour.			By Royal Pensions Warrant.		
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Government Institution.	When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Government Institution.Widower-1 child	
2	children	
3	" 	
4	" 	
5	" 	
6	" 	(No provisions [ t ions,, but to a marr	for paying sp it is expected ied man, will 1	ecial allowances that the ailowanc )e paid according	X) widowers ap es paid to a m to the merits	pear in the new an with a depc of individual c	British regula-ndent parent, or ises.

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in a Government Institution.Widower-1 child	$66.21 69.86 73.51 77.16 80.81	No Provisions	.No provisions.2 children	3 " 	4 " 	'5 " 	6 " 	
2.
3.
Ar ,>;uculaAUUUui auu is pastime m cases wnere tnere are live or more children, l he above amounts are inclusive of pension.
«}. Men undergoing training in industries, except apprentices, are not paid the above rates, but are given allowances bv the of°peoisioneirk W^1C^ W1 kraing up the amount earned by the trainee to the minimum journeyman's rate for the district, exclusive
4. Apprentices who have resumed their indentures are not paid above rates, but receive allowances which, with pension and amount earned, will equal the wage they would have earned had apprenticeship not been interrupted.

[Stage Direction]
When living at home.	When living * away from home.	When living in a Government Institution.Widower-1 child	$57 87 to 62 56 61 52 to 62 56 65 17 68 82	No provisions... « tt	No provisions.2 children	3 " 	4 " 	:	5 " 	6 " 	1.	The allowance of 168.82 is the maximum and is payable in cases where there are four or more children2.	Men receiving training m Technical schools, and students, receiving training in Professional or Commercial occupations receive the lower rate inclusive of pension. Apprentices who have resumed their indentures receive the higher rate inclusive em ar^de'ductecT'^tralnees m pnvate workshops receive the higher rate exclusive of pension. In all cases payments by employ-

[Stage Direction]
Widower with 1 child ..
2	children
3	„
5	„
6	„	,7	„	,8	„	.
The next statement isi a comparative table of the provisions made by the different governments for the re-settlement of

When living at home.	When living away from home.	When living in an ^institution.s	$	No provi-75 00	85 00	sions.75 00	92 60	SO 00	100 00	90 00	110 00	95 00	115 00	100 00	120 00	105 00	125 00	110 00	130 00	ii
soldiers upon the land. I think that hon. members will be better able to follow it if it is placed upon Hansard.

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Land Legislation in English Speaking Countries.
The salient features in connection with the Soldier Land Settlement Legislation in English speaking countries are outlined below.
Great Britain.
The Mother Country proposes to make available certain tracts of farm land and the Board of Agriculture has been empowered to spend $100,000,000 in- settling returned soldiers. The board has authority to purchase 60,000 acres in England and 20,000 acres in Scotland. F'our small colonies totalling 6,000 aicres have been established. The settlement is following largely the plan of colonies divided into small farms with a central demonstration farm which will supply instructors for the settlers in the colony and where implements for working the land will be available.
An educational qualification is exacted. The British scheme is designed to settle all ranks providing they are of suitable educational promise.
A limited number of scholarships and allowances, varying up to $875 a year are provided for agricultural training. A man who has been a life-long agriculturist is required to put in at least one season on probation before the board will settle him in a colony. A longer period for less experienced settlers is provided.
The plan does not contemplate extensive credit to the occupiers of land in soldier colonies. A co-operative credit bank is to be established in partnership with the state and will extend credit for the purchase of stock and equipment.
It may be remarked that the difficulty over subdivision of estates in the United Kingdom will make this colony plan difficult to put into operation extensively.
Australia.
The Commonwealth of Australia grants no free land. It leases its Crown Lands and as well acquires privately owned lands and leases them to soldier settlers at a small annual rental.
Advances up to a maximum of $2,500 are made to settlers. There is some discussion now as to the adequacy of this amount, and it is likely to be raised to $3,750. Loans for permanent improvements extend over twenty-five years; loans for stock and equipment from three to six years. The general line of policy adopted by the Commonwealth may be summarized in the following terms: " The land will not be given away but will be made available on easy terms. Every acre of land will eventually have to be bought and every sum advanced to effect improvements or to be used as working capital will have to be repaid. The idea is not to start off as land proprietors but to provide the means of earning a comfortable living and ultimately owning a farm." It should be stated that the states furnish the land and the Commonwealth loans the money to the states to .be in turn loaned to the soldiers. ^
As in Canada, each applicant is required to demonstrate his fitness and aptitude for farm life and those who require further training will be given this at Training Farms established in the different states, and allowances will be paid for sustenance during the period of training.
It is estimated that the sum of $200,000,000 will be required for the establishment of soldier settlers in Australia.
There are several forms of land tenure. In New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland, no free-hold title is given. The settler pays a rental of about one and one-half per cent of the value of the land and receives a perpetual lease which is inheritable. At periods varying from 19 to 35 years the land is revalued. The Soldier Settlement policy .of the Commonwealth and of the states is a modification of the general settlement policy which has been in active operation there for many years.
Union of South Africa.
There is no special provision by Government authority in South Africa for soldier settlers as distinct from civilian settlers. Under the Land Settlement Act of 1912, amended by the Act of 1917, Crown Land is made available for settlers in South Africa and leased usually for five years_ with an option of purchasing at the price fixed when the lease is made. No rent is payable during the first year; 2 per cent of the value of the land for the second and third years; 3il per cent the fourth and fifth years. If the lease is renewed at the end of five years, 4 per cent per annum is charged as a rent. The purchase price of the holding may be paid at any time providing that all conditions of the lease have been complied with; but, notwithstanding such payment, the settler is not entitled to obtain transfer of his holding into his name until after a period of ten years from the commencement of the lease.
Settlers holding leases may obtain assistance in the way of an advance of $1,250
[Stage Direction]
for stock, implements and other equipment. These advances are repayable within five years, interest being at the rate of 41 per cent. To successful applicants, without capital, monthly advances not exceeding $25 for purchasing foodstuffs and other necessaries pending the reaping of a crop are provided by the Government.
Provision is made for the purchase of private land selected by the settler up to $7,500, the settler paying one-fifth of the purchase price. The cost of the transfer is borne by the settler and interest at the rate of 4 per cent is charged. Repayments are spread over 18 years in equal half-yearly payments, the first payment being due at the commencement of the third year.
In Southern Rhodesia the British South Africa Company offers 500,000 acres free to returned soldiers and sailors. The holdings, depending on the fertility of the soil and local conditions, average between 1,500 and 2,000 acres. It is necessary that the settler should be equipped with capital of not less than $5,000 in addition to sufficient money to maintain his family, until his land is producing. Leading farmers have expressed a willingness to take soldier settlers as pupils on payment by the applicant of $25 a month for board and lodging. No wages are paid.
It is provided that the applicants must be British subjects of European descent from overseas, men who were not at the outbreak of war domiciled in South Africa. This policy is with a view to bringing in settlers from Britain and not to settle the soldiers of the colony.
United States.
The American Republic is making provision for the reclamation of large areas of swamp lands. Returned soldiers will be given employment on these reclamation schemes and will be allowed to select farms on which they desire to settle.
The Government proposes with the aid of the soldier labourer to create farms, build houses, barns and fences, and get the land under cultivation. Up to date, however, only preliminary survey work has been done and before she can develop adequate schemes, it will be necessary for Congress to pass enabling legislation. The soldier settler will be charged 4 per cent interest on the actual cost of the farm and for stock and equipment the payments will be spread over a long term.
New Zealand.
Land for discharged soldiers is divided into two classes:

(a)	For general farming and sheep runs.
(b)	Small holdings near cities and towns for disabled soldiers.
The Discharged Soldier Settlement Act, 1915, empowered the Governor in Council to set apart areas of Crown land for the purposes of the Act, and in the new Act of 1916 the Government is empowered to compulsorily purchase land required for soldier settlers.
Financial assistance to the soldier settler may take the form of clearing, fencing, draining, erecting buildings, purchase of implements, stock, seeds, plants, trees, and other farm equipment. The new settlers get the land at cost and financial assistance to equip is given to those requiring it up to $2,500, in most cases, but in special cases $3,750.
Lands leased or sold to discharged soldiers are not transferable until ten years after lease or sale.
Five per cent interest is charged. Advances for improvements are made up to seventy-five per cent of the value of the work done.
Canada.
The Canadian Soldier Settlement enlarged scheme has been in operation for several months. The Soldier Settlement Board has been operating under Orders in Council which have been consolidated by the new Act just passed by Parliament. The main feature-of the legislation is the j>ower granted to the Soldier Settlement Board to loan soldier settlers up to-$7,500 for the purchase of land in any province, for the equipment of farms and for permanent improvements. The board may purchase a farm up to the value of $5,000 and resell it to a veteran of fhe war Dossessing the necessary qualifications on his paying 10 per cent cash down. The balance of $4,500 is repayable in twenty-five years. The loan for $2,000 for equipment is repayable in four equal annual instalments, beginning the third year, and no interest is charged the first two year's. The $1,000 loan for improvements is repayable in twenty-five years. All these loans bear an interest rate of 5 per cent and the payments are on the amortization plan. The board may also loan to soldier settlers occupying Dominion lands up to $3,000 for equipment and improvements, and to settlers who already own land up to $3,500 for the removal of any incumbrances; also $2,000 for live stock and equipment and $1,000 for improvements, but the total loan to such settler may not exceed $5,000.
[Stage Direction]
On the purchase of land a cash down payment of 10 per cent is required except in special cases to be determined by the hoard. In regard to Imperial forces and those of the Dominions, except Canada, the board will require a cash down payment of twenty-five per cent of the cost of the land. The interest and other financial terms are the same to all.
A discharged soldier who does not purchase land from the board is entitled to 160 acres of Crown land in addition to 160 acres which he may obtain as a civilian provided he has not already exhausted his homestead rights.
The board has power to provide agricultural training for inexperienced, but otherwise qualified men, and will pay allowances up to $55 a month for the sustenance of himself and his dependents, the amount to be dependent upon the number of children.
The board has secured specially favourable prices on farm requirements, and purchases live stock of good quality for resale to soldier settlers at cost price.
This is briefly what the Land Settlement Scheme means to the returned soldier. These privileges are extended to all Canadian, Imperial and colonial forces who served outside the country in which they enlisted, and to residents of Canada before the war who served in Allied forces. The . widows of all such persons who died on active service are also included, as well as members of the Royal Flying Corps, who may have been detained in England, but on account of the nature of their work were considered to be in an actual theatre of war. A member of the C.E.F., who, on account of inj ury sustained while on service for which he is receiving a pension, is also eligible to participate.
General Observations.
It is well to note that Great Britain had experience in the subdivision of estates in Ireland and settling thereon the tenants as owners. Australia and New Zealand had land settlement schemes which had been in operation for years. They grappled with a question which was not new. They had but to draw from their experience in modifying their settlement schemes to meet the situation occasioned by the return of thousands of men from the war.
Centuries ago Great Britain exhausted her Crown lands which were available for settlement without considerable development work. The beginning of this century found South Africa, Australia and New Zealand in the position of having very few tracts of Crown lands upon which settlement could be made without the necessity of clearing, irrigating, draining or costly railway extensions. Canada was in a different position.
At the beginning of the century the need of Government purchase and subdivision of land to attract settlers was not as evident in Canada as in the countries mentioned.
To-day, however, available lands which can readily be settled have largely passed from the Crown and it has been necessary, therefore, to inaugurate an entirely new policy which has for its object the making of lands available for, settlement.
Soldier Settlement Board Operations (Canada).
(These figures to August 23, 1919.)
Number of returned soldiers who have applied to Soldier Settlement Board for Qualification Certificates, 30,903; number of applications approved by Soldier Settlement Board, 23,087; amount of loans approved, $29,038,901; number of loans, 9,691; average loan, Cl,996.
Loans were granted for the following purposes :
On Purchased Lands.-For Land Purchase, $15,627,579; for Improvements, $2,027,139; f r stock and Equipment, $5,387,339. On Dominion Lands, $3,101,666. On Mortgages, $2,895,178.
Loans for one week ending August 23, $2,271,591.
This was the largest amount approved in one week since operations began.
Number of applicants recommended for [DOT] Agricultural training, 2,761. Number of applicants taking training, 646.
Statement of Soldier Grant Entries on Dominion Lands.
Number of soldier entries, 3,967. Of these approximately two-thirds have exercised their right to take up Homestead Entry as-well.
Summary of Soldier Land Settlement Legislation.
The first Act to assist returned soldiers in settling on the land was passed in 1917 by Parliament. It provided for:
1.	The appointment of a Soldier Settlement Board.
2.	The reservation of Dominion Lands for soldier settlement.
3.	Loans not exceeding $2,500 for agricultural purposes, with interest at 5 per cent.
4.	Agricultural instruction of soldier settlers.
Enlarging the Scope.
It was found that there was not available sufficient suitable Dominion land close
[Stage Direction]
to the railways to settle any great number of returned soldiers, and on February 11, 1919, an Order in Council was passed empowering the board to purchase land in any province,, and re-sell to soldier settlers. This Order in Council was ratified by Act of Parliament in June. The new Soldier Settlement Act provides as follows:
Financial Assistance.
The board may grant loans up to $7,500 to qualified settlers purchasing land through the board, as follows:
(a)	Up to $4,500 on land purchase.
(b)	Up to $2,000 on stock and equipment.
(c)	Up to $1,000 on buildings and other permanent improvements.
On the purchase of land the soldier, except in special cases, is required to pay 10 per cent cash down. 5 per cent per annum is the interest charged, and the advances for the purchase of land and permanent improvements are repayable in not -more than twenty-five years on the amortization plan. The loans for stock and equipment are re-paid in not more than four instalments, beginning the tfciid year, and no interest is charged for the first two years.
To settlers on Dominion lands the board may loan up to $3,000 for livestock, equipment and permanent improvements.
To settlers who already own agricultural land the board may loan up to $3,500 for the removal of encumbrances, but the amount advanced shall not exceed fifty per cent of the appraised value of the land, repayable in not more than twenty-five equal annual instalments at five per cent amortized. The board may also loan up to $2,000 for livestock, implements and other equipment, and up to $1,000 for permanent improvements, but the total loan to such settler may not be more than $5,000.
Compulsory Purchase.
The new Act also provides for the acquirement of land for soldier settlers by compulsory purchase. The board may declare a "settlement area" where lands are being retarded from cultivation, and enter upon such lands for the purposes of the board. The owners are required to furnish the board, within thirty days, a statement naming the price at which they are willing to sell, and such other information as may be required. If the price is satisfactory, the board may purchase, otherwise the matter may be referred to the Exchequer Court to be dealt with.

Qualifying the Settler.
A returned soldier who is eligible, from a military standpoint, to secure the privileges of the Act is required to make ap-lication to the board for a qualification certificate. Agricultural Qualification Committees in every district investigate the qualifications of each applicant with regard to his general fitness, his physical fitness and his previous occupation and experience. If the applicant is sincere in his desire to engage in farm work and possesses the necessary experience and aptitude for the work, the committee may grant him a certificate to farm forthwith. If he lacks sufficient agricultural experience, but is judged to be a suitable person, the committee may recommend him for agricultural training. This training may be gained at a training centre, specially equipped by the board, or on the farm of an experienced and successful farmer in the district in which the applicant proposes to locate.
Passing the Loan.
In every district also there is a Loan Committee, composed of men who understand farm values, and each application for a loan is investigated by this committee. The board secures an appraisal of the farm on which a loan is^ asked and, if the land is found to be suitable and the price satisfactory, the application is granted.
The board will purchase the farm required, paying cash for same. Farmers and owners of vacant land are asked to list these farms in the district offices of the board. The board enlists the co-operation ' of reeves and other officers of municipalities and officers of the G. W. V. A,, in listing these properties and ascertaining and collating whatever information can be obtained regarding them.
Cheap Equipment for Soldier Farms.
The board has made arrangements with manufacturers of implements, harness, wagons, etc., to give soldier settlers special prices on their requirements. Very substantial reductions have been secured, amounting, as for instance, in the case of harness to thirty per cent.
The board also purchases horses and other live stock of good quality, and soldier settlers are given a wide choice of animals at the very best prices, with guarantees as to the suitability of the animals purchased.
The Canadian Lumbermen's Association has also given soldier settlers favourable rates on lumber.

The reductions from the ordinary retail prices of all the commodities are in all cases quite substantial and a considerable saving is effected.
The board also supplies, free of charge, to soldier settlers plans of houses and other farm buildings, suitable for soldier settlers, and gives free the services of experts in providing for the erection of these buildings.
Training the Soldier Settler.
Those soldier settlers recommended for further agricultural training are given the opportunity of a short course at a training farm where nothing but practical agriculture is taught, and after that the soldier, to complete his farm education, is placed with a reliable farmer for a year. In the case of Imperial soldiers, who have not had farming experience in The Old Land, it is required that they spend two years in training in practical farming in Canada, under the supervision of the board. Those who have had some experience will spend a sufficient time to become familiar with Canadian methods. Such settlers are required, on the purchase of land, to pay 20 per cent cash down.
While soldiers are in training the board pays allowances amounting, in some cases, to $55 a month for the subsistence of each soldier and his dependents.	.
Training in Home Economics.
A home branch has been established in connection with the board. This branch, which is in charge of Mrs. Muldrew, proposes to assist and encourage the settler's wife, in any way that seems desirable, in the management of the household, in order to overcome the difficulties incident to pioneer life. Mrs Muldrew has a staff of capable women who understand .ithe heeds of the farmer's wife.
I should have added, in connection with pensions, that in addition to the allowance I have mentioned Canada provides a special allowance for an attendant to totally disabled man. The totally disabled man may have a nurse or an attendant, who may be his wife, and a sum not exceeding $450 may be allowed by the Pension Board for this purpose in addition to the regular pension.
There is only one further observation I have to make. The statement has appeared in the press that the Prime Minister has Tefused to see the executive or a deputation of the War Veterans' Association. This 17
statement is without any foundation whatever. The Prime Minister has been most glad to receive and confer with the executive and members of the Great War Veterans' Association in the past, and he will be glad to do so in the future, and I am sure that the executive will be the first to say that of the Prime Minister.
Mr. MANION:: I was informed a few minutes ago by some members of the Great War Veterans' Association of Ottawa that they would like to hear from the minister whether they will have the right to appear before this Parliamentary Committee which I understood him to say would be appointed to investigate these matters. Such an assurance, I think, would complete the statement to the satisfaction of the Great War Veterans.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I stated was that the Bill would be referred to a Committee of the House just as the Pensions Bill was referred last session, and I would anticipate that the committee thus appointed would give the same full facilities for any representation that might be made in reference to matters referred to it as the Pensions Committee gave last year. They will be empowered, of Course, to hear all parties as the committee was then.


Mr. McLEOD:: Does the Bill go into the entire question of soldiers' re-establishment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The provisions for the re-es/fcablishment of soldiers in civil life are now embodied in certain Orders in Council passed under the War-Measures Act. With the coming of peace it is necessary to have legislative provision so that the work of the department may be carried on, and the Bill (x ntains the necessary provision. When the Bill is referred, it was my intention to suggest that there should be referred to the committee dealing with it the existing Orders in Council setting out the provisions thait are now being made. Everything embodied in those Orders in Council as well as the Bill itself will be a proper matter for the committee's consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister intend that this Bill shall go to one of the standing committees of the House or to a special committee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It will go to a special committee of the House, just as in the case of the Pensions Bill last year.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I would suggest that in addition to this information being placed



upon Hansard it be printed in the form of a document and that members should he given supplies for their constituents. I am sure that a free distribution of that information would be welcome.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The suggestion made by the hon. member will be considered by the Government.	*


Mr. REDMAN:: Will there be any reason why the representatives who have been down here advocating the bonus scheme should not have an opportunity to appear before the committee, the same as others who may have representations to make?


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the committee is appointed it will have jurisdiction to determine its own procedure, and as to the parties who may appear before it and be heard. I think we can trust a committee of the House to deal fairly in the matter.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask who will pay the expenses of those who appear before the committee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand that the usual procedure is that the committee pays the expenses of any persons who are called before it to give testimony.


Mr. NESBITT:: That is if they are called by the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These are matters of detail regulated by rules of the House and should not be discussed on the Orders of the Day.



THE TREATY OF PEACE-SESSIONAL PAPERS.

Charles Joseph Doherty: That the documents laid before the House on the 2nd instant relating to the Treaty of Peace and being Sessional Papers Nos. 41, 41a, 41b, 41c, 41d, 41e be printed forthwith for Sessional Papers, and 1,500 copies in English for distribution, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion can be entertained only by the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on the following -proposed resolution of Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the agreement between the United

States of America, Belgium, the British Empire and Prance, and Germany, with respect to the military occupation of the Territories of the Rhine, signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth'day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, iby the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Chairman, the agreement which the resolution proposes to approve might be described as an appendix to the Treaty that has already been approved by this House. It is an agreement between the Powers mentioned in regard to the method of administration of the German territories ' which are, under the main Treaty, to be occupied. The principal purpose, I think, of entering into the agreement, is to provide for the creation of a civil commission which will have the control in these territories side by side with, and subject, of course, from every military point of view to the control of the military authorities. This is a Treaty in which, I think I can safely say, Canada has no special interest, but we w'ere called upon to join in the signature of it and we were called upon to join in the ratification because it is a Treaty signed by the British Empire and the system adopted is that the signature of the British Empire should consist of the signatures of all the component parts of the Empire.
Mr. (McKENZIE: I notice there is a difference between the method of giving assent to the agreement made between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire and France, and Germany, and the way in which the parties give their assent to the Treaty that is mentioned in the second resolution that appears on the Order Taper to-day As far as 1 can gather from the copy I have of the agreement dealt with in the hist resolution, these is no mention made of Canada at all, and it would appear rather superfluous that we should be signing it. I find that the names of our plenipotentiaries do appear in the Treaty which has been made between the United States of America the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, and Poland, hut in so far as I can see they do not appear to be in this Treaty with Germany.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is only a difference in form. Unfortunately the signatures have not been printed as affixed to the Treaty and therefore they do not appear in the printed copy. If the signatures were there

the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) would see that the signatures are exactly as provided for in the Treaty. In the Treaty, instead of enumerating in the preamble those through whom the contracting parties act, the form has been adopted of saying "the undersigned, acting under the powers conferred upon them by their respective Governments, have come to the following agreement." It is unfortunate that the signatures of the plenipotentiaries; do not appear in the copy as printed. As far as the British Empire is concerned, just as in the other Treaty, the same signatures are of. the same plenipotentiaries, acting in the same capacities and acting for the same component parts of the different nations of the Empire, appear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am perhaps led
astray by the heading of the document, which says:
Agreement between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, and France, of the one part, and Germany, of the other part.
An ordinary man with nothing but ordinary foresight would expect that that document would be signed by the parties mentioned on one side or the other side, the great powers mentioned, and Germany. There being no reference at all either by inference or otherwise to Australia, New Zealand or ourselves as dominions, I naturally thought it would be unnecessary for us to give our assent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is the British Empire that is making the contract. Therefore, all of the nations that coimpose the British Empire sign it. That is the simple explanation. The British Empire is not one thing and Canada and Australia other things. The United Kingdom, the Crown Colonies, Canada, Australia, etc., make up the British Empire and we, in order to have the signature of the British Empire, must have the signature of each one of the distinct self-governing nations which compose it. That is the reason why we sign.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Without desiring to
enter into any new discussion, I do wish to put myself on record in the most emphatic way as saying that I do not agree with the argument of the learned Minister of Justice that the consent of the British Empire to an international treaty cannot be effectually obtained without the dominions signing separately. With that proposition as a prinicple of international law I do not agree. It is a practice that seems to 17i
have arisen at a very recent date. For many years the British Empire, or Great Britain, has been making treaties, and it was not the custom to make any difference between the British Empire as a party and any of its dependencies, or dominions, or any of its parts by whatever name they might be called.
The practice seems to be growing now that each division of the Empire is to sign by itself; but as a member of this House and a lawyer of some practice and experience, I contend that the moment the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain are authorized by the King ta sign the Treaty for Great Britain, or for the British Empire, and do sign, that is binding on all of us. Perhaps it is no harm for the other plenipotentiaries to sign, but I view the matter exactly in this way: If I undertake to buy a piece ok' property from John Brown and his wife, the-property being vested in John Brown, the-moment that John Brown and his wife signs that deed and deliver it to me I have all the-title in that property that they own. If would be a matter of sentiment for me to ask the children to sign, so that possibly after John Brown and his wife died they would be estopped from saying that their parents had not signed the deed, but I do not think it would in the slightest degree affect the validity of the title which I have obtained from John Brown and his wife. That is the way that I regard the present situation. We are a component part of the British Empire, we enjoy the protection of the great Empire to which we belong, we are subject to its laws, and we take advantage of every privilege that that great combination of nations or dominions brings to us as citizens of that great Empire; and if the King and those representing him sign this document, I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is binding on the whole Empire. Perhaps, as a matter of practice, the other procedure is better; but I submit that according to international law and practice, which has been handed down through the ages, when one plenipotentiary does sign on behalf of the Empire we all fall in and it is binding on us.
I wish to make perfectly clear at this point, and it may be my only opportunity of doing so, my own attitude in connection with this matter. The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), who is a temperance man and a Godly man beyond most of us, and who thanks God that he is not like other men, should bear in mind that one of the duties of such a highly-favoured citizen of this country is not to bear false wit-


Henri Sévérin Béland: I rise simply for the purpose of getting some further information. Is it contemplated that Canadian troops should share in the occupation of that territory?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, there is no such contemplation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Further, is there any special reason why Italy and Japan should not be parties to this Treaty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the reason why those countries are not parties to the Treaty, if I understand it rightly, is that the occupation is to he carried out by the countries who are parties. The occupation of the territory in question is, I understand, to be by the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, and France, and they therefore make this agreement. This is not a separate Treaty; it is an agreement merely to regulate the carrying out of certain provisions of the main Treaty. If the hon. gentleman will look at the first article he will find that it refers back to Article 428 and the following articles of the Treaty. It says "the armed forces," etc., "will continue in occupation of German territory"

and then it goes on to make the regulations as to how the territories are to be administered.	'


Henri Sévérin Béland: I quite understand that. But rthe minister has said that only the ipowers *which were to supply troops for the occupation should be parties to this Treaty, and in reply to my inquiry a moment ago he said that Canada would not be called upon to supply any troops there, meaning undoubtedly that Canada would not be a party to the occupation o.f the territory of the Rhine. The only conclusion we can come to, in view of this explanation !by the minister, is that Canada cannot act as a separate member at the Conference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the present time we are dealing with a Treaty that the British Empire is making, and as I have said, the British Empire, apart from the Crown colonies and so forth, consists of some five self-governing nations. The United Kingdom is not in itself the British Empire; it takes all these nations to make up the Empire. And when the British Empire makes a treaty it is fitting that the whole of the Empire should join in making it. It is proper, it seems to me-at tall events that is the view entertained by the authorities of all the component parts of the Empire-that Canada should join with her signature in this Treaty that the British Empire is making so that there may be evidence of the consent of all the nations which, taken together, make up the British Empire. As to whose troops should perform the occupation on behalf of the British Empire, that is purely a matter for arrangement between the different nations of the Empire. In this case the United Kingdom has undertaken to provide for that occupation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The position of Canada, then, is somewhat different when one comes to consider Canada as a member of the League of Nations.
Mr.- DOHERTY: When you come to consider Canada as a member of the League of Nations she is there as one distinct member. The nations generally have recognized that, though there be but one British Empire, there are a number of nations within' that Empire, and each of those nations is entitled to be a member of the League of Nations. The fact that a nation also forms part of an Empire does not exclude it from membership in an organization which has nations as its members


Henri Sévérin Béland: The distinction is mighty fine.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The whole Treaty is exceedingly fine.


William Foster Cockshutt: I understand that
Canada is a party to this agreement because of the fact that the First . and Second Divisions of the Canadian troops did occupy parts of the territories of the Rhine for about two months during the early part of this year. I see that Article 6 says:
The German Government shall continue to be responsible for the cost of maintenance of troops of occupation under the conditions fixed by the Treaty.
I understand that the first charge upon the German indemnity is to pay the expenses of maintaining the troops of occupation. As Canada had two divisions in occupation, a certain amount of money must have accrued to Canada as a result. There may be further occupation lasting for some months. When the German Government undertakes to pay the cost of maintenance, does that include the pay of the officers and men composing the divisions, or does it simply cover food and other necessaries? The word "maintenance" there may be entirely inclusive or it may be somewhat exclusive.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that that provision covers the entire cost of the occupation. Of course, part of the cost of the occupation is involved in providing the soldiers to do the occupying.


William Foster Cockshutt: And that is to be
paid out of the first moneys received by way of indemnity, is it not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that to be the provision under the Treaty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there any Canadian soldiers in the Rhine territory now? If so, how long are they likely to remain there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I am quite correct in saying that we have no soldiers in the territory of the Rhine at the present time.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



TREATY WITH POLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America, the British Empire,

[Stage Direction]
France, Italy and Japan, and Poland, which was signed at Versailles on thte twenty-eighth *day of June, nineteen, hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What obligations, if
;any, do we assume under this Treaty, or what obligations have we already assumed through the action of our plenipotentiaries in attaching their signatures to it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No obligations are assumed by Canada under this Treaty. The purpose of the Treaty is to impose obligations upon Poland. As a result of the Treaty entered into by the Allied and Associated Powers, Poland has been reconstituted and revived as a living nation. It was thought proper that in consideration of that fact Poland should be called upon-and she readily acquiesced in it-to undertake certain obligations; in substance, to respect the rights of minorities. It is a unilateral Treaty, one might say, so far as obligations are concerned.


Samuel William Jacobs: One of the articles of this Treaty provides as follows:
Jews shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their Sabbath, nor shall they be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend courts of law or to perform any legal business on their Sabbath.
Further it goes on:
Poland declares her intention to refrain from ordering or permitting elections, whether general or local, ito be held on a Saturday, nor will registration for electoral or other purposes be compelled to be performed on a Saturday.
And throughout this article equality is declared to exist amongst all Polish nationals. I suppose it is within the knowledge of the Government, and especially of the Minister of Justice, 'that since the armistice has been signed, outrages of an unparalleled character have been perpetrated upon Jewish citizens in Poland. The latest figures, which have been carefully compiled by a commission which visited that country from the United [States are that about
100,000	people were massacred in cold blood by this "free and independent" nation which has, within the last few months, received its charter from the Allied powers. It is declared in one of the sections of the 'Treaty that:
Poland agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed' under the guarantee of the "League of Nations.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What section is that?


Samuel William Jacobs: Article 12. In the second paragraph of this Article it is % further stated that:
Poland agrees that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.
The minister is probably aware that representations have already been made to the Polish Government and that a reply has been received from M. Paderewski, the head of that Government. This has been considered so unsatisfactory that, speaking in the House of Commons a few days ago, Sir Hamar Greenwood, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, declared that the British Government intended to have a special commission appointed to investigate into the serious charges made against this new Government. I should like to know if our Government or the Minister of Justice has anything to convey to the House regarding these matters.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are not in receipt of any official information bearing upon the matters to which the hon. member has referred. The Government are not in receipt of any other information than that at the disposal of the hon. gentleman and of the public generally. It may be observed that it is under the League of Nations that Poland is put; it is towards the League of Nations that the responsibility on the part of Poland for the fulfilment of these obligations is imposed, and the sooner we get through with these different treaties and the sooner the League of Nations gets into operation, the sooner shall we have an effective method of enforcing compliance with these obligations.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the meantime, until the League of Nations is constituted, does the minister purpose that the whole of the Jewish race in this "independent" country of Poland shall he annihilated ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not quite understand the suggestion.


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes one cannot wait.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not opposing any such action, but I am pointing out that that is the thing that was stipulated for, namely, that the control should be in the hands of the League of Nations. The hon. gentle-

man has informed me that the Government of the United Kingdom has taken steps to inquire into the alleged conditions.


Samuel William Jacobs: Likewise the United States.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, and I have no doubt that if the result of those inquiries should be such as to call for effective action or intervention, if it should be a question of general intervention, the Government of the United Kingdom would communicate the result to us with any suggestion they have to make with regard to action, and I am sure that throughout Canada any action looking to the enforcement of provisions for protection against outrages upon any minority such as, it is alleged, have taken place, would meet with the most sympathetic consideration.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Government is probably aware that within the last two or three months there have been held throughout Canada meetings of protest against these outrages, and that the results of these meetings of protest were delivered to the present Government, through the Prime Minister who, I understand, undertook to see that these protests were forwarded to the proper places. The Government must be fully cognizant of what has transpired, and what Canada's obligations as a member of the League of Nations would be under the circumstances.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN': I should like to say that the Prime Minister of Poland, M. Paderewski, who congratulated Canada the other day on heT Parliamentary institutions, will not have the confidence of the Canadian people, as he in all probability ought *to have, if these outrages should continue, and the mere fact of the outrages alleged to have taken place being brought to our attention here to-day will, I hope, be brought to his attention in some way. M. Paderewski has appealed to the democracy of America as one of the main reasons for the establishment of the new state of Poland. Therefore, he must know that if he wishes to enjoy the good opinion of the people of America, including both the United States and Canada, he must live up to the professions that have been made, and there must be the fairest and most just treatment to all races within the State,


Samuel William Jacobs: I trust the Prime Minister of Poland, M. Paderewski will find that if he runs up against the League of Nations as a result of this, he will be playing with fire and not with a piano.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yesterday the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) raised a question whether any of the Dominions had summoned their Parliaments in special session just for the purpose of approving these treaties. I was not able yesterday to give definite information. Perhaps while we are in committee on this Treaty, it would be fitting that I should inform the Committee that the information I have just acquired is that one of the last acts of that great soldier and statesman, General Louis Botha, was to summon a special session of the South African Parliament for the purpose of considering these Treaties, as he shared the same views as the Prime Minister of Canada does with reference to the status of the Dominions in their relation to the Mother Country as well as in their relation to the other nations of the world. As regards Australia and New Zealand, in each case the Parliament has been summoned and the Treaties have been submitted for consideration, but I have not definite information whether those were special sessions or regular sessions called at this time.
Mr. McKENZIE With regard to the points raised by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), this is a most serious situation and one which this great Parliament of ours should very seriously consider. There is no part of the civilized world in which every form of peace and liberty is more appreciated and enjoyed than in this country of Canada. That being the case, our people are highly sensitive to any encroachment upon any of our rights, whether they be civil, social or otherwise. Therefore, I am sure that this Parliament and the Canadian people feel very keenly the encroachment upon the rights of the Jewish people in this newly-revived Kingdom, or Republic if you please, of Poland. it is only a short time ago, on the 28th of June last, that the new Republic of Poland undertook to comply with the terms of this solemn Treaty into which it entered with the other great powers, including ourselves as part of the Great Empire to which we belong. As I read the Treaty, Poland undertook to give to every person within its bounds full civil rights and liberty, as amply and fully as they could be granted by any civilized nation in the world. I am sure that the Canadian delegates to the Conference expect Poland to adhere strictly to the spirit and letter of its obligations, and that every man, woman and child within the borders of that newly constituted republic shall have the freedom and protection set forth in this document. Now I do not think it is a mere matter of rumour that these obligations have been ruthlessly

violated. I think it is a cleat question of fact of which this House can take cognizance, that violations of the most flagrant character have been perpetrated by Poland against citizens of that country whom it undertook to protect, and I submit to the plenipotentiaries who signed this Treaty on our behalf that it would be quite consistent with the dignity of this Parliament, and I think effective, for us to say, in view of the fact that the people whom we trusted to the extent of creating them into a nation have not fulfilled the obligations they took upon themselves but have fallen short in the very shocking manner of which we have learned: " True, our plenipotentiaries were pleased to be a party to the creation of this new republic and to the granting of freedom, long withheld, to the people of Poland, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. We recognize no such distinctions here at home, and we do not wish to recognize them abroad, and until we are satisfied that Poland is not merely shamming but is living up to the obligations she undertook, we refuse to give any further recognition to this document."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would point out that this document does not give Poland anything at all; this is the document that imposes obligations on Poland. The hon. gentleman's suggestion is that until Poland does fulfil those obligations we should, as a punishment of Poland, refuse to ratify the Treaty that imposes the obligations. So far as the establishment of Poland as an independent nation is concerned, that was done in the terms of the general Peace Treaty. This contract is merely to impose obligations on Poland. I think thfe hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) would hardly agree with the suggestion of his leader that Canada should now vote that those obligations shall not be imposed upon Poland- because that would be the only effect of refusing to ratify this Treaty. This Treaty is absolutely unilateral so far as obligations are concerned. This is a measure to hold down Poland, to make it quite clear that she is obliged to do these things, and to provide a method by which, if necessary, she may be compelled to do these things through the instrumentality of the League of Nations. Therefore, the more we are anxious that Poland should comply with these obligations the more ready we should be to ratify this Treaty, and the greater the evidence may be that she is not presently complying with those obligations the greater

should be our haste to get the Treaty into such a shape that there may be an effective means of compelling her compliance.
As to the position dn which we find ourselves as to the evidence of the facts, while, of course, there is much material available to the public, still I think it can hardly be suggested that this Government is in possession of such information as would justify it proposing to this House at the present moment that we should proceed to take active measures by physical force against Poland. As the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) pointed out, the Governments of Great Britain and France have instituted inquiry into these facts. They are very grave. 'What we have before us seems to indicate that the affirmations made upon the subject are probably true. But it is the part of wisdom, I think, for us 'to await these official inquiries before we begin to consider what steps, if any, we can and ought to take with regard to the matter. So far as this Treaty is concerned, everything that has been said with regard to the evils referred to as existing in Poland is the strongest possible argument in support of our ratifying this Treaty so that it may come into effective operation at the earliest possible moment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite appreciate the legal argument of the Minister of Justice that we should hasten to confirm this Treaty. What i.s the everyday experience in matters of this kind? If we start dealings with a man whom we recognize as a gentleman of his word, and upon whose ability to carry out his contracts we rely, we are willing to go to- the end of the road with him and finish the contract, but if in the middle of the negotiations we should find we are dealing with a fakir-


Samuel William Jacobs: A murderer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -a murderer, a thief, a scoundrel, who is absolutely incapable of fulfilling the obligations he has undertaken, and who does not wish to .fulfil those obligations, we stop dealings with him. We say that we thought we were dealing with an honest and reliable individual, but have discovered that he is not an individual of that sort.
We are told by the Minister of Justice that this Treaty with Poland is a mere supplement to the Treaty with which we dealt yesterday. If that is the case, if since the signing of the Peace Treaty we have discovered facts that should put us on our guard with respect to the status of

this new country, I would ask the Minister of Justice, wtho thinks we should do nothing except ratify this Treaty with Poland, what steps he thinks this Parliament and the British Empire should take to find out just how matters stand.
The Minister of Justice is trying to blow hot and cold simultaneously. He says it remains for the United States and the United Kingdom to find out whether there is anything wrong in Poland. If any one on this side suggested yesterday that we should stand aloof in connection with the obligations that fell to any nation we would have been told that we were belittling our country. Now we are faced with that proposition to-day. We say we are a nation and are signing this Treaty as a separate nation. We are told that there is something wrong with this nation of Poland that we have created, but that it is not for us to investigate the matter, which rests with the United States and Great Britain. That does not seem to be consistent with the theory which hon. gentlemen have advanced, that we are to all intents and purposes a nation. We were one of the powers that created Poland and gave it a status, and is it not for us to see to it, as far as we can, that it lives up to its obligation, entered into when it was resuscitated, to protect its citizens? If we cannot do our duty in that respect by protesting when we are dealing with a question of this kind, I should like the Minister of Justice or any of the plenipotentiaries to inform us when the opportunity will arise to call this country to account and insist upon its fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty we passed yesterday and the supplement we are passing to-day.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is well that this discussion has arisen, and I may say that it supports my view, which I have not heretofore expressed, and gives me comfort to know that although the argument has been laboured in this House by certain gentlemen that Canada was not interested in questions that did not directly affect its welfare, there is nevertheless a prevalent feeling here that we have an interest in matters that are not altogether relevant to our own advancement.


Samuel William Jacobs: Explain.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think my words require any particular explanation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Absolutely.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My words need no explanation because this Chamber has rung
with cheers from men who adopted the principle against which I mildly inveigh.
I think we should read this Treaty with some care. Article 2 says:
Poland undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Poland without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Poland shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or morals.
" Poland undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty."


Samuel William Jacobs: There were no murders until she undertook to do that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member has very properly brought up a subject that will appeal to all the people of Canada, and one that is well worthy of the consideration of this Parliament. My view is that we are interested in all the conditions that prevail throughout the world that lead to the betterment of those classes that are persecuted, and to the betterment of the world at large. That is the broad plane upon which I think a subject of this kind should be placed. It is a far higher question, I think, than the question whether we have a right of access to some canal or some territory, or freedom to do this or that. I should like this subject to be elevated to the highest possible moral plane. What was the war fought for if it was not to give liberty to the peoples that were oppressed? When that question is raised in connection with Poland the assertion is made that ruthless conduct prevails there to-day, and that Poland apparently is not observing what we understand to be her obligations. That is the charge which is couched in very strong language. But I would ask the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) to bear in mind that in these countries of war-stricken Europe standardized government does not obtain to-day. I have no doubt that M. Paderewski, the Prime Minister of Poland, has a bleeding heart by reason of these very outrages of which we complain. The point I wish to make about the Treaty is that Poland undertakes to remedy these grievances, and as we are asked to approve of that clause, the sooner it is put through and. made, as the rest of the Treaty, a solemn and binding obligation upon Poland, the sooner that country's good faith will be tested. The League of Nations will put her to the test. But we are apparently asked to adopt the policy of the leader of the Opposition, that because some ruthless

bodies in Poland, free from restriction of law, at a time when chaos reigned supreme, have committed atrocities which are the subject of complaint, we should pass in this Parliament some resolutions telling them to be good or we will not let them enjoy the benefits of the Treaty.


Samuel William Jacobs: Some country should take a mandate for Poland just as for German East Africa.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Poland's protection, her national rights and standardized power will all come when this Treaty is ratified by the great powers of the world, because she will have the .assistance of those powers to give her a stable and constitutional government, and force, if necessary, to put down lawlessness. She will have- the support of the world, and in my opinion it is futile to suggest, as the leader of the Opposition does, that this Treaty should not pass because of some lawless acts that have occurred. Approval of the Treaty in this House shows that Canada is interested, and it might do no harm if this discussion, through the channels of Government and through the seat of the Empire, reached Poland. I do not know that it would acomplish much good, but at the same time it would do no harm. This however, I suppose, is no time for resolutions to that effect. If a resolution were moved at the proper time by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier I should be glad to support it, because I believe in the principle that lawlessness wherever found to exist against the crown and dignity of any kingdom or nationality should be repressed by all the force which the world can summon together for effectively combating it.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not wish to be misconstrued in my view, but there is one thing that has struck me since the debate began on this particular motion, and that is that the sessional duties of Parliament and of legislators hereafter are to be largely added to by discussions of this kind; and it shows what our entering into this League of Nations may involve. Hereafter, if there is any community in our country which happens to have the idea that their former compatriots in other countries have been unfairly treated, no doubt these questions will be brought into the Parliament of Canada and into other legislatures and will have to be discussed. We must prepare ourselves now for this. Having assumed these new obligations and duties in connection with the League of 
Nations, we shall have to deal with these questions hereafter, and probably we shall have more of these questions coming to us than they will have in any other legislature, or at least as many. We will have to be prepared to discuss them and to let countries like^ Poland, now established, (and similar countries, know that they will be liable to have their conduct reviewed in legislatures like this, or the Congress of the United States, and to have stern resolutions passed calling their attention to any injustice that may be done by them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to remind the Government that, as has been pointed out by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. W. F. Maclean)-they have assumed a new role. I am not surprised that they are not just exactly finding themselves fitting in to the new position all at once. If this had been last session, or some time before we signed the Treaty, and if I bad said anything at all on this line, it would have been to ask the Government to bring this matter to the notice of the Colonial Office, or through some proper channel, to the notice of the Home Government whose more particular duty would he to deal with outside nations. But, if the theory put forward by the Government is correct, we have passed that stage now, we are a nation ourselves, and instead of asking the Home Government to deal with this question, or the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain bo do so, we have the full and 'absolute responsibility ourselves of seeing that we take our part as a nation of the world and of seeing to it further that anything we have obligated ourselves to will be carried out. The first thing that our plenipotentiaries, or those at the Peace Conference, should have assured themselves of was that any body of men who were forming a new nation were in a position to carry out the obligations of a nation. One of the first duties of a sovereign power is to protect its subjects. That is why we appoint policemen, that is why we are enabled to maintain standing armies, that is why nations are permitted to have navies. When a nation becomes a sovereign power it attains to the right and responsibility of protecting its citizens. If Poland was not in a position to protect its citizens, to protect its boundaries, to see that civil rights were maintained and that life and property within its boundaries were safe, our plenipotentiaries and the Peace Conference should not have given them the powers of a nation. There

has been looseness somewhere. It is all very well to .say now that they can go on and murder until the League of Nations is formed. Having created them a republic, having given them the status of a nation, and they having accepted certain obligations and duties, they go on murdering and slashing at each other just as they like, and it is made a laughing matter if any member in any parliament should happen to find fault. It is made the subject of a small quibble worthy of a police court -that is all it is and an .attempt is made to provoke a laugh to sidetrack the question and in that way get out of a difficulty. That is not the way I view it. We have a Tight to suppose that our plenipotentiaries, and the other plenipotentiaries who were in that conference, would nob give the status of a nation to any body of men, or form any party into a republic, unless they were absolutely assured of that party undertaking the duty of looking after their territory, and were in a position to guarantee that the ordinary amenities and securities of life in civilized nations would be safeguarded. There should have been some supervision, some proper care taken and some mandatory power put over this territory until the people there could satisfy the League of Nations, if you please, that they might be given the reins of government and the control over their territory and that the lives and property of their citizens would be safe. Without that having been done, this territory has been created into a republic, the power of government being given to them, and if they cannot protect the lives or guard the property of their citizens I think it is perfectly justifiable for the members of this House, or of -any other parliament, to call to- account those who are responsible for the creation of this republic under these circumstances because they are responsible indirectly for the massacres that have taken place in that country. Whatever the remedy is whether it may be by way of protest or otherwise we should 'bring home to these people the fact that we are not satisfied with the way that they are carrying out their obligation to protect the lives and property of the people. Because we are protesting we are met with a laugh. We are expected to go along serenely and happily and to recognize this country as being on the same level as our own when we have the most positive evidence of the carnage and murders which are going on and of the evident lack of power or ability on the part of the Government to restore order and to provide
protection for its citizens. I do not know what this Government can do. Perhaps they are just in the same position as the President of Poland. They are new to their position [DOT] and they do not knot# what they should do. If they do not, of course, they should try to find out and try to live up to this big position into which they have forced themselves.


Samuel William Jacobs: -Might I ask the minister a question as to what was done with those resolutions which were sent to the Government some months ago in connection with these Polish outrages?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The resolutions were
forwarded to the Government of the United Kingdom, and as the hon. member himself pointed out, that Government has taken upon itself to make an inquiry. The hon. gentleman also told us that France was making an inquiry.


Samuel William Jacobs: The United States.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The United States.
Whether a third inquiry would be helpful, I leave to the judgment of the Committee.


Samuel William Jacobs: Before we close this discussion I wish to refer the House to an article on the Jewish question which appears in the New York Nation of August 30 1919. It is from a correspondent of tin New York Nation in Warsaw. I would like to cite a paragraph or two to show the extent and nature of these outrages which I brought before the House this afternoon.
The Poles are conducting two regular and old-fashioned wars for Imperialistic conquest while the Peace Conference is engaged m its work. I have been near the two fronts of both these wars. I was in Ivwow and saw what was happening and had happened there. I was in Vilna and know what is happening there. In Vilna I had the extraordinary pleasure of being surrounded by a crowd of weeping and wailing Jewish women whose husbands had been murdered as soon as Vilna was occupied by the Poles. I know now what the Greeks felt like when they occupied Troy. In one house where dwelt the family Philipson and others, the soldiers came and carried off all the men folk, beat them up with the jeering crowd following, took them out of the city, and shot them. Then, in true antique fashion, young Philipson, the son, was made to dig a grave for his father and brother and the other men in this particular house. This procedure of taking harmless people out and shooting them was practised extensively by the Poles in Vilna when they entered in triumph after having driven out the handful of Bolsheviki who held the town against them. The killed seem to have numbered about one hundred. The people beaten up and maltreated numbered many hundreds. Respectable citizens, among them the most respected Jews in the city, were taken out and stood against a wall and threatened

I?und.red ,Jews have 1:166,1 journ I am quite willing to acquiesce in the
jailed and- are said to be starving to death and	__
dying of typhus. Their friends and relatives suogestlon.
are not allowed to bring them food or medical help. Hundreds have been deported to Bialy-stock and Cracow and elsewhere, and are being held on the vague charge of Bolshevism. On the north front the way to get rid of your minority is by accusing it of Bolshevism. Yet many of the Poles themselves who are now holding jobs in the Vitna Government were fighting with the Bolsheviki.
But I find I am writing with a certain amount of bile. There is no reason why I should, since I can have my whipped cream and butter and white bread and roast beef and hors d'oeuvres, and everything else I want every day, served with the piquant sauce of the knowledge that a few blocks away children are starving for want of a little milk, that hundreds of children in Warsaw, over seven years of age, are unable to stand on their feet-have never walked because they have not had proper nourishment. The imperialistic Polish bourgeoisie is not interested in the misery of its poor and only makes feeble motions towards establishing relief agencies under pressure of the Americans. Perhaps I am violating a trade secret when I inform your Polish readers, who so trustingly paid for the half of the Westward Ho cargo of food which was to go to the starving population of Poland, that most of this cargo went to the Polish army. I may be violating a similar secret when I inform your Jewish readers that their half of this cargo could not be given to the starving Jews, because, in most centres, the authorities pointed out the very interesting fact that pogroms would result if Jews got food and Christians did not.
This is only a sample of what is happening daily in that country, and I would point out that these incidents have taken place since the 24th of June, when this Treaty was signed. To any one who is interested in the question, I would commend these articles which are appearing in the New York Nation, the one from which I have quoted being No. 2. I think that the standing of the New York Nation is sufficient to make it certain that they would not publish any such statements unless a special investigation had been made on the spot, and that was done by their own correspondent.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
On the Order for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Whidden, for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it worth while resuming the debate when there is an understanding to adjourn at six o'clock?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If any gentleman desires to speak now ithe opportunity is open to him, but if it is thought desirable to ad-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I .think it will suit us better if we adjourn now and resume the debate on Monday.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 5 p.m.
Monday, September 15, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Diagram prepared by the Department of Militia and Defence illustrating the statement made in the House of Commons on the 12th September, 1919, with reference to a comparative statement of War Service Gratuity in equivalent of Canadian currency paid by different countries, based on three years' service for the rank of private, compiled from information at present available.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
500,000 COPIES OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HOlN. MR. ROWELL, ORDERED PRINTED.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr.' Hocken), suggested that the statement made in the House on that date with reference to War Service Gratuities, with' the comparative statements showing the amounts being paid in Canada and other countries, as well as the comparative statements relating to pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment and land settlement, should be printed for distribution. The matter has been considered, and I would ask the consent of the House to move:
That 500,000 copies of the statement of the President of the Council on the matter of a further bonus or War Service Gratuity to returned soldiers be printed forthwith, in pamphlet form, from the Revised Edition of Hansard of Friday, September 12, 1919, including tables, statements, etc., and the diagram illustrating the War Service Gratuity tabled this day, and that rule 74 relating thereto be suspended.
This is to provide sufficient copies for general distribution throughout the country.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the President of the Council give us some idea as to the system of distribution which the Government purpose adopting in this connection?
I can readily understand how members of

Parliament can get copies of this statement; but if they are to be of service, there should he some systematic method of general distribution, amongst the public, as far as the copies will go.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The view of the Government is in the first place to make as many copies available to members of the House as they desire to send out to their constituents, then to place large numbers at the disposal of the War Veterans' Association for the purpose of distribution amongst all the War Veterans' Associations throughout Canada. There are some 400,000 returned soldiers in Canada, and it was thought that the copies which the members would desire to send out, plus the quantity the War Veterans would desire to have, would probably absorb the greater number, but the Government would be glad to have any other suggestions as to distribution. I may say, so as to prevent any misunderstanding, that on checking over one of the statements, it was found that an increase of 20 per cent had been made recently in one of the countries referred to, and the revised figures will therefore be given in Revised Hansard, and in the copies printed for distribution.
This will make the comparative statement more easily understood than by adding a note at the bottom of the statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are French copies being printed ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Some will be printed in French, and I shall be glad to consult with my hon. friend as to the number.


Mr.   GANNON@: Has there been a demand for such a" large number of copies, and if so, from whom?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There has been a demand for a large number, and it was considered that 500,000 would probably be required.


Thomas Vien: A demand from the Great War veterans?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The War Veterans and members of the House have asked for copies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That 1,000 copies of the documents laid before the House on the 2nd instant relating to the Treaty of Peace and being Sessional Papers Nos. 41, 41a, 41b, 41c, 41d, 41e be printed
forthwith in French for Sessional Papers and for distribution, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: These are the papers I moved to print the other day. The French copies had already been printed, but authorization for their printing was not included in that motion. It is necessary that this motion should be passed in order to constitute the authorization for that printing which was done in advance. ,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to lay on the Table the Covenant of the League of Nations with the official commentary issued thereon by way of explanation by the British Empire Parliamentary Delegation following the Peace Conference. The Commentary was drafted, I believe, by General Smuts and Lord Robert Cecil. It also contains the interpretation of Article IV which the Minister of Public Works read to the House on the 8th September, signed by M. Clemenceau, Mr. Woodrow Wilson, and Mr. Lloyd George. A number of communications have been received by the Government asking for copies of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and particularly for copies of the explanatory statement which had been issued. The Government considers it desirable that a quantity should be printed and be available for distribution to all who desire them, because it is important that the Covenant of the League of Nations should be understood by all the people. I was going to ask the House to consent to the printing of, say, 10,000 copies. I should be glad to have any suggestion from my hon. friend as to the number which should be printed in English and French respectively; perhaps 8,000 and
2,000	respectively would be satisfactory.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand what the minister means by the explanatory statements. Does he mean the speeches which were made in this House?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. When the British Government issued as a Parliamentary Paper the Covenant of the League of Nations it was accompanied by an explanatory statement referring to the various articles of the Covenant. The explanatory statement contains very interesting and informing comments by the men largely

responsible for the drafting of the Covenant; the Government considered it desirable that this. explanatory statement should accompany the Covenant. If my hon. friend has not seen the statement I am quite prepared to let the motion stand over until tomorrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be glad to see the statement.


Samuel Hughes: I did not catch the minister's explanation of the explanatory note which he laid on the Table a moment ago. Was it an essay issued by somebody, or what was it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The document I laid on the Table was the Covenant of the League of Nations, accompanied by an explanatory statement prepared by the British Empire Parliamentary Delegation at the Peace Conference, and laid on the Table of the British House of Commons and printed as a Parliamentary Paper there. I am ' sure that this explanatory statement would aid in the understanding and interpretation of the Covenant by those who wish to get at its real meaning, particularly the laymen who are not so accustomed to studying a legal document as the lawyers are.



LABOUR CLAUSES OF PEACE TREATY, WITH EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.

Newton Wesley Rowell: I desire to lay on
the table of the House the Labour clauses of the Peace Treaty, with an explanatory statement prepared at the Peace Conference and published in Great Britain. It appears to the Government to be desirable that this explanatory statement with reference to the Labour clauses should also accompany the document as a printed Parliamentary Paper. If my hon. friend has not seen the explanatory statement I shall be glad to leave the motion for printing over until to-morrow.


Lucien Cannon: I am very much surprised that these documents are produced after the debate is over. Why were they not produced before the debate started ?



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. EULER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Postmaster at Kitchener resigned five months ago and that the office is still vacant?
2.	Why has no appointment been made?
3.	Will an early appointment he made?
	i


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Careful investigation had to be made [DOT]as to the qualifications of the applicants.
3.	A recommendation is now being made to the Civil Service Commission.


PAYMENTS TO H. P. DUCHEMIN.
John Ewen Sinclair: How much has heen paid by the Government to H. P. Duchemin, barrister of Sydney, N.S., during the year ending August 31, 1919, for his services in prosecuting offences against Inland Revenue regulations?


Hon. Mr. REID:: Nil.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAIDWAY.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway still being operated by Honourable J. D. Reid, Minister of Railways and Canals, in his capacity of receiver?
2.	If so, in virtue of what authority was he so appointed?
3.	If toy Order in Council, is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present session to confirm the said Order in Council?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Order in Council No. 517, dated March 7, 1919, as amended by Order in Council No. 547 dated March 13, 1919, and ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament passed on the 6th day of June, 1919, Chapter 22, Statutes of Canada, 1919.
3.	Already confirmed by above mentioned Act.


GREAT WAR VETERANS' GRATUITY CLAIM.
Mr. GRIESBACH:: 1.	Has there been any correspondence between the Great War Veterans' Association and the Government respecting the provision of a further bonus or gratuity to returned soldiers?
2.	If so. what is the nature of such correspondence?
3.	Will the Government lay copies of the correspondence upon the table of the House?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This question was answered in substance by the statement made on Friday last. The correspondence will be laid on the table of the House.


INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS COMMISSION.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is there a vacancy on the Board of the International Waterways Commission (Canadian Section)?
2.	If so, when is it to be filled, and by whom?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	There is a vacancy on the Board of the International Waterways Commission (Canadian section).
2.	It is expected to be filled shortly. An announcement will be made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Did the Government, in any way, select or order the selection of the volumes on Canadian literature which were placed in the special car for the use of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales?
2.	If so, were volumes of French-Canadian literature placed in the library of the special car for the use of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who very well reads and speaks the French language?
3.	If not, why were such volumes not placed in the said library?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The works of reference
placed on the Royal train -by Government officials at Ottawa consisted largely of maps and statistical information. The selection of general literature was left to the officers of the 'Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and there is no information in Ottawa as to what books were -placed on board, or in what languages they were written.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and all other papers exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Harbour Commission of Montreal, relating to the new -by-law No. 92 increasing the wharfage rates.


Mr. LEGER:: For a copy of all letters, documents, reports and all other papers exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa and the Post Office Inspector of -St. John, N.B., relating to the location of the Ste. Anne de Kent Post Office, in the county of Kent, New Brunswick.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: For a copy of the pay-lists in connection with the construction of the wharf at Cacouna-East, county of Temiscouata, for the years 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17 and 1917-18 respecting (a) construction work; (b) timber and other materials for said wharf; and (c) -the construction work and materials in connection with the erection of a certain fence upon the site above-mentioned,



NOTICES OF MOTION.

[Stage Direction]
On Notices of Motion being called:
Charles Joseph Doherty: Before proceeding to take up Motions, on which there may .be some discussion, I beg to call attention to the fact that the other day, as I gather, it was understood' that we should now proceed with the debate on the Address. On Friday afternoon,, as I recollect, it was decided at the request of different members that we should go on with the debate this afternoon, and I therefore move that we proceed to that Order.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, on-
Thursday last-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must point
out to the hon. member that this motion is not debatable and that he cannot proceed with any statement unless the motion be first withdrawn.
Motion (Hon. Mr. Doherty) agreed to.


William Findlay Maclean: Orders of the
Day have to be called first.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Government Orders.
On Government Orders being called, Mr. Proulx rose to speak on the Address in reply to the speech of the Governor General.


John Allister Currie: Before proceeding with Government Orders-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Prescott has the floor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might offer an explanation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Only with the unanimous consent of the House is it competent for the minister to intervene. Under Government Orders we have arrived at the debate upon the Address and the member for Prescott has the floor. Is it the unanimous consent of the House that the Minister of Justice should have an opportunity to make his explanation?


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that you have not called Orders of the Day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion which was made by the Minister of Justice automatically superseded the Orders of the Day, and we have now arrived at the debate on the Address. Has the minister the unanimous consent of the House to make the explanation which he desires to give?
The House gave unanimous consent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I only desire to mention especially for the information of the hon. member (Mr. Currie) that the Minister of Militia is unfortunately not here to-day, he desiring to attend the funeral of a relative, and that the hon. member will realize that through courtesy his matter might have stood in any event.	,



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard Primrose Whidden for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Friday, September 5.
Edmond Proulx: When the debate was adjourned the other [IMr. J. A. Currie.]
day, Mr..Speaker, I had finished discussing the matters mentioned in the Address. One of those the Treaty of Peace and was about to deal with domestic matters, although they are not mentioned in the Address but they are matters which I consider of supreme importance such as the cost of living. Last session the Government tried to solve this problem by creating a Board of Commerce, and since the session they have appointed the members of this board. There has been much delay on the part of the Government, however, so far as any effective action is concerned, and far from prices having decreased since last session they have increased. The board has not begun to work seriously. One of its first experiences was the discovery that prices of foodstuffs in this country were far too high, higher than the cost of materials warranted. The board was in session the other day at Winnipeg, and the chairman discovered that at that place American bacon was selling at 4) cents cheaper than the Canadian product, after duty and freight had been paid from Duluth to Winnipeg.' I have a despatch from Winnipeg dated September 12 to the Ottawa Citizen which reads:
" I do not see the justification in bacon at 65 and 70 cents a pound," declared Judge H. A. Robson, chief commissioner of the board of commerce, under the Combines and Fair Prices Act, at to-day's session. Evidence had been adduced showing that the cost price of bacon sold at those prices was 54 cents a pound, the 70 cent price being for sliced bacon.
Figures showing that bacon bought from Armour's in Duluth was four and a half cents cheaper laid down in Winnipeg, despite necessity of paying duty, freight, exchange and all incidental expenses, than the product from the local packers, in a lower grade, and one and five-eighths cents cheaper in a higher grade were produced by John Guest, manager of a large departmental store, meat market. The shipment from Duluth was made recently and was an experiment. The statement was filed as an exhibit.
We can see therefore that in the past the Canadian packers have charged the people of this country excessive prices for meat, and I think that this is a matter which the Government should have remedied. If in the last budget they had removed the duty from foodstuffs, and especially from meat, this would have been an efficacious step in the direction of reducing the cost of living. We requested them to do so. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) had a motion asking the Government to remove the duty on foodstuffs but no heed was paid to this urgent appeal, because my hon. friends opposite had no desire to hurt their friends the packers, and the result is that those duties

have remained. Now we see after investigation iby the Board of Commerce that meat coming from the United States, after duty, freight and all incidental expenses have; been paid, sells for 4J cents cheaper in Winnipeg than the meat obtained from Canadian packers. This discovery alone,
I	contend, amply justifies the motion made last session on this side of the House for a removal of the duty on foodstuffs. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the other day said that the farmers did not get more for their produce than they were entitled to. I am of the same opinion. Some people are inclined to censure the farmers if they have to pay high prices for meat or other agricultural foodstuffs, but if you compare the prices which are paid to the farmers and the producers f6r cattle with the prices charged the consumer, you will see that there is a large difference between what the producers receive and the prices paid by the consumer.
That is not only in regard to meat but in regard to all other products. The manufacture of cheese is one of the most important agricultural industries in this country. The price paid to the farmer now does not exceed 25 cents per pound delivered at Montreal whilst, if you go to your grocer, you have to pay from 40 to 45 cents per pound for cheese. Last spring the cheese factories sold cheese for as much as 31 cents >a pound but lately this price has come down to 25 cents. A representative of the British food ministry came to this country, met the manufacturers and offered them 25 cents per pound for 20,000 tons, this price to be for cheese delivered at Montreal. His reason for asking them to accept Ithis price was that cheese was. being retailed in England at 36 cents a pound or one shilling, sixpence, while in this country we have to pay as much as 45 cents a pound. According to 'the statement made by the representative of the British ministry of food, over
II	cents is paid in commissions to buyers, exporters and English importers, in freight rates and in exchange on money. The English importer buys Canadian cheese at 25 cents and it is retailed in England at 36 cents a pound. During the war cheese was selling at a fixed price. This year there is no fixed price; the farmers do not 'ask a price to be fixed for cheese but they believe that the Government could have helped them by giving a line of credit to the Imperial Government, or the British ministry of food, to enable them to buy our cheese. The Government have given .a line of credit to Italy to the amount of $6,000,000 to buy
our beef and ia line of credit to RoUmania to the amount of $25,000,000 to enable them to buy certain goods in Canada, whilst no money has been given for the purchase of cheese the manufacture of which is the great industry in the eastern part of Ontario and especially this year when the crops are not as good as in other years and farmers have to depend very much on the cheese industry tor their prosperity. The exchange, as explained by the representative of the British ministry of food, amounts to two and onedwentietlhs of a cent per pound on cheese. If the Government had given a line of credit to the British food ministry to enable them to buy cheese, the farmers instead of selling their cheese at 25 cents per pound, would -have sold it for -at lea-st 27 cents per pound. The farmers have to pay more than they had to pay in previous years for labour. Labour is scarce and the hours of labour are getting shorter. They also have to pay more for everything they -buy, notably feed and agricultural implements. They could buy a binder some years ago for $120 but now they have to pay $225 or $230. All agricultural implements have almost doubled in price. The Government might have helped the farmers if they -had acceded to our request last year to remov-e the duty on agricultural implements. This represents millions of dollars to the farmers of this country. If you want to have cheap food in this country you should remove -the duty on food and not only the duty on food but on all the tools and machinery used to produce food. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said that high prices were caused by scarcity. It as true that they are partly caused by scarcity, but Mr. Speaker, not only does the Government maintain duties and prevent agricultural implements and foodstuffs from coming from other countries into this country but the Government creates scarcity. There are in storage large quantities of beef which could have been sold to the Canadian consumer. But the Government gave a line of credit of $6,000,000 to Italy to permit Italy to buy this beef and in this way help to create scarcity. On the 28th of May of last year an Order in Council was passed authorizing the extension of a line of credit to Italy. I have a copy of the Order in Council and it reads as follows:
The -Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a Report, dated 26th May, 19-19, from the Minister of Finance, stating that the Italian Government has requested a credit of -Six Million Dollars to he availed of for the purchase of frozen beef now in storage in Can-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Edmond Proulx: And still ministers will insist upon travelling in private cars. Last spring there were as many as three private cars attached to the same train. Now that, Mr. Speaker, means a very large outlay. If we want to reduce the public expenditure economy must be practised in all the departments. There should be a pruning down of the Civil Service to what the actual necessities of the service demand, and no more unnecessary appointments should be made. In spite of the urgent need foi economy, we still see the Civil Service Commission advertising for different appointments in all kinds of inspectorships. There are inspectors for potatoes and for nearly every branch of agricultural industry. Some of these inspectors, I believe, are practically useless, and the services which * they render are not at all commensurate with the 'cost to the country which the positions entail.
There is one other matter to which I would like briefly to refer. The Government has 'Spent a lot of money in sending Dominion Police, or other police, around the 'Country to prosecute the poor defaulters.
I believe more money has been spent for
184	[DOT]
this purpose than has been collected in fines imposed on the defaulters. Some of these police have been persecutors as well as prosecutors, and have brought the defaulters long distances to trial. Only the other day we read in the newspapers that defaulters were brought from the northern part of Quebec to the city of Ottawa for trial.
These men should not have been brought down here, a distance of three hundred miles, to he tried before the magistrate of another province when they might just as well have been dealt with by the local magistrate in Quebec. Some of these so-called defaulters were found not guilty, being medically unfit, or having been regularly exempted, but by reason of * the course pursued by the police authorities they were put to the expense of travelling expenses and counsel's fees.
As the Peace Treaty is signed, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Government to exercise a little more clemency, and I wish to direct my appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who is Acting Prime Minister. I know he wants peace and harmony to prevail in this country. Well, it seems to me that the best means to bring about that very desirable condition would be to grant a general amnesty, especially at such a time as this, when we have amongst us His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the future ruler of this Empire. The French Government have taken the course I am suggesting, even the German Government have done so, and certainly this is an opportune time for a general amnesty to be granted. Why continue to prosecute these poor fellows? I believe that at least seventy-five per cent of them are defaulters rnrough no fault of their own. Most of them were honourably exempted. They were mostly farmers with exemption certificates, either from the Local Exemption Tribunal or from the Appeal Exemption Tribunal, and thought they were free from military service, while others were medically unfit for service. I again urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Government should recommend to His Excellency the Governor General the adoption of the course I have suggested-the granting of a general amnesty to military defaulters.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in adding my congratulations to those already tendered to the mover and seconder of the Address. Both gentlemen performed their duty with credit to them-

selves and with satisfaction, I believe, to this House.
My desire at this moment, Mr. Speaker, is to supplement what has been said by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) in reference to the methods used in rounding up defaulters in the county which I have the honour to represent. I amr reluctant to speak on this subject, but the methods which ere being employed are such that it is high time something was done by the Government. It seems that the 4 p.m. Dominion Military Police are clothed with very full powers. If I am well informed, and I believe I am, these men are entering houses with firearms in their hands and threatening to shoot at their pleasure. Last session I had occasion to put a question with reference to this use of firearms, and I have repeated the question this session, but so far I have had no very direct answer, and therefore I am forced to the conclusion that these men are acting within their authority. Last year in Kent county an officer opened fire in the house of an alleged defaulter and inflicted a very serious wound on him; last spring another military policeman fired on a supposed defaulter in a field, putting a bullet through one of his legs; and lately another of these policemen in trying to execute his warrant, not on a defaulter but on a man who was trying to maintain order in his own home, lost his life through his revolver in some way exploding. It seems that these officers, from the way they are acting, do not know half the time what they are doing. A few days ago one of them was fined for using liquor contrary to the prohibition law. Here is an abstract from the Moncton Transcript of September 9, 1919:
Dominion Military Officer Fined for Violating-Prohibition Law.
One -of the Dominion Military Police Officers, who has been stationed at Kent County for some months rounding up alleged defaulters, came before the magistrate at -Buctouche, Saturday, charged with violation of the N.B. Prohibition Act, on information laid by Prohibition Inspector Daigle of Kent County. He was found guilty of the charge and fined fifty dollars and costs.
That man is typical of the class of men 'engaged in administering the law, Mr. Speaker.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question, Mr. Speaker? Does he approve of that officer being fined fifty dollars and costs?


Auguste Théophile Léger: Yes, sir.
- Mr. MORPHY:	Then I would ask the
hon. gentleman how he can approve of a defaulter escaping the just penalty of the law?


Auguste Théophile Léger: I am just putting this forward to show the kind of men who are looking after defaulters. When these police officers try to perform their duties while in an intoxicated condition what may we expect, especially when they begin to flourish firearms? It is no honour for us to have the law executed in such a way, nor is it creditable to the Government to allow such a state of things to exist. Many of these policemen are not suitable men for the work they undertake. Some of them I know have defied the Prohibition Act for years and some others are foreigners; in fact, I believe one is a German by the Teutonic appearance of his name. I would like, and I am sure the country would like, to know how long this kind of thing is going to be allowed to continue.
When the Military Service Act was passed bringing conscription into force, I advised, so far as I could, all the young men of military age in my constituency, to register. Many of them registered, but some did not, claiming that they were absolutely needed on the farms. In urging these young men to register, what did I find? I found that, during the election of 1917, I was opposed by the leading Conservative organizer of the constituency telling the young men that this was a selective conscription law; that it was not intended for sons of farmers or fishermen, and that they had better go home and rest easy. I know of more than one young man who had to go about twenty miles to pass the medical examination, and when they came into the shire town of Richibucto where the medical men held the examinations, they were told by this organizer to return home, that this was selective conscription and that they did not want sons of farmers- or fishermen. These men accordingly returned home without being examined, and to-day, where are they? They are in the jail of Kent county serving a term of twelve months' imprisonment or they have had to pay a fine of $250. The men who cannot pay the fine are kept in a jail built of concrete, cells and all, and their health is thereby greatly endangered because the jail is always damp and cold. During election time, it was nice to hear these people say:	Go home; this is selective conscription; you are not needed. But that is the way things were run in Kent county.

A few months ago, I am sorry to have to say it, an old man of 75 years of age was arrested by a military officer and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of $350, for what? Fot having given a bite to eat to his son who was an alleged defaulter. This old man was a perfect gentleman; he had conducted himself well all his life, never having had to go before any magistrate. The officer took this poor, unfortunate old man, who could not readily understand the English language, before the magistrate EL W. Ferguson, and between the magistrate and the officer, a fine of $350 and imprisonment for six months was imposed on him. Is this the way in which the laws of the country .should be administered? Is this justice? I do not believe it is.
I will ask the Government this question; Have the Government any after-war mandate? They were returned to power to carry on the war, and their election was ensured through this fine Wartime Elections Act which was put through the	House	for	no better
purpose than to disfranchise some honest electors and at the same time to add to ths list those whose votes would keep the Government in power. The way in which tha soldiers' vote was distributed throughout Canada was really a disgrace to the country. THis is what a returned soldier, and a good Conservative at that time, told me. I interviewed this returned, soldier about February 10, last, in reference to the way in which the voting was conducted at the front at the last election. I asked him if he had any objection to tell me how the political canvass was carried on. His .answer was that he had no objection to tell me, and he said, first, "We were not allowed to talk politics amongst the soldiers," second, "The instructions were given by an officer how to vote and for whom we had ,to vote," third, "When the names were called, an officer followed the voters to tha polling booth, and the oath was administered to the voter and the ballot handed to him to vote," fourth, " In my case, the officer followed me to the polling booth, and I took the oath as required by the Wartime Elections Apt, and the ballot was handed to me and the said officer was looking over my shoulder. I quickly marked my ballot for the candidate I wanted to vote for; then the said officer told me to show him my ballot which was not marked for the candidate that I was instructed to vote for; then and there, I tore the ballot into small pieces and I asked for anothei
one, which was handed to me. Then I marked my ballot for the candidate that I was instructed by the officer to vote for, and' left the polling booth." Then I asked him what would happen if they had seen for whom he had marked the first ballot. He replied that he would have been punished; that he would have been removed from the position that he held and put in some other place to work at some other unpleasant jobs." Then I said to him; "You did not vote for your man?" "No," he said, "my man was Mr. Robidoux." Mr. Robi-doux is the man who ran for the Union Government at the last election. Then I asked him for what county and for what candidate he had voted. He said that he could not remember. That is the way'in which the voting was conducted overseas. An officer, who was in France at the time-of the election and who was deputy returning officer for his company, said to me; "Just a few days before polling day, a-, higher officer than I came to the office where I was and said to me: "In a few days there will be a polling day; you have so many men; we want fifty votes for a certain county, twenty-five for another and so many for another, and then you have to do this." What could this man do in a case of this kind? He had to take his medicine just as the other had done. All this goes to show the kind of mandate that the Government has from the people.
Much has been said already in this debate about the high cost of living. I really believe that the Government know very little of the misery which exists to-day among the poor of this country. Otherwise they would have done something to relieve the conditions long ere this. What is the situation? It is really hard to understand how farmers and fishermen and labourers in the small settlements throughout this country can get along on their limited incomes in view of the present high cost of food stuffs, boots and shoes and clothing. My hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has read an extract from the press to the effect that a large quantity of food has been destroyed that was not fit for human consumption. Who was responsible for this waste? The poor would have been, glad to purchase these food stuffs, but they were held by profiteers and trusts and combines until they were, no longer fit for human consumption. These profiteers held- them just to get a high price, but the Lord sent hot weather and it destroyed the food. I say the Government is responsible, because of its negligence in not having a proper in-


William Findlay Maclean: I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Leger), and from my knowledge I can thoroughly agree with him in his appreciation of the loyalty and good citizenship of the Acadians not only of New Brunswick but of other provinces.. They are among the oldest citizens of Canada, and while they are French, they are, as I believe, a distinct section of that race. They have preserved their identity and have played an important part in the history of this country, and I can only bear testimony in support of what the hon. gentleman has said. But I want to say something on another question that concerns the people of Canada. The debate on the Address is my opportunity to refer to this question, and though the House be small, still my voice may be heard further than the limits of this Chamber. If one has something to say to the people of the country and is prepared to say it, let him say it in the House when the opportunity arises. In view of the fact that hon. gentlemen, and especially members of the Government, have in this and other debates directed public attention to the political situation and the political future of Canada, and while these questions are of moment and must be discussed, I am
rising in my place to say, notwithstanding what they have said and the attention that has been paid in another portion of this building to the industrial situation of Canada, that the pressing problem before the people is the high cost of living. When I speak thus I am speaking on behalf not only of my own province and constituency but for the whole of Canada; and I repeat, after hearing the debate and all these discussions, that the pressing question is the high cost of living. It is the pressing question not only in Canada but in the United States; it is the pressing question in Europe and particularly in Great Britain at this very moment, and I regret that our attempt to solve this problem has not so far produced any very great results. To emphasize my position, I intend to point out what the real difference is between any effort that is made in Canada to tackle this problem of the high cost of living and the efforts that are being made in the United States. In the United States, it will be observed, while the President is for the time being engrossed in the consideration of the League of Nations and the settlement of peace, he deemed it necessary, first, to direct the whole energy of the Government of the United States-and is now so doing-to finding some sort of relief for the people of that country who are suffering, like ourselves, from the high cost of living. What view did they take of this question in the United States? They dealt with it from the standpoint of a federal question, as a duty incumbent on the whole of the United States to find a solution' for the problem. We, on the other hand, have not taken such a view. We have made some headway, but I must point out-and I have directed attention to the matter a great deal in this House now for probably fifteen or twenty years-what are the differences between our methods and those that obtain in the United States? The United States have discovered that in order to deal with social and economic problems of supreme importance they must approach them as federal questions, to be dealt with by federal law, with a federal enforcement of that law. I have had discussions in this House with eminent constitutional lawyers regarding that question, and during all the time that it has been discussed in this Parliament there has been a determined effort to evade the responsibility of the Federal Parliament to deal with these matters as they are dealt with in the United States. Now, the United States has become a nation by reason of war-by reason of civil war and participa-

tion in other wars-and they have- become very much united, having built up a strong federal power; and all improvements that have been made in th'e United States since the Civil War, improvements especially on economic and social questions, have largely been effected through the employment of federal law and making these great issues matters affecting the welfare and interest of all the people, to be settled by the Congress of the nation. Here in Canada, on the contrary, we have largely taken the ground- certainly I have not taken it-that these questions are mainly questions that pertain to the provinces and can be settled in that way, and for quite a while I have had arguments in this House with every Minister of Justice, or, as I prefer to designate him, Attorney General, and there has not been an Attorney General in this country, while I have been in the House, who has not set up the argument that these questions are not federal questions, but provincial questions that ought to be settled by provincial laws and provincial administration of them. We have not made any headway in that connection.
Many years ago we heard a great deal about certain laws that were proposed in this House, amongst them, the Election Act and things of that kind. We passed laws which, when they came to be tried out, were brought up in the Provincial Co'urts, but nothing was really done to establish the authority of our federal jurisdiction or to vindicate these laws in connection with the conduct of elections. We had eminent men in this House, lawyers who have left a greater reputation than probably some of our lawyers are making to-day; they were all afraid of these questions and they said these laws should be left to the Legislatures and that they should not be enacted by the Federal Parliament. It has gone on and we have had recommendations in this House that these questions ought to be dealt with by the Federal power. Some headway has been made. We have got so far that this Parliament last session passed a law to deal with the question of the high cost of living and it created a federal board of commerce. But there is a great deal of difference between the methods prescribed for our federal board of commerce and the way in which the people of the United States have dealt with this question of the high cost of living. Let me point out some of the differences that exist. In the United States, when they pass a law to bring relief to the people,

they invariably put into that law a provision imposing the duty on some responsible member of the Administration to enforce it. If you analyse these laws that have brought relief to the people of the United States in a great many respects, even in connection with railways, interstate commerce and all those things, you will find in every one of them something of this kind:
It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States to enforce this law.
For the purpose of the enforcement of the law a certain sum of money is appropriated. Not only do they give the Attorney General of the United States money to employ attorneys and special agents, to obtain advice, to collect evidence and to do everything of that kind, but they place at his disposal the services of every district attorney in the United States to assist him in enforcing the law. That is what is being done there in connection with the high cost of living. Not only has the President of the United States entered upon this crusade against the high cost of living, but the Attorney General of the United States is discharging the responsibility placed upon him in connection with this matter, and he is at the head of all the prosecutions. Every district attorney in the United States is assisting him and working up evidence. They have unlimited means at their disposal for this purpose.
In the United States they have tackled this question of the high cost of living, they have created a Board of Commerce, they have created jother boards, they have put them all at work, and they have voted unlimited sums of money. I forget what the last grant to Congress was, but it was a large sum, practically a blank cheque, for the President and the Attorney General to use for this purpose. The result is that the President, the Attorney General and the Board of Commerce are all working on this question of the high cost of living. Every district attorney is at it and every district attorney can bring an action in the United States courts. We do not seem to desire to have courts in Canada for the enforcement of our laws, and we do not seem to desire to have prosecuting attorneys representing the federal power.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman understand that the district attorneys in the United States are federal officials?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, certainly I do, and we ought to have them here. Does

the hon. gentleman mean to say that we should not, or could not, have them in this country? That is my point. There is this significant difference between the two countries and it is a question that is confronting people in this country at the present time. Why should-we not have , these officials? Why should we not widen the powers of the Exchequer-Court of Canada and impose upon it the duty of enforcing this high cost of living legislation? The Attorney General and the Solicitor General of Canada should have their attorneys all over the country and they should have money at their disposal, because that is the only way in which they can get results such as they'are getting in the United States.
1 hope we will get results in Canada, but how are we to get them when there is no real enforcement of our laws? Even if the Board of Commerce which we have in Canada has evidence of some one violating the law it cannot inflict punishment. You get a summary 'enforcement of the law in the United States that you cannot get here because we look to the Attorneys General of the provinces for the enforcement of the daws of this Parliament. I am not criticising the Government so much for what they have done so far as I am criticising them for not seeing that if you are living under a federal constitution here similar to that which they have in the United States, to obtain results you must have a federal organization, you must have federal courts, you must have federal prosecuting attorneys, the Attorney General of the country must be at the head of the organization, and in this respect you must follow the example of the United States.
The hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), who spoke the other day pointed out these things. He did not say, when he gave his testimony, that although he had sat in this House for years and heard me make the same argument I am making here to-day he had done anything to assist me. He had never come to my assistance tout public opinion is changing in these matters. I would like hon. gentlemen to recall the speech made by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough the other day when he dealt with this question. He pointed out all these facts and he said if they were pulling down the high cost of living it was not because the state courts were doing anything, it was not because the private individual was doing anything, but it was because the United States, headed by the President and represented by the Attorney General and
assisted by the attorneys in the federal courts, were getting these results. They are getting them in the United States. The packers and all the profiteers of all kinds in the United States are rushing to their hiding places. For the first time great results in dealing with the high cost of living are being obtained in the United States. Prices are coming down. Have you seen how prices are coming down in the United States? Have you noticed the reduction in the prices of meat? That has all been obtained by the Attorney General of the United States going after the great packing firms. The trial of these great packing firms has begun in New York, the Attorney General of the United States has gone there to take charge of it, he has picked out the ablest prosecuting lawyer in the United States to assist him in it and has turned the case over to him. You can see wherever you go now that prices are tumbling in the United States. The prices of flour, beef, cold storage products and a great many things are all coming down. The law there is largely enforced in a summary way. These courts can get quick results; fines are imposed and men are being fined all over the United States for the enormous profits they are trying to take out of the people.
Take the packers. Notice has been served upon them that in all probability if they do not reduce their prices they will be wound up. They are being threatened with being wound up, and the result is that all these prices that are coming down there are coming down as a result of federal action. Now we have not got any such law in this country. As I said before we have made a beginning and we have a Board of Commerce, but there are only two or three members on it. To deal with the high cost of living in Canada to-day the Board of Commerce ought to consist of twelve or fifteen members. They ought to have, as I believe they do have, the power , to appoint additional commissioners. But we are not doing that, and we are not getting a reduction in the high cost of living like they are in the United States. If we see a fall . in prices in Canada, and there is a sympathetic fall coming in Canada now as a result of action in the United States-if that sympathetic fall is coming to the people of our country it is because of the action of the United States in making these issues federal issues and employing the resources, the officials, and the courts of the United States for that purpose.

Now I want to deal with another matter and that is in regard to the combines in this country. We have had a law with respect to combines in this country for years and years, and it is coming up in Ontario politics at the present moment. We went after combines in Canada and we passed a law against combines, but we put in that law what? That the enforcement of the law rested on the door-step of the Attorney General of the province and still more on the door-step of the private prosecutor. Now no private prosecutor in this country could afford, or had the courage, to go after the combines. Farmer representatives have been talking in this House, and rqy friends the farmers from the West have been talking, about combines in this country, but how many of them know that the combines' in this country never were arraigned' because we never placed the enforcement of the federal law against combinations as part of the duty of the Government or of the Attorney General of Canada?-we left it to the private prosecutor and we left it to the Attorneys General of the provinces. Even the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier told me, when I brought up this question some years ago, and I raised it in connection with my own province of Ontario, "Go to Mr. Foy," who was Attorney General of Ontario at that time. No headway was made on this question. In the IJnited States they are getting after the combines, they are getting after the pork-packers, and in a very few days you will see a very surprising exposure of the packers as a combine in the United States, and you will see^ the exposure of other combines. You will* find cold -storage an enormous combine. You will find how the packers of the United States have been getting ahead with their plans (notwithstanding that the law and the energy of the United States is against them. They have managed to secure the control of, or are gradually taking over, all the foods. They have taken over the control of the supply of rice that they bring to America. They control the rice product of the Southern States and also that of Asia. They bring the foreign rice in, and they -control the southern supply, and rice has fallen into the hands of this combine of the packers of New York, and -the same with a whole lot of other cereals and vegetables. As far as I can gather the- packers of Chicago even- control a number of the large hotels in New York, and their combines threaten to become even greater. So great do they threaten -to become that at last the 
United States Government has risen to a realization of its duty. It is going after these combines of all kinds, and is going after these high -prices, and is trying to bring relief to -the people of the Republic who are suffering from high prices just as we are suffering. But the United States is doing it by federal law, federal money, and federal officials in federal courts, and it is not passing the buck to -the state government or to the private prosecutor. How can any private prosecutor in this country, how can any farmers' association even, let alone a single farmer, get after the combinations in trade, -get after the combines? We have had a combine law on our statute-book for years and years. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, went after the -combines, but they never touched the root of the matter. As I state here to-day -and as I -tell the housekeepers of Canada who are complaining of these enormous charges-, these high charges: You will never get relief until this is made ia federal issue and brought into federal politics. We must do that now in the same way that they have done it in the United States. So that it won't do for hon, gentlemen to go home to their constituencies and say: " We have done something, we have -passed this kind of law." But you have not tackled the real question, you have not gone to the root of the matter; and I challenge my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and his followers, just as I challenge the 'Government, to say if they ever hope to regulate the high cost of living and to bring relief to the people, as against the combines, as against the high prices, unless they make -it a federal issue. We have got to make it a federal issue, and the people in Toronto and in Ontario are getting to see that. A request was made by our Board of Commerce the other day on the Government of Ontario to assist them in bringing some relief. They are admitting the situation, but they have not got the power, the real power; they have not got the means, they have not got the officials, and, consequently are not getting any results from this law so far. I believe a beginning has been made, and I give the Board of Commerce every credit for dealing the other day with sugar. They are going to deal with some other matters, and one of the commissioners is holding court in Toronto; but I want to tell this House and I want to tell the Board of Commerce that I think they will be hamstrung in no time because they have not got sufficient law, and it is largely a farce in this country. If our people

expect to get relief with such a law as we have to-day, it must be strengthened, and we must look at what they are doing in the United States. I am not going into a lot of detail 'about the matter, but I want to draw a contrast in this House as I have drawn a contrast out of it, and I am gradually getting the people to listen to me. It is a new view perhaps of our politics in this country, but the new view is this: the great power, and the only power, for progress in this country is the federal power, with federal machinery and federal money, and that those who are at the head of our Government and who take the responsibility of governing Canada, must also undertake the responsibility of passing laws and providing machinery for the enforcement of these laws.
Reference'has been made to the high cost of rents in this country. I do not know whether that is quite a federal question or how it can be brought into public consideration, but it will have to be dealt with. The high cost of rents, and a great many other things, were dealt with by Great Britain during the war, and they got results. In Great Britain they fixed prices and they compelled people to respect those prices. They regulated profits and they brought people in and made them show their cost sheets, and that is what the federal Board of Commerce of Canada ought to be doing to-day. In respect of all these prices which are alleged to be overcharges the people responsible ought to be compelled to go into some public office, or to some public official, show their profits, and have it determined whether their charges are reasonable. If they are not reasonable give the offenders twenty-four hours to change them, and if they do not, then fine them or put them in jail. They are getting results in the United States, as the hon. member for An-tigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) pointed out here-any one can see it who reads the papers-they are getting results by fining the men who are making these exorbitant charges; they are putting them fin jail, and they are threatening to put them out of business.
I venture to say that if the packers of Chicago do not pretty soon go a step further and make other reductions, the President will take over their plants in the public interest. I go further and predict that the United States Government will before very long take over the whole of the Standard Oil business and make it a national proposition; and it is not at all unlikely that if they find the Steel Trust is acting unfairly 'towards its men, or is charging exorbitant prices, they will take it over too.
But to my mind the only cure for these great economic evils that have come to the front in these war times is to enact a Federal law and have summary enforcement of that law. You cannot hang up these questions and leave them to somebody else to deal with; you cannot, in other words, leave the provinces to take action. Profiteers must be prosecuted by a federal official in a federal court, and, if found guilty, they must be punished immediately if we want to get results. We have, in fact, got to change our whole system, and follow the example set by the United States. It won't do to tell me-* and I think I have some appreciation of the fact-that there are great differences between the Constitution of the United States 'and our Constitution. The criminal law is under Dominion jurisdiction, and it would fairly follow that we ought to" enforce it. The argument has been advanced in this House that as the provinces enforce part of the law we ought to leave them to enforce the remainder. That is not logical at all. While there may be difficulties to overcome, we must adapt our Constitution so that we can obtain the same results as are being obtained in the United States. I can understand that some of the provinces might take objection to the course I am suggesting. But that is not the question. It is not a matter of constitutional interpretation. It is a matter of the protection of the people and bringing them relief from the evils under which they are suffering, and if the Constitution does not admit of federal action, then let us have the Constitution changed.
If any lawyer tells me that our Constitution cannot be changed as against provincial rights I want him-and I am no lawyer myself-to stand up and tell me how it was done in the United States. It was done by gradual changes in the interpretation of the law by the federal courts. They did not even change the law, but they
5 p.m. evolved the practice gradually, until now the great power over there is the federal law. That law can redress almost any grievance. Do you know how they got after the men who caused those frightful dynamite explosions in the United States a few years ago? There were state laws against such crimes, but they were ineffective, and the federal authorities dealt with the trouble through the jurisdiction they have over transportation and commerce. They simply passed a little statute,

that whoever was guilty of using dynamite that had been transported from one state to another came within the jurisdiction of the federal law. Those guilty of the outrages were arrested and convicted, and the trouble ceased; but that result could never have been accomplished by state law.
Recently we have been told a great deal about constitutional development in this country, and I have in mind many clear-cut deliverances on the subject during this session. It seems to me that a similar development is possible along other lines that \Vill bring relief from the evils we are now suffering. Therefore, even if my voice reaches only a few hon. members here, I hope it will carry a little further and reach the people who are now suffering from the high cost of living, and that they will realize that the only relief possible to them is by enlarging the personnel of the Board of Commerce and having our Attorney General get busy. I think we ought to call our Minister of Justice our Attorney General much oftener than we do. We have also got a Solicitor General. What is he doing? Has any one seen him lately? Why did not the Solicitor General get busy on this question when the Minister of Justice was over in Europe on important business? Over in England they have a Solicitor General, and he is in the courts all the time enforcing the law for the protection of the people; the same practice, I understand, obtains in Scotland and in Ireland. That is what we want in this country.
I want the people to ask hon. members when they go back to their constituents- hon. members on this side and hon. members on the Opposition side-to ask all of us why we cannot have here the process that they have in the United States for getting after profiteers, and if they have it in England why cannot we have it here? Bear in mind that for fifty years we have never got any kind of results in these matters by trusting to the provinces to take action. We have made a start, but we are ashamed of our start-we are ashamed to recognize the Board of Commerce as clothed with federal responsibility. Even when we organized the board we did not clothe it with sufficient power. We Should have given it the power of summarily fining profiteers. I want to tell the public how my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) made his reputation in the western provinces in dealing with cattle thieves. He stamped them out by a summary administration of the law.

I would like to see the Attorney General (Mr. Doherty), and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton), notwithstanding his other pressing duties in connection with the Treaty and with the department that he now has in hand, to sit down and deal with this pressing question. The project of the Prime Minister and the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) going over to England just as soon as they can to establish Canada as an independent nation, or as a member of a League of Nations within the British Empire, is not the pressing question. The pressing question is to apply federal treatment to the high cost of living and the high cost of rent, and the regulation of abnormal profits made by a lot of our industries under war conditions. The question of capitalization of companies is another thing to which this Parliament should direct attention, although we have been told that it is no concern of ours.
These are matters for our consideration; we must have a law regulating them, and there never will be a law to regulate them unless it be a federal law and unless federal jurisdiction is taken over them. These are questions that the people are thinking about and that must be dealt with. In my constituency there are well-to-do people, some of them farmers, some of them living in the cities; but I want people to meet the letter carrier in the service of the country who is getting pretty good pay in comparison with what he used to get, and I want them to meet the man who works on the railway and hear from them what they think about the high cost of living. Every time I travel by train, 1 take the opportunity of speaking to the brakeman or other railwayman, and I find that the great concern for him is the high cost of living. Some of them are old constituents of mine who, before the adjustment of the constituency, lived in West Toronto, and they tell me that this is what they do as they go up and down on the train; they give somebody a dollar or fifty cents to buy something out of the packing plant at Peterborough as they pass through, because they can get what they want for a little less than' they have to pay for it in the stores at Toronto. That is evidence of the strain under which the people are living to-day. While they are receiving higher pay, they are being charged more than they should be, and there is too great a spread between what the packer pays to the farmer for an animal and what he charges the consumer. The game of the packer in the United States is the same as in this country, name-

ly, to get a great spread between what he gives the raiser of the product and what he charges the consumer. The capitalization of these companies, their profits and so on must be regulated by federal law.
The soldiers of the country are knocking at the door for some kind of relief, and what is their argument when you sift it down? I have in my pocket letters from these men and I talk to them when they come and see me when I am at home. They compare their treatment in fighting for this country and for the safety of democracy and the world, as it has been said- and I think they have had pretty fair treatment in some respects as compared with the soldiers of other countries-with the liberty that is given to the profiteer in this country, especially the profiteer who sells the necessaries of life. We shall not get away from these soldiers or from the working people who have these grievances, unless this Parliament, as representing the people of Canada, takes the American view of the efficacy of federal intervention and federal laws in regard to these questions. While this may not be interesting conversation and while it may not be regarded with much favour, the only question about which I wish to speak in the event of an election is the high cost of living. While the farmers have been getting high prices for what they sold to the packers and to the public and may thus have been getting some benefit out of the high cost of living, they have been suffering in the same way from having to pay high prices for what they require. I am a good deal of a protectionist and I want to see industries built up, because to build up our country we must have industries, but the man who wishes to enjoy the benefit of tariff, must show that because of the tariff he does not charge exorbitant prices. In the last day or two cases of exorbitant prices being charged have been brought to our attention, but we do not go after these people; we let them get away; we do not get results, and we leave these "combinesters" as heretofore to provincial law. Perhaps I am wearying the House and perhaps I may be thought a crank; but when I started first I could not get one man to listen to me, although now the man who is Prime Minister has said: Perhaps there is something in this question that the hon. member for South York brings forward in regard to federal law and federal enforcement of federal law as the proper solution of a great many of our economic and social questions. This view is beginning to spread throughout the country, and when hon. members-I do not care whether they are Unionist or. Conservative or Liberal or whatever they are-go back to their constituencies, they must explain to the people, as I am going to explain as well as I may, the difference between relying upon provincial law and relying upon enforcing federal laws. A little more explanation in regard to the matter may be necessary, but it will not take long to discuss it in the press. The Toronto newspapers used to laugh at this idea of federal enforcement of federal law', but their views have changed, and within the last two years they have all come round to my view, just as the hon. member for Anti-gonish (Mr. Sinclair) came round to it the other day. He is a lawyer and he listened for years to all this buncombe in the House to the effect that we could not do anything because the enforcement of law was a provincial matter, but he has changed his views. The Manitoba Free Press, a paper that has great influence in the West, confessed that nothing was to be gained unless we had practically the same law and the same machinery that the United States has. Again I want to tell hon. gentlemen that the main question to-day is the high cost of living; the next question is the civil re-estabhsh-ment of the soldier. These questions are being discussed in practically every house throughout this country, and yet here I am talking to an almost empty House in regard to these great issues. But, Sir, this is not going to continue much longer. As I say, the newspapers have changed their views, the Attorneys General are beginning to see that this is an issue, and we cannot sit still in the light of developments, that are going on in the United 'States and view complacently the relief that the American Government is getting for the people without taking direct action ourselves. We can see the Chicago grain and provision market quotations tumbling every day. We have to-day the possibility of cheaper feed for the Canadian cattle because of the attention that is being given by the United States federal authorities to the price of grain, of provisions and of other commodities. It is not a nice thing to have to say that the relief that is coming to-day to Canada in regard to high prices and in the way of improving the condition of the farmer is being worked out in the United States.
So much for the high cost of living. I have another subject to which I should like to refer for a moment. We have gone in for nationalization of railways in this country and we have made a great deal of pro-

gress. I want to give the Government credit for what they have done, and I hope it is true that they are about to acquire the Grand Trunk, because with the acquisition of the Grand Trunk we shall be able to link up a national system that will be owned by the people for the people. I hope this policy will have the support of the farmers of the Canadian* West, as I believe it will. The United States Government have tried an experiment and they have made some headway or, as some people say, some mistakes, because while they took over the railways during the war, it is now proposed that they return them. To those people who read what is now being sent out to the Canadian people and to the people of the United States in regard to the railways, namely, that President Wilson made a great mistake and that enormous sums of money were lost by taking over the railroads, let me say that that is not quite true and does not quite represent public opinion in the United States, because the dominant vote in that country to-day is the farmers' vote; it was the farmers of the United States who made Wilson President, and a great deal of splendid legislation has been passed in the United States since Wilson came into office. The farmers have now a Council of Agriculture similar to that which we have in the West, and the Council of Agriculture in the United States not long ago passed, on behalf of all the farmers of the United States whom they represent, a motion that they were in favour of the nationalization of the railways of that country. You do not hear much about that. There is too much news in the newspapers these days that conceal the facts.
Some ho'n. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: But there are a few papers in this country that do sometimes bring out some facts. Another thing that has come out in the United States is that organized labour there is in favour of the nationalization of railways; so we are making no mistake in this country when we nationalize our railways. The Government is to-day the largest owners of railways in this country, having a greater mileage than the Canadian Pacific, and when we get the Grand Trunk we shall probably have three miles to their two. Now that we are committed to this proposition we must deal with it. Here we have these national railways, but unfortunately we are not boasting of them; we are not telling the people " Travel on your own lines; give them your business; they

are yours; help them out." We have made no great public announcement yet of the public ownership of our great system of railways, and the sooner we begin to boost that idea the better for everybody.
We shall have to link up the various branches of our railway system, and strike out a lot of unnecessary trackage. We shall have to dismiss a lot of unnecessary officials, ticket officers, and a lot of freight solicitors and that kind of thing. We must unify the system. It is a great national proposition, and ,we should be proud of it and urge the people to use their own railways. Then we will give relief to all Canada, and especially the farmers of the West, once the system has been made a great success.
There is another thing, and that is, if we wish to hold our own in the markets of the world we must have national shipping, because every dollar we now get for the farmers of Canada in the way of reduced freight rates by reason of federal action is taken away immediately by shipping interests on the Atlantic. I hope that we will come to some kind of an arrangement whereby we will not only control freights on the Atlantic but have a system of national shipping of our own. It is the only way to build up this country. It may be radical. It may be wmrse than radical; it may be Bolshevik, but there are a great many people in this country who think that the only way to deal with the transportation business of this country is by nationalization both on land and sea.
We have another thing in connection with the railways in this country, and we seem to be ashamed of it,- and that is, the great telegraph system in connection with the railways we own and those we have taken over. We have never linked them up into a national system of telegraphs. They are still carrying on under the name of the Great Northwestern Telegraph company. Let us say immediately: "We are in the national railway and telegraph business; ws propose to unify the system and put it in the hands of capable men who will never be interfered with by politicians on one side or the other; the system will be run absolutely for the service of the public." When the people of Canada know that we have these national railways and telegraphs they will use them, and when that is done, whether we get the Grand Trunk or not, we will be the leaders of the world in the nationalization of railways. All I hope and pray for is that we will as we can make

a success of the system. Canadians can make a success of anything they put their hands to; they made a success of the great war, so far as their part in it was concerned. I have faith in my country to deal with this question. Men are going around saying and it is being said in the newspapers, " You cannot trust Canadians to nationalize railways or telegraphs." What I deplore is that we have not got results yet in connection with the Grand Trunk. I hope that results will come soon, but whether they do or do not, I do not want to see any more of the indecision and delay that has taken place since we took over the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we should have had them unified even without the Grand Trunk. If we are not going to have the Grand Trunk right away, let us go ahead and nationalize the lines we have. Let there be no more of this delay, because in the meantime our chief rival is the great Canadian Pacific, and while we are doing nothing in the way we should do they are getting ahead. A little more of that inattention will make the people distrustful of our roads. Let us at once unify the roads we have. Let us take up the unnecessary tracks all over the country and put them in new settlements where they are required. Let us have a national system of railways just as soon as we can, and ask the people to patronize their own roads and their own telegraphs and make the national system the enormous success it can be made.


Lucien Cannon: Where will the Government get the money to buy the Grand Trunk?


William Findlay Maclean: It does not need any money; I am sorry for my hon. friend. I think I floored the present member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when this railway question was up twenty-three years ago. I told him then, when they were putting a Bill through this House to allow the Canadian Pacific to increase greatly its capitalization, which was a crime against the country then, and it is more so to my mind to-day: "I will get you the whole of the railways in Canada on the undertaking of one dollar, "-and, you could have got those railways on that undertaking. It is not a money proposition, but a substitution of securities, with a revaluation in connection with that substitution. So it does not require any money.


Lucien Cannon: What about the Canadian Northern?


William Findlay Maclean: It cost us something to take it over; and we had to get the money. I would have done it some other way. I was not responsible for that, but the payment was justified, to my mind. It got us out of a difficulty, and we got the railway. We will have to give am undertaking to the Grand Trunk, in the way of an annual charge. You cannot do things without money. You cannot govern a country without money. You have to get the money for your budget.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I attribute to my hon. friend, having heard him for years advocating public ownership', the present public ownership of our railways. Can he give us any reason for the great deficits we have had since we have taken over the railways?


William Findlay Maclean: We have had great deficits, as they have had in the United States, because of the war. We have not had an opportunity of putting economic administration into force, and that is what I am trying to preach here to-day.
Now I come to the Budget. Our debt is enormous. In England, too, the question to-day is, how are we going to meet the Budget? There is only one way to meet it, *and that is by saving. The Government of the day must tackle these questions on the line of economy. When we give an account of our stewardship the people of this country are going to ask us, "What did you do with our money? What savings did you effect?
I have no interest in ascertaining whether Canada is one of the galaxy of nations, but I am interested, and the people of this country are interested, to know how we are going to meet our budget. And the way in which we can meet it is by cutting down expenses. In Britain to-day they are reducing expenses, particularly in connection with the army and navy. Only a fraction of the navy is to be left, and the Prime Minister of England, as appears in the papers this morning, had to apologize to the gallant men who comprised the personnel of the navy for the fact that they had to go because they could not be maintained. I say, Sir, that we have to go through our budget with a fine-toothed comb and cut down our expenses, and we must cut down the expenditure in the different departments of Government. We may have to increase our budget on the whole because there are some new things we have got to do for which money is required, but for the present

what the people want is economy in public administration, economy in the various departments. I have had to economize in my business, as other men have had to during the war. It is a hard thing to do and as a matter of fact all did not succeed. I happened to run a farm, and whereas five years ago, before the war, I could get a good man for $25 or $30 a month with board, I cannot get a man for less than $70 and board to-day, and it costs a dollar a day to board a man on the farm. Altogether a farmhand costs you $100 a month and in some places more than that. Every individual must go through his own budget with a view to economy, and the nation must do the same thing. If we are over-manned. in the departments of Government we must take remedial action. We had high plans in Canada not long ago for making Ottawa a great capital. We were to have great avenues, and with every avenue there was to be a big departmental gothic building of some kind which was to be full of employees. But we have only just completed the new administrative building which the Government in their wisdom have erected on Queen street, and which is a modern building consisting of nothing but steel, bricks and concrete, and light. We have been talking for twenty years of making this a great capital with great buildings at the end of avenues, buildings with gothic (windows but with a total absence of light and full of cubby holes. In these days iwe should follow the example of great corporations and have large buildings .ten or fifteen stories high with elevator systems and plenty of light all over, so that'the employees and the chiefs in charge of these departments would be in the public eye. You should go into a room and see fifty clerks working all the time, not reading the newspapers but working under the eye of the chief, who should also be in the sight of the .public. Then you would see business going on. We have overhauled our system here in accordance with this plan and I am glad to read that the Government have taken a competent staff of business engineers, as they are called, to help them in re-constructing and re-organizing the departments. There must be more economy; we must cut down expenditure on public works. We may have to ipay our clerks and employees more money, but one way in which we can give some relief is to bring about a reduction in the cost of living. This is an absolutely new world after the war, and none of the pre-war ideas will hereafter obtain. You 
and I and all of us will be judged by the kind of service we give the people.
We have a .pressing problem knocking at the door; the soldiers and the people are knocking for relief. Constitutional questions amount to little in such a crisis. My memory goes back to the beginning of Confederation and men like Edward Blake, Dalton McCarthy, Sir John A, Macdonald, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier at times have talked largely about constitutional questions, but economic questions are the questions to-day. They are the questions that are stirring up the farmers, and the high cost of living is what is biting me in my own business every minute of my life. It is (what is biting in the household of every citizen in the country. Economic questions are .the questions of moment, and not constitutional or lawyers' questions, although they are involved. You hear about economic and social questions on -the street where-ever you go, and yet we are not dealing with them in this Parliament. Since the war, how active has Parliament been in connection with these economic questions? We have talked about election acts and things of that kind and we are in trouble about some of them now, but what demands our immediate attention is the solution of the economic questions of the hour. Weakling as I am, and unimportant citizen of the country though I may he, or as a great many people try to make out that I am, I still have the courage to stand up in this Parliament of Canada and appeal to this Government and to Parliament to deal with these economic questions. We are in session now and the people expect us to deal with the high cost of living, with unfair profiteering, and with the question of the capitalization of companies.


Mr. COWAN:: What are your plans? Tell us what you are doing.


William Findlay Maclean: Did you not hear me? I think I have said a lot of things and I have aroused the hon. gentleman's curiosity. Perhaps he has been asleep and has just awakened. Rip Van Winkles always wake up if somebody makes a noise.


Walter Davy Cowan: I wish you would wake up.
Mr. W. F. .MACLEAN: The hon. gentleman has wakened up. I wish he would talk that way in my constituency and he would see who is the live man of the two. Perhaps he does not want to listen. These are questions that ought to he dealt with, and any one who brings them up always has the question thrown at him: What is

your plan? Well, the responsibility is not on me. My responsibility is to say what I can, and if the hon. gentleman has a better plan I hope he will take charge of the administration and bring in something to deal with these matters, because the people of Canada exipect action. Does the hon. gentleman think I am right in saying that our people are suffering from the high cost of living?


Walter Davy Cowan: Certainly I do.


William Findlay Maclean: Does he propose then to see the Government of Canada follow the example of the United States and make this question a Federal issue and bring these people to time to reduce the cost of living?


Walter Davy Cowan: Has not the Government established a Board of Commerce?


William Findlay Maclean: They have established it, but the President and the Attorney General and all the attorneys of the United States are bringing offenders into court and fining them, and you cannot fine them in the Canadian courts unless you do it through the provinces.


Walter Davy Cowan: Have you any plan?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. gentleman,desires to put a question he should rise in his place.


William Findlay Maclean: This is probably the way to bring out the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I enjoy it. If the hon. gentleman has a better proposal than mine he may unfold it to the House and perhaps he will deal with these issues I have raised, and deal with them from the point of view of the farmers of the country and the general public as well. I am trying in my own simple way to present this case to the people, and I think I have had some attention here this afternoon. If we have secured any governmental action in this country, if we have a court of commerce, it is largely owing to a few poor incompetents like myself who have been for years talking in this strain with the result that we have made a little headway. We thank the Government for the headway we have got but we want more.
We. have not the Minister of Finance in the House although I have been talking about the Budget. The coming Minister of Finance will have the greatest problems to deal with that any Minister of Finance in this country has ever had to face. These
problems arise 'by reason of this war and by reason of the money that must be raised. On former occasions I have directed, as I again direct, the attention of the House to the fact that we will have, in order to meet our budgets and to deal with the financial question, to make a change and to confess to the change that we have made. There must be some difference in our laws in regard to banking and currency. We have a considerable amount of inflation and we have not quite admitted it. We have inflated our currency by the issue of federal notes and we are practically on a paper currency basis. We cannot get away from it and yet in some way we have to overtake it. We may even have to issue more paper currency to pull us through. We may have to change our banking laws, to encourage deposits, to establish real postal savings banks and to allow our depositors, our farmers, to keep their accounts in the postal savings banks and to take their money out by cheque. In that way, perhaps there will be more deposits at the disposal of the Government than there are to-day. We have heard strange doctrines preached in the West with regard to the banking and currency laws. I am making no suggestions at this moment but in the coming session of this House, and when we have our new Finance Minister in his seat, we will have to face these questions. These questions relating to banking and currency are important and pressing and I hope this House will deal with them.
if I can only in a faint way arouse interest in the House, as I know I have aroused interest in the country in these living questions, I will have done something. I apologize for having taken up the time of the House in dealing with these questions. Yet I think I am doing my duty here to-day. Unfortunately, it is a duty which is not being done. There are men much abler than I to deal with these questions and yet I feel, as I have felt often before, that it is necessary for me to get up in this House and speak about these questions. Some headway has been made. A feeling that something has been accomplished comes to those of us who started some years ago to direct public attention to these questions and especially to direct attention to the one great thing that we have ignored for fifty years since Confederation, that relief in regard to these great economic, and many social questions, is only to be obtained in the Parliament of Canada as it is being obtained to-day in

the federal legislature of the United States, and in the British Parliament. We feel that'in this respect we have at least done something. I have been speaking to-day especially in behalf of the people of Canada who are suffering under this high cost of. living and these immense profits that are being reaped by those who are in business. While I regret that I have had to take up 'so much of the time of the House yet I am not ashamed of what I have done because of the pressing importance of the matters with which I have dealt.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. HENRI E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County): Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne upon the admirable manner in which they acquitted themselves of .the duty entrusted to them and the fine speeches to which they gave utterance. I regret, however, that the practice of Parliament in having one of .those speeches delivered in the French language was departed from. 'Was it not possible, Mr. Speaker, to find at least one bon. gentleman among the supporters of the Government capable of moving or seconding the Address in one of the official languages of this country? Surely on the occasion of such an important session as the present, the Government should have made it a point to see that both languages were used.
Since the last session of Parliament great events have happened in the Dominion. One of the most striking was that, by the privilege of His Majesty .the King, we have had the honour of a visit from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales who, during his short stay so far in this country, has won. the admiration and the affection of the people of Canada. As soon as it was officially announced that Canada was to be favoured with a visit from His Royal Highness, Quebec, through its mayor and council, took occasion, to request that the Prince should come to the old fortress city. This great privilege was granted to us and we had the honour of having the Prince of Wales in our midst for four days. The civic welcome to the Prince by Quebec was most noteworthy and the sympathetic and democratic demeanour of His Royal Highness aroused the admiration of all. On the occasion of his visit the Prince1 charmed

and delighted the French population of Quebec province and especially the inhabitants of the Ancient Capital, by the^ felicitous manner in which he responded in good French to the welcome accorded to him.
In complying with the request of the citizens to inaugurate the Quebec Bridge, His Royal Highness participated in one of the greatest events that ever has occurred in Quebec and he won once more the admiration of our people by the delicate manner in which he responded again in perfect French to the address of our citizens.
The calling of the present session, on the first of September last was somewhat of a surprise to a good many hon. members. Although we have been told that it may 'be a short session, it is one of the most momentous that has been held since Confederation by reason of the importance of the treaties submitted to the House for ratification, or approval. It is to be regretted that members did not have the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the terms of the Peace Treaty until the session itself began, and that the French translation was not placed in the hands of the French members until * forty-eight hours thereafter. We were told that this document had to be approved by this Parliament within two or three days, and that the Peace Treaty must [DOT]be .accepted in the form in which it was submitted as it had been so signed by His Majesty. There was a general desire on. the part of members of the House, especially hon. gentlemen composing the Opposition, to express their views on this important document, but in view of the limited time accorded, many members on this side had to renounce that intention. However, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) upon the amendment which they presented to the House. True, that amendment w.as defeated but it will find a place in the annals of Parliament, epitomizing as it does our views on the great constitutional question involved.
Very important speeches were also delivered on both sides of the House by the hon, the President of the Privy Council, the hon. the Minister of Justice and by the hon. members for Kamouraska, Shelburne and Queen's, and Maisonneuve, and others who brought up arguments of great importance. I notice however that the speeches delivered by the President of the Privy Council and the Honourable the Minister of Justice, who

were our representatives in Europe, do not seem to agree and that they do not seem to give the same interpretation and signification to some clauses of the Treaty.
I would have been pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see in the programme of this important session, more items of vital interest for our country. I would have been pleased to see measures to improve the economic conditions of our country. I would have been pleased to see vigourous steps being taken by the Government to put an end [DOT]to actual conditions. The people are alarmed by the continual increase in the cost of living and nothing seems to be done to improve the situation, except by naming commissions and by creating positions or sinecures with big salaries for the friends of the Government. I would have been pleased also to see in the programme of this session a measure regarding the War Veterans with the object of improving their condition. I do not feel that the country iis in ia position of granting entirely the demands submitted to the Prime Minister by the War Veterans, but I think that the demands made should have been carefully investigated. I don't think that the request for the appointment of a commission should have been refused. It should have been granted and a careful investigation and adjustment made of the demands of our glorious soldiers who so nobly fought for our country.
The organization for the new loan is now going on. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to see that the Government, who committed such a mistake in the last victory loan by exempting the victory bonds from taxation, thus favouring the large capitalists and speculators of the country of an exemption of taxations when the poor and small people had to pay heavy taxes, have recognized their mistake and have amended by floating the present loan without exemption of taxation, so as to give more justice to eevrybody.	.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the economic position of this country should receive the solicitude of the Government, who should look very closely into all matters and give good example by seeing that the people's money is not wasted in public works and other matters as it 'has been the case in late years. I want particularly to draw the attention of the Government to the manner in which public works have been carried on in Quebec and how millions of dollars have been wasted. I wish particularly to draw the attention of every member of this
19*	|
House and to ask them to investigate the situation in Quebec and judge by themselves, as have done some members from the West whom we had the honour to receive in our city some weeks ago and who have taken advantage of a view at close range of the situation I speak of. I am sure that if more members iwere acquainted with the situation, active steps would he taken to prevent so .much public money being wasted in Quebec, and elsewhere.
I wish to draw the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which public money has been wasted since 1911, and particularly to direct attention to the situation in Quebec city. In 1910 the Government formed a commission, known as the National Transcontinental Commission, with the Hon. S. N. Parent as chairman, for the purpose of constructing the National Transcontinental railway. It became necessary to decide on the best site for the Terminal in Quebec city, and after very careful consideration the commission in consultation with eminent experts of the railway and steamship lines interested in the matter, came to the conclusion that the Champlain Market site, with an area of 230,000 square feet and fronting on the St. Lawrence river, was best adapted for the purpose. The Government then decided to proceed immediately with the work of construction, and a contract was signed for the building of a union station at a cost of $750,000. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this very valuable site was the property of the city of Quebec. The city was very reluctant to part with the property, which it valued at $250,000, but in response to a request from the Government the city consented, after serious and careful consideration, to grant the property in order to facilitate the erection of the Union Station, and a contract was entered into in August, 1910, between the Government and the city under which the Government agreed to build the Union Station, to spend not less than $2,000,000 on the St. Lawrence river frontage in docks, tidewater wharves and elevators, and to build, on the main line of the National Transcontinental, railway workshops at a cost of $2,000,000. The Government then purchased three miles of frontage on the St. Lawrence river at a cost of $2,000,000, and built the railway from the Quebec bridge to the Champlain Market, a distance of six miles. After the change of Government in 1911 the Conservative Government cancelled the contract for the erection of the Union station, aH the plans which had been the study of

expert men were abandoned, and a small Union station was built in partnership with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Had the original plans been carried out the National Transcontinental would have had a railway yard of 12,000,000 square feet, area, free of street crossings, instead of the restricted accommodation which they are now using in conjunction with their competitor, the present yard having an area of only 1,000,000 square feet, and as it is only 1,000 feet in length, every freight train, while passing through the yard, blocks the most important streets and greatly inconveniences local vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The Government, after they had laid out what they called a general plan for the city of Quebec, decided to go on with some other great improvements, including improvements in the St. Charles river at Quebec. Owing to the fact that the city had handed over to the Government our property, consisting of the Champlain market, the city of Quebec had to provide for another market and also for the accommodation of small craft and boats. After the Government had given serious consideration to the work on the St. Charles river for fifteen or twenty years, they decided to proceed with the construction of the lock, and the dredging of the river, and a contract was entered into in 1912 with the firm of Quinlan and Robertson, of Quebec. The Government at the time told the city of Quebec that they were disposed to proceed with the work on the St. Charles river, but that they had some conditions to impose on the city. They asked the city of Quebec if they were willing to renounce all claim fwrodfemage that might, by raising the level of the water, be caused to the sewers which empty into the St. Charles river. The city of Quebec agreed to this, and an agreement was entered into and signed between the Government and the city, and then the Government granted a contract to the firm of Quinlan and Robertson, which proceeded with the work. In answer to a question which I put to the exMinister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) on the 31st of March, 1919, I was told that the contract " was originally suspended on account of the war, but now the question of continuing and completing the work is left for future consideration." I also asked the minister what was the amount spent to date for the St. Charles river works, and the minister's reply was $1,683,094.16. Moreover, my information is that the Government, in cancelling the contract with the Quinlan and Robertson company, have ac-[iMr. Lavigueur.]
quired all the plants of that firm at a cost of pretty nearly $300,000, which means an expenditure by the Government of about $2,000,000 on the St. Charles river. The Government, if my information is correct, are selling the plants by auction on the 21st instant, and I suppose they will .realize 25 or 30 per cent of the amount expended in purchasing them. As I have stated, the Government, after expending on the St. Charles river $2,000,000, have decided, for no reason whatever, to suspend this work. We told the Government that we were urging that this work on the St. Charles river should be proceeded with, and that the city of Quebec relied on the good faith of the Government that the work would be done, and the promise of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), who came to our city in 1913 when the citizens of Quebec tendered a banquet at the Chateau Fron-tenac to him and his colleagues, the Hon. Mr. Rogers, the Hon. Mr. 'Cochrane, the Hon. Mr. Hazen and the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, the minister then representing the district of Quebec. The Prime Minister came to Quebec at that time to inaugurate the works on the St. Charles river, to inaugurate the works on the Transcontinental, and to lay the corner stone of the St. Malo workshops. He told us that was only the beginning of large expenditures which the Government felt justified in proceeding with immediately in the city of Quebec. All these works have been suspended, and I wish here, for the information of the House, to put on record the declarations and promise made to the citizens of Quebec by the Prime Minister and liis colleagues on the 22nd October, 1913. The Prime Minister spoke as follows:
Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen:
Will you permit me in the first place to express my grateful appreciation and warm acknowledgment of the kindness and hospitality of my fellow-citizens of this city in tendering .me this banquet and in extending to me so cordial a welcome and reception. Whether we worship at the same altar, whether we are affiliated with one political party or the other, we are all united by a proud confidence in the resources of our country, in the possibilities of their development, in the freedom of our institutions and in the greatness of Canada's destiny.
Welcome an Inspiration.
Your welcome is of itself an inspiration but apart from that one cannot fail to be inspired by the memories of the past when visiting this city. Here', more than three hundred years ago were laid the foundations of the Canada of to-day. If even in later years and since the birth of this Dominion it required faith and courage to persevere in this task transmitted to us by the founders of Confederation, how shall we estimate the faith, the courage, and

the strong purpose of those who consecrated their energies and their lives in reclaiming for the cause of Christianity and civilization what was then a vast wilderness in this western world. May the soul and purpose of our nation ever be strengthened by the memory of the ideals which inspired the pioneers of Canada when first they undertook the task which is now committed to our keeping.
Quebec is thus unique among Canadian cities, in the associations and traditions to which I have alluded. But apart from these, when one considers its majestic situation, at the portal of the greatest inland waterway of the world, its commanding position at the head of the Gulf of St. Lawrence which lies like a great land-locked ocean almost at your feet, the vast territory largely undeveloped which lies tributary to this city, and the unbounded opportunities for the development of industry and of commerce which are thus afforded, one realizes the immense importance that this harbour should be so developed and equipped as to enable it to compete on at least even terms with any port on this continent for a legitimate share of the world commerce flowing to and froan our shores.
Whatever differences may exist between the policies of political parties in Canada, I am sure they will be found united in the view that the great national ports of this country should be adequately equipped for the purpose which I have stated. It is in this view that I desire to set forth to you to-night the works [DOT]which the Government deem necessary and which they have already undertaken for the proper equipment and development of this harbour.
Must look wTell ahead.
In approaching a question, one realizes that we must build not for to-day or to-morrow or for ten years hence, and that no proposals can be regarded as adequate unless they are so comprehensive in their character as to permit of proper extension to meet the necessities of the large future. We can estimate to some extent the probable development within a few years; but one would need a prophetic vision to foresee the enormous increase in our commerce and the equipment necessary to cope with it during the life-time of even a single individual. Considering the resources of this country, still on the eve of development and the population flowing in marvelous streams to our shores, one may conjecture that the bright eyes of children to-day at play in your streets may still be undimmed when this Dominion shall have surpassed in population the British Islands, or that favoured land from which came the ancestors of more than two million Canadians.	[DOT]
Transcontinental Works.
The approaching completion of the National Transcontinental Railway naturally render it important and even urgent that every needful facility and equipment should be provided without necessary delay. Let me put before -you in a few -words the proposals of the Government in the provision of terminals.
Pending the completion of the Quebec bridge which will probably not be finished before 1917, it is proposed to provide a ferry boat of large dimensions capable of handling a whole pas* senger train at one crossing. Such a boat has already been contracted for in Great Britain and will be delivered early next season, ^he
ferry landings for this boat are already under construction both on the Levis side and the Quebec side, the necessary land having been acquired for the purpose. It has been thought in the public interest that instead of constructing the shops at .St-Foy as originally proposed they should be erected at St. Malo in this city. These shops will occupy an area of about 200 acres and a large number of men will be employed. The establishment of these shops will, I hope, be a marked advantage in the development of Quebec and it will mean the upbuilding of a prosperous community in that portion of your city, as the operation of the shops involves the steady employment of a high class of labour and all the advantages that necessarily result from increased business and commercial activity.
Freight and Passenger Stations.
The site originally selected at St. Foy will nevertheless be utilized in the first instance for a large through freight yard which is necessary at that point in order to provide for the distribution of cars on different roads. Moreover a large handsome station has been completed at St. Foy as well as an eighteen stall engine house and every building neeessary for the efficient operation of the railway. Between the Quebec Bridge and the Champlain Market a double track has practically been completed. There is also a connection with the Canadian Northern Railway at Cap Rouge which permits entrance to the St. Charles side of the city and which can be utilized for this purpose pending the completion of the tunnel that will connect the St. Lawrence waterfront with the new Union Station on the Palais site. While that tunnel is essention to the National Transcontinental Railway for effective access to the Union Station and to the St. Charles side, it will be equally neeessary to other great railway systems which will naturally require access to the great frontage terminal of the St. Lawrence. The new Union station will be a very handsome edifice worthy both of this city and of the great railways by which it is to be used. Not only will this building be handsome and spacious, but its arrangements and accommodations will be of the most modern and approved designs. Its location is in the most populous part of the city and it will therefore accommodate most conveniently the greatest number of people. The advantages of a union station for all railroads where such a course is reasonably practicable are so obvious hardly to need enumeration. It is sufficient to say that when this station shall have been completed, Quebec will be as well equipped with terminal facilities for passenger service as any city in Canada.
Must Obtain Western Traffic.
Having regard to the probable enormous development of western traffic to this city and its w'onderful possibility by reason of the situation which I have described and seeing also the necessity of providing adequately for future development, the Government thought it desirable to possess an extensive waterfront on the St. Lawrence. With this view we have acquired three miles of the best waterfront in Quebec extending from Sillery to Cap Diamond; and portions of the waterfront from the Cap Diamond to the Champlain market have also been secured. This magnificent waterfront will give to the Government and to the Harbour Commission the opportunity of almost unlimited development of port and terminal facilities; and I hope you will agree that in thus looking forward to the possibilities of the future the Gov-

ernment have taken no unwise course. In adopting this policy, we feel that we are acting not in the interest of Quebec alone -but in the interest of all Canada, for Canada as a whole is concerned in the provision of modern and effective facilities necessary for the outflow and inflow of commerce at all great ports.
Whenever necessary we can also arrange for connection of the tracks between the Champlain Market Station and Louise Basin for the transfer of freight which can largely be carried on at night without disturbance or inconvenience to the business activities of the city. While the great Union Station which the Government is to occupy jointly with the Canadian Pacific Railway will subserve the principal requirements of traffic it is also desirable that there should be a station at the Champlain Market for the convenience of that portion of the population in the immediate vicinity. The plans for this station are now in course of preparation and the work will be commenced at a very early date and will be carried to completion with no unnecessary delay.
Gigantic I>ry Dock.
It is not difficult to understand that the St. Lawrence route cannot hold its own in competition with other routes unless vessels of the largest tonnage can be docked and repaired in case of necessity. The conditions of the past, in which at least a score of the large liners sailing to the St. Lawrence could not be accommodated in any available dock in the gulf or river St. Lawrence, could not possibly continue if we seriously contemplate not only the maintenance but the increase of the existing transportation facilities across the Atlantic. Accordingly the Government have undertaken the construction at Lauzon of one of the largest and finest dry docks in the world. According to a statement compiled by the experts of the Department of Public Works no larger dock is either in existence or in contemplation in any British or American port than that which is being commenced within the city limits of Quebec Harbour. Last year in London we sought and obtained information as to the requirements of the Admiralty in respect of the character, dimensions and the possible use of such a dock. The information thus gathered was of great value and it has been acted upon in determining the size and character of this dock, which primarily will be utilised for commercial purposes to the marked advantage of the St. Lawrence route, but which will also be capable of use in time of need for the purposes of the Admiralty. Whatever differences of opinions may exist upon the question of preparation for defence, there can be no sound objection to a policy which subserves in the first place the necessities of commerce and the requirements of peace and which can also be made available for naval purposes in time of need. It is to be hoped, and, indeed, anticipated that, with the construction of this dry dock, there will come the speedy development of such an enlarged repair plant as is needful at this port. Without assuming the role of prophet, one may well anticipate that from these beginnings there may in the future spring up a great shipbuilding industry surpassing even that which in the old days of wooden ships flourished in and around the harbour of Quebec.
Harbour Commission Work.
Let me now advert to the work which has been carried on by the new Harbour Commission since its appointment less than a year ago. Two English Engineers of eminence famil-

iar with the problems of harbour development were instructed to draw up a general scheme for future as well as for immediate development. The plan which they proposed was most carefully considered by the Commission which consulted with the Railway Companies, the steamship lines, captains of steamers, pilots and other competent persons and eventually concluded that the recommendations of these engineers should be carried out. Plans have accordingly been prepared in accordance therewith and the work is now under construction. The bulk-head wall on the St. Charles' side is in course of construction, and dredging contracts involving no less than three million cubic yards have been awarded for dredging at the mouth of the St. Charles. A contract has also been given to capable contractors for the construction of an elevator having a capacity of one million bushels which will be ready early next spring. This elevator can be increased to a capacity of two and a half million, which will probably be accomplished next season. In addition to this, new freight sheds have been constructed for the Grand Trunk and Intercolonial and new tracks laid in connection with the car ferries. Shunting engines have been purchased and are now in use, with good results in increased efficiency. Indian Cove has been acquired by the commission, a small mill has been erected for the purpose of working up the timber for the cribs, and a number of large cribs have been constructed there for the purpose of the work which is being carried on in the St. Charles.
St. Charles River Locks.
The acquisition by the Government of so large a portion of the waterfront of the St. Lawrence naturally restricted very much the opportunities of the large fleet of smaller craft which hitherto have availed themselves of that frontage. In this view the Government thought it both important and desirable that provision should be made for the utilisation of the St. Charles above the railway bridge near the Louise Basin. The construction of a dam and other works at this point, will enable some six miles of the St. Charles river to be used for transportation and will afford necessary accommodation for the smaller craft which hitherto have carried on their operations on the St. Lawrence waterfront. The transportation facilities thus afforded will doubtless be untilized not only for these purposes, but to the advantage of many industries w'hich I trust will greatly increase both in number and capacity in that vicinity.
In this brief exposition of the proposals of the Government for the development of this port, I trust you will find evidence of our determination to spare no reasonable effort for the proper development in the public interest of this city and port.
Ministers Favour Quebec.
Holding strong opinions as to the necessity of adequate equipment for our ports, I have taken a warm personal interest in the proposals for the equipment and development of Quebec. I need not assure you that Mr. Pelletier has been indefatigable in his efforts to reach a satisfactory conclusion in these matters. Let me add that Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Hazen have given sympathetic consideration and careful attention to every reasonable suggestion for the effective carrying out of our proposals. The works which I have described will involve the expenditure of very large sums, but the national purposes which are to be served amply justify that expenditure.

On behalf of the Government let me express our appreciation of the sympathetic co-operation of the mayor and council of the city, of the harbour commission, of your board of trade and of other important bodies. In common with them it is our desire and determination that adequate facilities shall be provided for Quebeo and that in the future no man may truthfully say that the " Ancient City " lags behind for lack of equal opportunity. And we are not unmindful that modern science coupled with Canadian enterprise and courage may increase very materially the period of navigation available to this port.
I conclude by thanking you once more for your generous and cordial welcome, and let my last word be the expression of my sincere wish that the works now projected and under construction, as well as those which in the future will be their necessary consequence, may be attended with all the advantages to your city which are now within the bounds of reasonable anticipation.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the plan for the construction of the Union station at Quebec has been cancelled by the Government and arrangements have been reached with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to have a joint railway station at the Palais site, to cost approximately $200,000. How does this $200,000 station compare, for the capital city of Quebec, with the $12,000,000 station which is being erected in Toronto, the capital city of Ontario5
It was stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in an eloquent speech that he delivered to the citizens of Quebec that there would be another station in the Champlain market. The members of this House whom we had the honour to receive in the city of Quebec a few weeks ago, had an opportunity to judge for themselves as to the station that was built for the Transcontinental railway there in place of the $700,000 station that was to be built. The station that has been built on the Champlain market site is a disgrace to the city of Quebec, it is a disgrace to the Government of Canada and it is a disgrace to the Transcontinental railway. This station was erected. I believe, at a cost of $30,000 or $35,000. It is a brick building, more suitable for use as a cattle sh'ed than as a station.
The valuable property that the city of Quebec has handed over to the Government and which is worth at least $250,000, was damaged by flood last December. Every effort was made by the city, the board of trade and the citizens of Quebec to have the Government repair the damage to the property which the city has given them. Not a cent has been expended for the repair of this property. I have communicated with the hon. the Minister of Railways and
Canals (Mr. Reid), and several times with the Canadian National Railways commission, but they never gave us any satisfaction. We in the city of Quebec to-day are considering the question as to whether we shall close the street, as we do not feel that we should be compelled to repair property that we have handed over, almost for nothing, to the Government. I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sifton) in his seat. I hope the minister will give his attention to the situation as soon as possible. I know that he has been newly named to the important of Minister of Public Works, but I make an appeal to the minister to-night and ask him to look into this situation which is very urgent, and to render justice to the citizens of Quebec.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that millions of dollars had been wasted in the city of Quebec. I think I have proven most conclusively to the hon. members of the House that the situation in Quebec is very grave. Millions of dollars have been wasted there. The Government should proceed with the work which it has undertaken in Quebec, and not allow the money which has already been expended there to lie idle as it has for years.
The Government have purchased the Ross Rifle factory in Quebec at a cost of millions of dollars. I do not pretend to blame the Government for the position that they took at the time. It was reported that the Ross rifle was not suitable for our soldiers, and the contract which was given to Sir Charles Ross, proprietor of the Ross Rifle factory, had to be cancelled. The Government deemed it necessary to expropriate the Ross Rifle factory at a cost of millions of dollars. This important factory employed thousands of people, who were sent away from their work with only a few hours' notice and the doors of the Ross Rifle factory were closed. These valuable properties, for which the Government paid millions of dollars, are lying idle to-day.
The Government last year erected in Quebec a number of huts for soldiers, at a cost of over a million dollars. These huts are not utilized, and the money which was expended thereupon is practically wasted. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the necessity of such an expenditure by the Government on these buildings when the money thus spent could have been devoted to the carrying out of important public works.

At a cost of some $2,000,000 five railway shops were constructed but they have remained closed since their construction. The city of Quebec, the Board of Trade, and other public bodies have urged the Government to utilize these shops for the repair Of rolling stock for the Canadian National railways, but those appeals have remained unheeded. In the month of February last year we had a visit iat Quebec from Mr. Hanna, Chairman of the Canadian National railways, and the members of the Railway Comtnission, who came down to investigate the situation in regard to these shops and they have decided to put the shops in operation. While the shops remained idle the rolling stock of the Transcontinental had to be hauled from the Quebec section to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,350 miles. Let me ask why not use the shops at Quebec for the purpose, especially in view of the fact that their construction has involved an expenditure of $2,000,000? Last spring it was stated that the shops at St. Malo would be in operation and by the month of June would be employing at'least one thousand men. . On the 27th of June last I was officially informed that the number of men employed at the St. Malo shops did not exceed fifty, and if I aon right in my information the men now employed there number only about 200.
What do the records show in connection with this matter? In 1898 the city of Quebec entered into a notarial contract with the Lake St. John Railway and the Great Northern Railway Companies, whose systems now form part of the Canadian National railways, whereby the city subscribed $650,000 towards these railways, and a special agreement was also made in accordance with which the city subscribed $200,000 of stock with the express condition that the railway repair shops should be erected at Limoilu, in Quebec and give employment to a great number of men in the repairing of rolling stock. It was decided, however, to transfer the staff of the Canadian Northern shops to the St. Malo shops amd only to utilize the Limoilou shops for the, repairing of freight oars. If my information is correct the personnel so transferred consisted only of about 200 men when we were anticipating *that from 3,000 to 5,000 men would be employed at this branch ishop.
I ask the Government, and I- make the appeal to every member of this House, to investigate the way in which the management of the public works and the railway facilities in Quebec has been carried on,
fMr. Iiavigueur. 1
and to immediately remedy the situation, 'I am sure, Sir, that if more members of this House would imitate the example of their colleagues from the West and go down to Quebec and investigate the situation for themselves they would appreciate the injustice which has been done to that city. Once more, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not in his seat, because I would have preferred to have described the situation to him- personally. Recently an organization' comprising the most eminent citizens of Quebec has been formed to interview the Government in the hope of bringing about a remedy of the present [DOT] state of affairs. I have communicated with the Prime Minister, asking for an interview with a number of delegations from Quebec in order that they might give expression to the views which I have uttered here tonight. I have also asked the Prime Minister to arrange for an interview with his colleagues the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways, and I have received a reply from the Prime Minister stating that he would endeavour 'to secure interviews with the citizens of Quebec as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways will do their best and collaborate in arranging for these interviews at the earliest possible date.	[DOT]
Before concluding my remarks I wish to refer to the matter of the treatment of defaulters. Every true citizen views unfavourably the campaign carried on against defaulters under, the Military Service Act-even the returned soldiers do not endorse it. They would much prefer to see the Government display the same activity against war profiteers, whose extortions are causing so much unrest at the present time. The defaulters in many cases had good grounds for acting as they did, but those who are maintaining the high cost of living have no excuse whatever. Furthermore, why should our Government deal more severely with military defaulters than the French Government, for instance? The authorities' in our former Motherland have pardoned those who did not fulfil their military duties. It is rumoured that even a former Prime Minister, M. Caillaux, charged with treasonable dealings with Germany during the war, will benefit by the general amnesty. It has been realized that the work of reconstruction will require the full energy of the whole nation and that nothing is to be gained by such useless proceedings. Why not adopt the same course here?

Let us not forget that, according to many of our statesmen, this Dominion was under no constitutional obligation to participate in the great war. But we did participate, and our soldiers, volunteers as well as conscripts, immortalized themselves, toy their gallantry in many a hard fought 'battle. Let us not forget also that in the province of Quebec our people were not treated as they should have been by those who were asking that she send the best of her young men to the front. Insults, slanders, lies- nothing was omitted that would irritate French Canadians. In view of this no one needs he surprised at the number of those who failed to fulfil their military duties; on the contrary, it is rather a matter for congratulation that so many answered the call of the federal authorities, and the devotion of these men should help to efface the remissness of the defaulters.
Therefore, let us drop these proceedings against them. A nobler and greater task requires all our energies and statesmanship, namely, the urgent necessity of ameliorating the condition of the people by taking drastic action against profiteers, and toy reorganizing our agriculture and our manufactures. Let us cease these rancourous personal quarrels, unworthy of a nation wishing to 'become great and prosperous, and instead let us devote ourselves to promoting the union of our citizens in an entente cordiale.
Mr. JAMES McliSAAC (King's, P.E.I.): Mr. Speaker, in supporting the resolution before the House, I desire to add my congratulations m those which have already been expressed w'ith regard to the admirable manner in which the mover and seconder of the Address discharged their duties.
I wish also to refer to the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who by his demeanour has apparently completely captivated the hearts of the Canadian, people. His simplicity of manner and undoubted sincerity of speech and action have endeared him to the people, and his evident desire to be among them prove him to be a democrat of the best and purest type.
It is unnecessary to dwell at any length upon the extraordinary causes which necessitated the calling togethef of the representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers in connection with this Treaty of Peace. The great war was of a nature more stupendous than anything of which we have any record in the history of the world, and after the enemy was vanquished it surely was imperative that those engaged in bringing about his defeat should meet together in
order to arrive at such conclusions as would tend to prevent a recurrence of a similar calamity. As is well known, this was the most important Conference that had ever taken place. It was felt that its deliberations would have the most far-reaching effects, that they would have a regenerative force, as it were, and would result in the establishment of such principles as would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any nation to again disturb the peace of the world.
Now, Sir, starting from these premises, it is not unnatural for us to inquire: What was Canada's position at the Conference? What was her attitude in the tremendous struggle that necessitated the conference? What was her participation in the war? What were her energies? What were her sacrifices? Their remarkable and transcendent Character is known to the world. Canada's contribution was most extraordinary, whether in wealth or means or sons, who so valiantly acquitted themselves and wrote their names in letters of gold on the battlefields of Europe. Not only the participation and the glory of her arms, lout the tremendous sacrifices that Canada made in the cause of liberty and civilization, were extraordinary, wonderful and equal in every way, population and other things being taken 'into consideration, to those of any other nation that participated in the struggle. Canada having so participated, having been such an important factor in the war, is it not quite natural that she should have an equally important part to play in the arrangements that were made in consequence of the war; that she should participate equally with those other nations, with whom she had fought side by side, in drawing up the conditions by which the defeated enemy should be bound, in taking part in the regulations which were so far reaching, so important and intended to have such a tremendous, influence in regulating the conduct of all the nations that took part in the war? Is it a patriotic sentiment, is it worthy of our country or our country's representatives, that any one should deny the right, privilege.and duty of Canada to participate in the Peace Conference? I would suppose that all patriotic Canadians would feel a thrill of just pride in the knowledge that Canada's Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues participated in the memorable conference side by side with and of equal importance to the representatives of other nations taking part therein.. Would you, Sir, have us take a full share in the prosecution, the glory and

the sacrifices of the war and deny us the right to have an equal participation in the conference at which the peace terms were to be decided upon? That would be unworthy of us.
Let us inquire what Canada's position was at the Peace Conference, what place her representatives took in the discussions at that conference and what the representatives of Canada accomplished and placed in the completed Treaty. The representatives of Canada, the Prime Minister, Sir Koibert Borden and his Cabinet colleagues, his co-delegates to the conference, side by side with the delegates of the other Powers, were not in any inferior position to them, and let it be said here that there is no doubt at all that Canada's important position at the conference was perhaps not conceded to her immediately; but through the energy, wisdom and perseverance of ,the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues we were accorded that position which was in proper proportion to the importance of our participation in the war and our sacrifices in connection therewith. Would you have Canada refrain from taking the position she did at the Peace Conference? Would you have her different from all other Allied and Associated Powers participating in the war? Would you have her different from the other Dominions of the great British Empire? On the contrary, Canada not only took her place of importance at the conference, but led the way for the otter Dbminions of the Empire. It was the perseverance, wisdom and judgment of the Prime Minister, in conjunction with his colleagues, that showed the way and that won for him ithe assistance of the otter Dominions of the Empire in persevering in exerting tteir energies to get their rightful place at the conference.


Lucien Cannon: Was that before or after Union Government?


Mr. McISAAC:: I will leave that to the judgment of the hon. gentleman himself. His memory is possibly equa} to the occasion. I was going on to siay that had Canada been denied that position, ia cry would have arisen from this country, and I think the 60,000 who made the supreme sacrifice, giving their lives for .the cause of liberty and- civilization, would have spoken from their graves and said: We gave our lives freely for the cause of civilization .and liberty, for the cause of Canada, and we would consider our sacrifice was in vain if you were not there to see that no right of Canada would be jeopardized; that every

right and privilege to which she is entitled would 'be properly guarded and placed before that conference.
What did the Canadian delegates accomplish at the Peace Conference? Sir, it is written in the Treaty. Many of its most important articles were framed, or partially framed and advocated, .by the Prime Minister of this country. The labour clauses in particular were his work. Through his perseverance and -unflinching fidelity to the duty which he believed devolved upon him as Prime Minister of this country he had the labour clauses inserted against a great deal of opposition. Have we not therefore reason to be proud of the part that Canada's delegates took at the Conference and of what they accomplished? Surely no one in this country is unwilling to accord to them tteir due meed of praise.
In virtue of the promise made by the Prime Minister to this Parliament, the Peace Treaty was laid before this House for ^ approval before ratification by His Majesty the King. This same action is taken by all the other Dominions of the British Empire. The Parliaments of South Africa, of New Zealand, and of Australia are all either in session or have been summoned in order to ratify this Treaty. His Majesty the King awaits the approbation of the Treaty by the Parliaments of the Dominions before he ratifies it. It is, therefore, extraordinary that we should have heard so much from hon. gentlemen opposite that was calculated to lower the prestige of Canada. Are we to have the privilege of participating in the war, contributing our means, our soldiers ' laying down tteir lives by the thousands in the cause, and then to be told that Canada should not participate in the Peace Conference? Is that just or is it reasonable? Hon. gentlemen opposite instead of desiring to see Canada rise from plane to plane would degrade her in the eyes of the world and put her back to her colonial status of forty, or fifty or sixty years ago. A.s the President of the Privy Council truly said, there are a number of Kip Van Winkles on the other side of the IHouse. Hon. gentlemen opposite made no attempt to put Canada' in her best light before the world and maintain for her the prestige she had won during the war. On the contrary everything was said that would tend to degrade her, and deprive her of the proud position she has taken and is destined still more to take among the nations *of the world. We can only call their attitude " little Canadianism." We have heard

of the " little Englander," who is not regarded as much of an intellectual asset in the Mother Country. It would seem that we have " little Canadians " in Canada who occupy not a more distinguished or honourable position in this country. What' was the reason for their attitude? They tell us that it was altogether unnecessary for us to discuss the Treaty, as the King could ratify it independently of this Parliament. That is possible, but His Majesty's advisers in Great Britain, fully conscious of Canada's status in the Empire, would never think of asking His Majesty to ratify the Treaty until it had been approved by the Dominions of the Empire. So far as Canada is concerned, the Treaty could *have been approved by Order in Council, but if that had been done what a different tune would have been heard from the other side of the House. We have often heard them object to conducting public business by Order in Council, and if that course had been taken in this case there would have been a clamorous demand that the Treaty should be brought before Parliament for consideration. I think we can venture that assumption, judging of the future by our knowledge of the past; for that is the nature of the reasoning which we have heard from the other side during the last two or three years. The conduct of. our representatives at the Peace Conference has been described by such high-sounding, rhetorical and admirably classical language as "arrant humbug" and "tomfoolery." These are the expressions which emanate from those whom we would expect to have a full knowledge of matters of this kind and who should deal with public questions in a temperate manner instead of endeavouring to throw ridicule on them.
I would animadvert for a moment on an expression which I have heard from quite a number of those on the other side who have participated in the debate on this subject.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I am sorry to have to call the hon. member to order. If he will look up Bourinot at page 357 he will find that a member addressing the House cannot refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session. I did not want to call the hon. member to order immediately, because I thought he was making merely a slight reference; but I fear he intends to make extended remarks on a previous debate.


James McIsaac: I bow to your decision Mr. Speaker. I realize that I cannot quote
anything that has been said in a former debate, but I suppose I am at liberty to express my opinion of the conduct of those who participated in that debate. I think that the conduct of hon. members opposite during that debate had for effect, ostensibly if not in reality, to degrade Canada and deprive her of the proud position she occupies. Their remarks tended to give Canada the status she held half a century or more ago, and scarcely anything that came from those hon. gentlemen was calculated to elevate this country in the eyes of the world and to place her upon the high plane to which, in consideration of all that she has done in behalf of humainty, she is entitled. Why did hon. members opposite go so far afield as to place themselves before the world in a position of antagonism to our plenipotentiaries, and to criticise their conduct in the most unfair manner possible? This was an occasion when the people's representatives, in Parliament assembled, should have been big enough and willing enough to rise above party feeling and to accord to the right hon. the Prime Minister and his associates at the Peace Conference that due meed of praise which they richly deserve. It is unpleasant to think that one section of Canada's representatives in this Parliament have placed themselves on record in direct opposition to what has been accomplished in this world-wide and all important matter. The Peace Treaty is an instrument which, in its scope and magnitude, and in the multiplicity of subjects^ which it embraces-all for the benefit of humanity and the proper government of nations-reflects abundant credit on those who framed it. Possibly it is not perfect. Nothing human is perfect. It has its limitations, but it is marvellous that the representatives of thirty-two powers, after discussing these questions horn their naturally variant viewpoints, and considering the diverse interests which they represented, should unanimously sign their names to that memorable document. It is a marvellous historic achievement, and the people of Canade, in common with the rest of mankind, should, regardless of political feelings, be only too proud to approve of this Treaty. As regards the League of Nations, I shall say very little, because it has been pretty well, discussed, and the constitutional and legal aspects of it have been admirably presented to the House by the Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council. But this question was raised on the other side during the debate. A fear was expressed that Canada-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman not to refer to anything said during the former debate.


James McIsaac: The fear was expressed-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. gentleman cannot, refer to anything which was said during ia previous debate.


James McIsaac: May I say that the fear was expressed in this House?


Georges Henri Boivin: No; the hon. gentleman would certainly not be in order. He cannot refer to anything which has been said in this House in a previous debate.


James McIsaac: 
Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, this special session summons us before you to achieve a .purpose lying outside the acknowledged bounds of our constitutional .powers-the ratification of tire Peace Treaty of Versailles. True, it is That we Canadians, loyal subjects of

the British Crown, enthusiastically showing our devotion to the Mother 'Country and our fondness for the Royal Family by acclaiming the son of our beloved Sovereign, the Prince of Woles, have many a reason te rejoice over the brilliant victory of Great Britain and .the Allies. Moreover, the heroes of the Canadian army who went and fought under the British flag, the noble offering of their lives by 60,000 sons of Canada who1 fell upon the battlefields have made us realize, value and hold1 sacred the advantages of the victory won by the Allies and sealed by 'the Peace Treaty of Versailles. It seems to me that on those grounds 'the Canadian .people ought to be proud to see their Parliament assenting to that document and sending it overseas after their representatives have reverently and joyfully heard, of the advantages accruing from victory.
But these advantages., compensations and indemnities' to. the Mother Cbiuntry and the Allies are satisfactory to us in so far as the Mother Country with whom our boys have cooperated in. defeating the common foe, and in so. far as the Allies who. were our brethren in arms, are satisfied with the treaty they victoriously dictated.
'The noble act of Canada during that great war was not the interested1 but the free act of an independent State asking that outrages be atoned for, 'that treaties disregarded as scraps of paper be respected; no, the act of this Dominion was more than that, for it was 'the .act of an .autonomous colony which of its own accord lent assistance to the Mother Country and fought for the prevalence of the Christian slogan: "Dieu et mon Droit" over the barbarous political motto1: "Might supersedes right."
So, for us, the day of final victory was the eleventh of November, 1918, the day of the armistice, rwhen the enemy, vanquished as he -was, craved for quarter from the commander-in-chief of the armies. We had nothing more to claim, nothing more to expect from the Peace Conference which might cause us furthermore to rejoice at the victory, for we had taken part in the great war as a British possession, or, if you will, as a self-governing Dominion under the protection of Great Britain, and we had sent forth our quota of men on the very day when the Mother Country had rushed into the conflict. War, .for us, was at an end.
So great was the sacrifice and so noble the stand as to make it unnecessary to pledge our future participation in the conflicts which may eventually take place be-

tween the nations of the world. Before going over to sit at the Peace Conference, the representatives of the Canadian Government should have 'been vested with certain powers by the Canadian Parliament. Parliament might properly have asked: "What interest had we in having Canada represented separately from Great Britain at this Conference?" To put the question is to solve it. We had apparently no interest in being so represented. No one of the belligerent powers had invited us; far from it, we were first denied the right to be represented, and it was only as .a consequence of the entreaties made after the meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet, that we could secure admittance, fictitiously, as 'being included among the representatives of [DOT] the British Empire.
Therefore, our participation in the Conference, the sequel of which is this invitation to approve of the Peace Treaty, was not prompted by the Canadian Parliament, but imposed by the Empire and with the view of serving the ends of the leaders of Imperialism. It is Imperialism which we fought against on the battlefields of Europe and which we will never 'suffer to be imposed upon Canada so long as we are in a position to claim as ours this country of our ancestors, and so long as we cherish it above all others.
This statement of mine is quite in keeping with the platform of my party, and I may assure you, Sir, that we on this side of the House, together with all the Liberals in the Dominion, have approved of a proposal which tends to crush any project or attempt calculated to impose Imperialism upon Canada. Here is the resolution adopted at that Liberal convention, concerning the autonomy of Canada: " Be it resolved that we are strongly opposed to the idea of centralizing imperial control and that no organic change in the constitution of Canada with respect to the relations of Canada with the Empire, should come into force, if adopted by Parliament, before and unless it has been ratified by a vote of the Canadian people in the form of a plebiscite."
Mr. Speaker, according to the speech delivered by the hon. leader of the Government in the Senate, we axe a nation, a separate nation, enjoying full autonomy, though forming an integral part of the British Empire. According to the hon. President of the Privy Council, we are, within the British Empire, a sister-nation to the other nations of the Empire. It
being admitted that the Canadian Dominion constitutes a nation, here is the argument I have to offer against taking any such steps as the Government proposes to take in a coming Imperial conference to evolve towards Imperialism. The first privilege of a nation is to be the arbiter of its own destinies, and the supreme end of a nation is to preserve and to strengthen its existence as such. Full autonomy is the essential condition of this privilege of 'being a nation, and the main object of its existence. Now, the imperialist doctrine which the Government is at present advocating in order to bind us constitutionally to that immense British Empire about to be established, appears to me as inconsistent with .a status of full autonomy for us, and consequently with our very existence as a
nation.	.
My first contention is this: The imperialistic view voiced by hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches coincides with that which has prevailed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, only on an enlarged scale so *.as to embrace all the Dominions. Now, this United Kingdom scheme has proved manifestly injurious to the kingdoms of Ireland, Scotland and Wales in their association with England. Under the folds of the Union Jack, England developed wonderfully through the disappearance of Wales, Scotland and Ireland as separate sovereignties, while England has evolved into a Great Britain, and correspondingly has maintained, extended and strengthened its autonomy, while its associates were deprived of their own.
Well, by copying those united kingdoms, it is intended .to .establish a vast British Empire in which England shall unceasingly develop her attributes of self-government, but in which the Dominions shall enter and remain, deprived of their autonomy as is the case with Ireland, Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom.
Indeed, I shall prove that we are going to lose our autonomy. Who will govern the Empire? An imperial parliament, I fancy. For should the answer he that it is the Government in London, as now constituted, it is obvious that we would be deprived of our autonomy. Therefore, we are no more a nation. If the answer be that to govern the Empire an imperial parliament shall be established in which the Dominion of Canada .shall, of course, have representatives, then I say: In that imperial parliament, naturally, England will have a majority of the votes. Giving way to an awkward sense of generosity, she will not com-

mit her fate to an imperial parliament in which her representatives should be in the minority. Consequently, under the proud name of an imperialist .system, we are asked to accept a parliamentary form of government under which we should no longer be the masters of our destinies and we should be deprived of our autonomy; but a nation is no longer a nation from the moment it ceases to be self-governed and master of its fate. Therefore, the imperialist doctrine now advocated is the doctrine of national suicide for the Dominion of Canada. We should not be in that case a nation in the British Empire nor in the League of Nations; Canada would be the servant, the slave of sovereign nations.
I said that the highest aim of a nation is to maintain and to develop its existence. Now, the policy of an imperialistic system, the policy of the League of Nations, utterly defeats our purpose by ruining our autonomy and leading us into ventures entailing a great loss of lives and money. In order to reach our loftiest end which is to develop our existence, the policy of the Government should be confined to the reconstruction of the country, to the establishment of an economic condition which together with the actual welfare of our farming community, of our manufacturing and trading people, which constitute a *splendid nation truly autonomous and living in a happy state of civilization.
The policy of the Government should be directed towards the internal questions rather than towards the external problems.
I repeat once more that should we be forced by the present conditions to concern ourselves with these, let it -be in this Parliament and let us not allow new responsibilities to be imposed upon us by two or three members of the Canadian Government empowered by an Order in Council to bring us under the subjection of the sister nations of the Empire. As the representatives of the Canadian people, it is our lot to be the masters of our destinies, ,to maintain and develop our existence, to perfect the work of our forefathers .who have established Confederation.
The fathers of Confederation had the foresight of themselves framing on Canadian soil the new charter of our constitutional rights. In 1864 when in the old city of Champlain the representatives of the five large Canadian provinces signed the federal covenant subject to the approval of the provincial legislatures and of the Imperial Parliament, Canada gave herself a constitutional charter.
	-
If we are a nation to-day, if we can cry out, as during the debate just closed, that we have the status, of a nation, it is far less on account of the part we played in recent events than on account of the enlightened will of those fathers of Confederation who foresaw in this federation of provinces the ongin of the Canadian race.
May I be permitted to quote to the 'House the words uttered 'by Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier, in 1865, when they asked for the establishment of Confederation?
Macdonald said: " If we will become a great nation and form a great race capable of imposing respect to the world and of upholding our institutions!, if we will have uniformity of government, an economic system which will be homogeneous for the four provinces depending on a single nation, obeying one sovereign only, bound by the same allegiance and for the most part sprung from the same blood, we must be united under a single government.''
And Cartier added : " If we become united we shall form a political nationality regardless of the racial origin and creed of individuals." He also said: " It is not to be feared that there will ever be an attempt to deprive a minority of its rights."
Underneath the cold memorials dedicated to his memory in Ontario, he must be shedding bitter tears and deploring his blind trust in the fairness of those majorities.
However, in the minds of our forefathers, Confederation was a political aggregation governed by the new charter they had framed for themselves, and consequently the provinces made but one nation composed of various races, which, although distinct, had a common aim: to weld a free Canada within a free Empire.
For my part, I am content with the present status of my country, that of a self-governing Canada within the Empire, and that condition, I think , is even the best suited to the development and progress-of this vast country and to the political aspirations of its inhabitants. I most strenuously protest against the dangerous proclivities of this Government who thoughtlessly call upon the centre of the Empire to consider new political questions which might irretrievably affect our relations to the Mother Country and forever endanger our national existence. Nothing is more degrading for a member than to hear what was said from the Government benches in this House: That as soon as this short session is over, the Prime Minister and his colleagues, without consulting Parliament, will

again go overseas to receive from an 'Imperial conference of sister nations a new principle as the basis of our constitutional charter.
The Government is bound to attend to Canadian affairs, and not to matters of Imperial concern alone. This House has just approved by its vote the Peace Treaty of Versailles. There are important events which must come to pass to ensure' a better administration of the common weal. I shall not go into them all; I shall spare the House protracted remarks, pointing out however that this country is in need of a reversal to pre-war conditions. Why should we not start by repealing conscription? England does so; the Allies prescribe it in the Treaty of Peace; the trades unions call for it, and the whole country demands it. Would it not be an act of justice to repeal all those Orders in Council quickly begotten by war conditions and no more justifiable now than the War Measures Act? For God's sake, let us have peace!
Another matter which I dare say is still more pressing is the repeal of all those vexatious measures enacted by Orders in Council so as to punish defaulters or slackers. These criminal proceedings are obnoxious, and the Government is well aware of it. There are defaulters in every province of the Dominion, and that is no wonder. Conscription was enacted at the last moment and was quite open to criticism; it was rather an exemption measure as far as military service was concerned. We had been led to believe by the very utterances of the Prime Minister himself that compulsory service would never be enforced in this country. For the most part, those who are prosecuted are farmers exempted by orders of judges of the Superior Court, and who were in such circumstances as to be granted leave according to the regulations, as their help could not be dispensed with at home.
Their only fault is the neglect of a mere formality. They are only guilty of having failed to assert their right to an exemption; they sincerely believed they were exempted, having only an imperfect acquaints ance with this intricate Act, and. relying upon the postponements granted to farmers, such as appeared in the newspapers under official sanction, Moreover, war is at an end; we have a well-earned peace and why should these young men be punished now? Would it not have been wiser, more far-seeing and faireT to wink at their failure to respond to the first call and to call them to
the colours in the thick of the fight, if the Government intended to indiscriminately enlist the farmers? But they purposely left those farmers in the fields, thus tacitly yielding to- their claim for exemption. It is unfair to chase them now as wild beasts in some quarters, in order ito feed the demon of bigotry, and to carefully avoid doing so in other quarters. Everybody favours a general amnesty, and the Government would be well advised not to turn a deaf ear to the people's voice. Nobody desires the continuation of this vexatious system. Great War Veterans in my own city have shown their disapproval of such a course, and those from every part of the country, no doubt, harbour the same feeling.
To hold a different view would be to deny their sense of fair-play, their generosity and magnanimity. Moreover, do we not know they came back to us with a greater fondness for their beloved country and willing to devote themselves to the work of reconstruction, united with their fellow-citizens by the bonds of a new friendship.
I appeal to the Government and especially to the Minister of Justice, and I ask him to give his immediate attention to those just requests coming to him from all sides and praying that defaulters be pardoned. It is the Department of Justice which attends to the enforcement of these Orders in Council and is entitled and bound to show the Cabinet the uselessness and unfairness of these arrests. The minister is well aware of the anxiety which belabours the father's mind when his boy is wrongly suspected of having infringed the Military Act. I lay before him the sorrows and sufferings of mothers whose sons have been arrested and brought into another province to appear before an outside court where they have no relatives, no friends, no spokesmen to plead for them, and are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two or three years.
I beseech the honourable minister who presides over the administration of justice, and is one of the most prominent members of the Cabinet, to take in hand that important question concerning our young farmers and to grant to our drafted men a general amnesty such as is- proclaimed in victorious countries. The honourable minister knows how to rise to the occasion, and the country expects- from him that noble deed.
On motion of Mr. Joseph Archambault (Chambly-Vercheres), the debate was adjourned.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT AMENDMENT ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House returned to the Order for the introduction of Bills.
Hon. Mr. Rowell moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10 to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill is the one I referred to in the statement made to the House on Friday. Legislation was enacted last session for the creation of a Department of Soliders' Civil Re-Establishment, but the work of that department has been carried on under the provisions of certain Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act which lay down the scale of allowances to be paid to soldiers who are taking training under the department and also define the classes of returned soldiers who are entitled to the benefits of the provisions contained in the other Orders in Council, there being some four or five Orders in Council in all defining the work of this department. As, with the coming of peace, the Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act will come to an end, it is necessary that the department should have power to carry on the various branches of the work which it is now carrying on, and the object of the Bill is to authorize the department to make the necessary regulations for that purpose. As I intimated on Friday, when the Bill comes up for second reading, which I hope will be to-morrow, it is my intention to ask the House, after the measure has received its second reading, to refer it, together with the Orders in Council which I have mentioned, to a Special Committee for consideration and report.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it not a Bill involving the expenditure of money?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the Bill simply provides for the making of regulations. The money provision, so far as any money is necessary, was covered by the vote of last session. The Bill itself contains no money provision.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.
Tuesday, September 16 ,1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
On Motions being called:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg tQ move, with the consent of the House, that we now proceed to the Order " Notices of Motions." Among these Notices of Motions there is one which the mover, I understand, desires to drop.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House proceeded to Notices of Motions:
Daniel Lee Redman: On Thursday last I put the following Notice of Motion on the Order Paper for the purpose of obtaining a commission to inquire into the question of the civil re-establishment of our. soldiers:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to immediately appoint a Royal Commission to [DOT] inquire fully into the whole question of the reinstatement into civil life of former members of the overseas forces and their dependents, and to report thereon.
On Friday the 'Government announced that a committee would immediately he appointed for this purpose. That committee is entirely satisfactory to me, and as the Notice of Motion has effected its purpose and is now of no further use, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.



THE PEACE TREATY.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has had time to look over the Covenant''and the explanatory note, I beg to move the following motion:	.
That 10,000 copies of the document entitled "The Covenant of the League of Nations with a Commentary thereon '' laid upon the table of the House the 15th day of September, be printed forthwith, and that the provisions of Rule 74 be waived.
^Instructions will be given to have a portion of this number printed in French.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move:
That 10,000 copies of the document entitled " Labour and the Peace Treaty, including the Labour Convention and General Principles as

incorporated in the Treaty of Peace (Part XIII, Sections I. and II., Articles 387-127) between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28,	1919," laid
upon the table of the House the 15th day of September, be printed forthwith, and that the provisions of Rule 74 be waived.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Ten thousand
does not seem very many to spread all over the country and I think it would be well to have printed ten thousand in English and ten thousand in French.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was the intention, as
I intimated yesterday, that a certain percentage should be printed in French and a certain percentage in English, judged by the requirements. Does my hon. friend *think that ten thousand in French would be required?
Mr. "McKENZIE:	Almost everybody in
the province of Quebec can read French, and ten thousand does not seem very many when spread over a large province.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I originally suggested
twenty-five thousand to cover both English and French, but it was represented that that was probably too many. We might print twenty-five thousand, fifteen thousand in English and ten thousand in French.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are eight millions of people in this country and 235 constituencies, and ten thousand seems a small number when spread over them all. I think we might have just as many in French as in English.
\ Mr. ROWELL:	I have not the least objection to amending the motion so that we may have ten thousand printed in each language.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the
object, of these special motions for the printing o" these documents? The Government are at all times printing large quantities of literature for distribution without any motion in the House. I am not offering any objection, but I am curious to know why a special motion should be required in this case.
Mr. (ROWELL:	It is in order that the
printing may be done forthwith. Requests are coming in for copies of these documents, not only from members of the House but from outside. These documents have been laid on the table of the House, and if a special motion was not made suspending Rule 74 there would be delay because the *matter would have to go before the Printing Committee.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely my hon. friend *does not mean to say that it is necessary
to have an order of this House to get documents printed promptly. The Government can do that of its own motion. I am not offering the least objection, but I do not see the necessity for these special motions when the Governnment is having printing done right along without any motion in the House.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member is not familiar with advertising.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: No., I am not.


John Allister Currie: The customary procedure is to send documents laid on the table of the House to the Printing Committee, and if the committee deems it advisable they are printed. Occasionally important documents are submitted and the House desires an immediate issue of them, in which event the motion is passed, the rule suspended and the documents are not sent to the committee. They are then charged against the appropriation of the Printing Committee.


Hon. Mr.   MARGIE@: I would bring to the attention of the minister who is leading the Government the fact that the rules regarding the Soldiers' Settlement Board of Canada have never been printed in French. A large number of requests have been made for these rules to be printed in French.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is hardly in order in submitting his question on this motion.


Mr.   BEILAND@: Is there any special mode of distribution contemplated in connection with these documents?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All the copies which the members desire would be available through the Distribution Office, but as regards the rest I do not think any plan has so far been decided upon for distribution. If my hon. friend has any suggestion with reference to the matter the Government would be very glad to have it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I should like to have as many as possible.
Motion as amended agreed to.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. L. SIFTON (Minister of Public Works) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister explain the effect of this Bill?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: The Bill has reference to an amendment which was made a year or so ago in the Navigable Waters Act in connection with permission given by the Department of Public Works for the construction of bridges or wharves upon navigable waters. The Bill tnat was passed provided for this permission, but not for the removal of obstructions if people should build without having obtained permission. The purpose of this Bill is to authorize the department, in the event of the violation of the law, to remove obstructions from navigable waters.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the rirst time.



THANKSGIVING DAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I find in the evening papers an
announcement to the effect that Monday, October 13, has been set aside as Thanksgiving Day, this decision having been arrived at by the Government. May I ask the Government if this announcement is authentic? That there might be no doubt in the matter I called up the King's Printer within the last half hour and have been informed that he has not yet received a copy of this announcement from the Government; nor has it yet appeared in the Canada Gazette. I call attention to this matter because I have a Bill standing on the Order Paper-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has given the ground work for his question and I think he has gone as far as he may.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: May I not finish my
statement? .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. genteman is
not in order in making a statement on the Orders of the Day.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: My question is this: Am I to infer from the announcement, if it is authentic, that the Government are opposed to the proposition as contained in the Bill before the House?
Mr. DO'HERTY: I may say that the Government has already arrived at the decision to set apart the 13th day of October as Thanksgiving Day, and the Order will be passed in due course. I do not know that action in regard to this particular year necessarily implies a determination as to whether or not for all time in the future we shall fix the particular day which the hon. gentleman desires to be selected as 
Thanksgiving Day. The question as regards the future remains entirely open.



GRATUITY ASSOCIATION OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: "The Gratuity Association of Returned Soldiers and the interview of its representatives with the Government."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an old established rule of this House against anticipating a discussion which in the natural course would arise at a more or less early date in the session. We have upon the Order Paper standing for second reading Bill No. 10, an Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act, which will be broad in its terms, admitting of very wide discussion. There is also Resolution No. 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), which deals in part with the question of the re-establishment of returned soldiers. Although neither the Bill nor the Resolution is so wide in terms as that which was dropped from the Order Paper this day, I am not altogether free from doubt as to whether we may not be anticipating, in this motion, a discussion which may arise at a very early date in the session. At the same time I do not feel it my duty to rule the motion out of order. Rather, I feel it is a question, for the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman should have leave to move this motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with considerable diffidence that I bring this matter before the House, for I realize that when a question of such supreme importance as this comes to the attention of the public through a discussion in the House, the member who introduces the subject always lays himself open to the accusation that in his action, however laudable, he is self-seeking or desirous to obtain some degree of public advertising. Involved in this question also there is the possibility that I may be charged, being myself a returned soldier, with an attempt to institute class legis-tion. Permit me to say, Sir, that so far as

I am personally concerned I am by no means disposed to discuss either class or class legislation of any kind. I am too deeply imbued with the ancient idea of parliamentary government to desire that this House should spend its time in any discussion of class legislation. But in view of 'the fact that there has been a widespread agitation for further gratuities to the soldiers, and that there have been some public disturbance as the result, I feel that the House and the country will excuse me for seeking to bring this matter before Parliament at the earliest possible moment. My experience in parliamentary life, as well as the experience of those who have studied parliamentary law and history, shows that nothing will clear the atmosphere as readily as a discussion of questions of this kind on the floor of the House. For that reason, Sir, I was pleased beyond measure to see the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) to-day withdraw his motion, because, if the motion of a young member hfs stood in the way, he might have been accused of blocking the discussion by his motion on the Order Paper.
I remember very well that when I was in Opposition in this House, a certain young gentleman from the West used to come here every session and place upon the Order Paper a motion referring to the removal of taxation from farm implements. Then he would disappear every time that order was called and nobody could discuss that question during the session. It is only right and proper that the rules of the House should be rigid in every regard, but I notice, Sir, that you have modified your resolution dn this case, no doubt in accordance with the new rule of the British House of Commons, which leaves matters of this kind largely to the discretion of the Speaker.
The Bill that has been brought before the House by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) deals with Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. That Bill can be obtained in the distribution office. It deals with one department of the Government and with returned soldiers who are not yet discharged or demobilized. The discussion I wish to carry on to-day will not deal with that phase of the question at all. I will try to avoid that in every possible way and discuss this question purely with reference to the soldiers that have been, demobilized.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension.
20i	1	'


John Allister Currie: I have the Bill and I have read it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment only deals with soldiers after they are discharged and have left the control of the Department of Militia and Defence. This is a general arrangement as between the two departments.


John Allister Currie: This Bill deals largely with wooden legs and does not deal with the question of future gratuities to soldiers. I .am very glad to know that it is the intention of the Government to grant a committee on this Bill. It is within my recollection that it has always been the duty of this House to give a committee on every Bill that comes .before it except .money Bills which are dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. The experience is that whenever a Bill is brought in by the Government, or by a private, member, the House sends it to one of its standing committees, if it comes within the scope of any standing committee. But if the Bill is of such a character that it does not come within the scope of any of the standing committees of the House, such as this Bill, it is sent to a special committee. There is nothing particularly new about sending this Bill to a special committee. If dt is the intention of the Government to discuss this question at large, before they do that it is the duty of the minister to bring in another Bill dealing with the question of further gratuities to soldiers and let that Bill also go to the same committee. Otherwise we will find that when this Bill comes before the Committee the discussion may be very readily blocked by the chairman limiting the discussion to what is within the four corners of the Bill. The discussion of the question of granting any further gratuities to returned soldiers need not be proceeded with under this Bill at all, as there is no clause there dealing with it. I think the House understands that. I know that all the old members understand that, but there has been a great deal of camouflage in the press over the committee that is going to be appointed by the House and it has been spoken of as being something very wonderful. This House has a right to appoint a committee. That does not appertain to any particular member; it is the duty of the House. I think that in. so far as this House is concerned, its scope and its duty-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that the rule is very clear that the discussion on a motion of this char-
!08

acter must be confined strictly to the subject matter of the motion. [DOT]


John Allister Currie: Unfortunately the minister brought to my .attention this Bill, and, of course, I must answer the remarks that he made. It is the question of the returned soldiers that I propose to take Up to-day. I am endeavouring to bring a difficult subject before the House. It is the duty of every member to bring matters before this House for discussion so that members of the House may have an opportunity of discussing it in a public way. Putting the soft pedal on a difficult question such as this only creates dissatisfaction in the mind of the public and the belief that Parliament has lost its old-time vigour and is no longer the mouthpiece of the people.
In reference to the subject matter that I am going to deal with, I understand that an association has been formed in the city of Toronto by returned men and that it has been named the Returned Soldiers' Gratuity Association or something of that kind. The members of that association waited on the Government on Saturday last and made certain propositions with reference to further gratuities to returned soldiers. The question of gratuities to returned soldiers falls roughly under three heads. There is a demand for a cash gratuity for returned soldiers, especially those who cannot or who did not take up land. There has been a demand, emanating at first from Calgary, that the men who served in the trenches should get $2,000 in cash; those who went to England $1,500 and those who were enlisted and served for a term in Canada but who through disability were unable to go to the front, should get $1,000. That question came before the Great- War Veterans Association at Vancouver, was discussed there and a committee was appointed to deal [DOT]with it and to bring it to the attention of the Government. They brought it to the attention of the Government as the House will observe in the correspondence from Mr. McNeil, the secretary, which correspondence was laid on the table, of the House on Friday last.
I understand that the Great War Veterans Association, of which I am one of the oldest members, only represent a small fraction of the number of returned soldiers, possibly not 15 per cent. There is a tremendous number of soldiers who have returned and who have not identified them *selves with any of these associations. Consequently, it would be very difficult to speak entirely at large for the returned soldiers. No small organization-perhaps no organi-

zation .so far in Canada-is in a position to speak entirely for the returned soldiers; consequently, the only place that the returned soldier really can be spoken tor is in the House of Commons. The House of Commons contains a number of returned soldiers and these gentlemen from time to time during the last session held meetings for the purpose of dealing with the question of pensions and of keeping this matter before the House and the Government. But the committee of returned soldiers in the House does not contain all the members on both sides of the House and I do not think that we would be justified in assuming that its decision should be taken as final on any _ of these questions. We are not designated a committee of the House and we are not designated a committee for the returned soldier. After all, the only place where this question can properly and generally be discussed and where everybody can take part ' in the discussion is on the floor of the House. After all, Parliament represents the people and under our consWtution it is the proper place for the discussion of public questions. For this reason I feel justified in bringing this question forward here, having it discussed and then leaving it to the Government to take any action they deem , advisable.
I make this explanation because the newspapers have been drawing attention to the fact that I did not represent the Great War Veterans in bringing this question up in the House. I do not represent them-I confess. Members of the Army and Navy League, the Veterans and the Gratuity League desired to discuss this matter ' with me the other day but I told them that I preferred not to discuss it at all because .1 wanted to be a free member in a free House of Commons and that is my position in the matter.
Another matter that i.s desired to be drawn to the attention of the House is that of a gratuity to widows and the mothers of those who have given their lives in France. There is a widespread feeling amongst the returned men that the Government should give these women a gratuity equivalent to what their sons would have received had they returned home. This strikes a responsive chord in the hearts of a great many men as it does in the hearts of all the women of the oountry and it is a matter which should be discussed in this House.
Another matter that has been brought before the House and which should be attended to before we depart this session is the question of gratuities to students.

There is no class of the community in Canada who so cheerfully rushed to the colours, went to the front, and gave up their lives, as the boys who are attending the universities and colleges of this country. We all know that at one time the Princess Pats were decimated in France-decimation would be a mere figure of speech to characterize what happened to them, because there were only seventy or eighty men left in the whole regiment. When that battalion was completely wiped out it was recruited by young men from the universities of Canada-the university of Toronto, and the university of Laval, and the universities of McGill and Queen's. The students rushed in a body to take their places in the ranks of that regiment; and I am sorry to say the .records will show that fully fifty per cent of that student body that went to the front from this country perished in France. Now, those of them who have come back have given up a great deal. Many of them were young men of eighteen or nineteen when they enlisted.. They have returned men of twenty-three and twenty-four years of age, and it is exceedingly difficult for them to find their old places in the community; the cost of living, and of everything else, has grown so great that these young men have found themselves in a very, difficult position in re-assuming their studies.
Now these are the three questions that are being discussed. I want to take the three matters up, one after the other, place some arguments before the House and leave the decision in its hands. Of course a division on the motion I have brought before the \House is to a certain extent impossible. I know that the sympathies of members are with the returned soldier- the only question asked is: " Where are we going to get all this money?" But there are many people in the country who do not look at the question in that way and they slam the door in the returned soldier's face.. Now, the returned soldier who has come back from the war is just like a poor shipwrecked swimmer who has just reached the shore. He is exhausted from his struggle, he has been badly beaten and buffeted by the waves, the roar of the tempest and of the surf is still ringing in his ears, he does not understand his orientation, he does not know the north from the south, or the east from the west. He has changed greatly since he went away, and when he returns he finds that everything at home has changed. A dollar will
not bring him as much as it brought him before. He finds tha,t his former associates have changed. Some of the young fellows who worked alongside him have become rich men since he went away. When he comes to take back his position in the factory he finds that he has to take exactly the same position that he occupied when he left, .and that many o;f the fellows who "slacked" at home are his seniors. He finds also that the law has been changed. Perhaps somebody, on his way home, hands him a flask in Montreal, and when he gets to Toronto the first thing he knows he is picked up by a policeman), brought to the police court, and sent to Burwash. I am told that 4,000 soldiers have been sent to Burwash and I do not quite approve of the operation of the law in that regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: As I say, the returned soldier finds that in his absence the laws have been, changed. In speaking as I do I am merely expressing the views of my comrades. They come to me an the street and ask me the question: "Don't you think this is very unjust? Here is my chum Jack who fought with -me two years in the trenches. He -comes home -and gets a flask of liquor at Halifax. When he reaches Toronto, he is picked up, he is pinched and sent up to Burwash to serve six months." That is what the soldiers -are saying. Four thousand -soldiers have been sent up there, -men who have fought right in the trenches -and helped to keep our liberty, but when they come home they have riot got liberty, they find that something -else has taken the place of the old-time liberty. Now the *situation with the returned soldier is peculiar. His former friends do not seem to be very glad to m-e-et -him. Some of his old churns who stayed at home pass on the other side of the road-they do not pay very much attention to him. When he has been back in Canada 'a -couple of weeks he is a worse wreck than he was when he left France because the sudden change has. not been of benefit to him. The form of demobilization that w-e have adopted is not, and never was to my mind, a proper form, because when the soldier -comes back from the war he must have something to lean on, -and you should -not take the returned soldier-s, as we have taken them, march them on to the parade ground, and then give the order: "Pile arms. Take your uniform off, and if you wear it longer than a certain period you will he sent to jail." That is pretty drastic treatment with re-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Does the Imperial Government pay to a Canadian who left this country and went into the Imperial service the student gratuity that he has just spoken of, if such student wishes to complete his education here?


John Allister Currie: Unfortunately the British Government limit the grant to those students who go through Cambridge, Oxford, or the British universities; I do not think that is fair. However, I think this country should do as well as England does. I want the House to understand distinctly that when I speak of the returned soldier I make no distinction, as far as I am personally concerned, as to whether he served

in the Imperial army or in the Canadian army. '
The question arises: Where are we going to get all this money? I suppose the House is anxiously looking around and listening' to the plea that we are going to become bankrupt. Now, I am not the Finance Minister, nor do I like to give lectures on finance, except when the question is before the House; but this subject involves a financial question, and unless some method can be shown whereby the money can be raised we could not very well ask the House to make the necessary grant. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is only by your courtesy that I am permitted to make this digression. Of course, I should not talk finance unless there was a Bill before the House dealing with it, but, Sir, you will bear with me for a moment while I proceed, and I hope the House will show me similar indulgence.
We read in the press recently that Australia was going to get $300,000,000 or $400,000,000, as her share of the war indemnity. We have not yet heard what Canada is going to get.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Nothing at all.


John Allister Currie: I am going to take occasion to point out to the House what Canada did in the war, and what I think we should be entitled to, and if I am able to do that the discussion will be worth something. Now, what have we done in the war? We went to war for freedom. We went of our own free will. There was no clause in the Constitution, there was no bond, there was no League of Nations Covenant or anything else; there was nothing to take us to the war but that great ideal of liberty which we wanted to defend. We did not go over to get a few acres of snow-we had lots. Somebody suggested that we should have Greenland, until it was discovered that Greenland belonged to Denmark, a neutral nation. But we could not expect to get any territorial advantage. We have taken our part modestly and our men have fought as well as those of any other army in the field.
General Currie, who recently returned, has 'told you that it was not the expectation Ithat the war would end as it did last year.
If you read Haig's despatches and those of the other generals you will find that nobody expected the war would end last year. It Was a surprise. Soldier^ will tell you that when they were sent in to the final drive Ithey were not expected to drive through, for the simple reason that if they had been expected to do so they would have been supplied with new boots to continue the 
inarch up through 'Mons into Germany. 'Many of them struggled along barefooted until they reached German territory-all glory to them who broke the line. Who do you think broke the line and ended the war as it was ended, a year earlier than it was ipxpected to end? The Canadian soldiers. :I do not wish to cast any reflection on any (of our Allies, but the fact stands out that When our men were given fifteen miles of line to break through-to make a demonstration is really what the generals expected-they went through, and they went through so fast that supplies and equipment could not keep up with them, and they fought the Germans to a finish and kept them on the run until they had driven them back into Germany.
The men who really broke the line were our own men. I do not wish hon. gentlemen to think that I am boasting about our men; the war despatches of General Haig and all the other despatches testify to this fact. I bring this point to the attention of the House for the purpose of showing that we were not laggards in this war; we were at the front and we did our duty every time we were asked to do it. The glory of winning the war really rests with us, because'it was our final charge that counted; we were the " Old Guard " that broke the German line, and we take that credit to ourselves, because it is given to us by all the other Allies. But for us the war would have lasted another year.
That being the case, we now come to the Peace Treaty. We were represented at the Peace Conference, and through the Peace Treaty, which this Parliament has approved, we received at the Peace Conference our place in the sun. I did not speak in the debate on the Peace Treaty for the simple reason that, to my mind, we imist treat it as we would treat a Hamburg steak-we must not inquire too closely into its antecedents. - But one thing it did do: it gave us a seat at the council table of the nations; it showed that we were recognized by the nations of the world as a free people, as a people equal to those of any other nation. That was sufficient; that is really what we got out of the war.
Now. what did the other countries get out of the war? France gets Alsace and Lorraine. We do not begrudge her that. She gets the Saar Valley. She gets millions of tons of iron and coal in that district, a small royalty on which would pay the whole cost of the war to all the Allies'. These iron and ore fields that she has won from Germany are greater than all the ore fields of Minnesota and the Western States-and you all

know how large those are. France, therefore, is to get back her old territory and she is to get a large acquisition of territory in Africa. Belgium gets an indemnity. Italy gets territory-and she is not satisfied with what she is getting'.
We turn now to the other British colonies, who fought just the same as we did-and I am going to make this point as an argument in favour of special consideration of our case. All the colonies, dominions, or dependencies that went into the fight alongside of us are receiving something out of this war which is far above and beyond any money consideration. South Africa is getting an empire greater than the whole of the United States. Great Britain is getting Palestine and Mesopotamia with its oil fields, its coal and gold, and its free route on British territory to India. Australia is getting. a mandatory power over the islands in the Pacific, German colonies worth hundreds of millions. Our good friends to the south of the line, the United States, stayed out of the war a good while, and what do they get? All the loose change that is lying around1 in the world-that is what they get. As for Canada, we get no territory. If Australia is getting $400,000,000, the least Canada should get to recompense her for her part in the waT should be $1,000,000,000, or only a hundredth part of the total indemnity-and surely we did more than a hundredth 'part of the fighting in this war. We are entitled to it, and out of that amount we could very well, pay our pensions and any gratuities that we require to pay, without its costing this country a single dollar. If we do not spend the money that way, we will spend it on railways, at the rate of from $20,000,000 to $50,000,000' a year. Or there may be demands for a further navy, though no one has yet decided what a future navy .shall be like. But if anybody is entitled to a gratuity, surely it is the man who fought overseas I do not think this country should hesitate one minute to see that they get it.
Mr. Speaker, for the last three 4 p.m. years this House has been doing its best to shift the weight of the burden of taxation from one shoulder to the other; it has adopted virtually what 1 would call a policy of free trade. We have taken the duties off a great many articles, and there is a constant cry that the duty should be taken off everything. Several years ago I pointed out, in an address delivered in this House, that if we wished the soldier to have a place for himself and to have employment after he came back from the war, the fiscal policy of the country should be such as would build up great industrial institutions within our borders. I do not think that any one in this House can point out to me one new industry that has been established in Canada as a result of the war. No hon. gentleman can rise in his place and say that the Government during the war so adjusted its programme as to facilitate the establishment of new industries in order that employment might be given to the returned soldier.


Michael Clark: I do not know whether my hon. friend meant that to be a challenge. But I should like to ask him whether he does not think there is enlightenment along the line of his question as to the ability of our country to build up industries without special feeding for years, in the fact that Canada, during the brief period of the war, turned to what for her was an absolutely new industry-the making of munitions; and that she made munitions profitably and in quantities beyond the possibilities of exaggeration?


John Allister Currie: I -am quite well aware of the hon. gentleman's ideas -along that line. But no thanks are due to this House or to the Government for the large proportions which the munitions industry assumed in this country. The directors of companies, the private individuals who put up the funds, were responsible for the development of that industry, not the Government. But in England, whence the member for Red Deer came, there was not a manufacturer who was not deluged with money which was advanced to him for the buying of machinery and the building of factories for making munitions. That money came from the Government; and we can readily understand how it "was that the Government, after seeing that the manufacturer had recompensed himself, asked him for a part of his [DOT] profits in taxes, which he willingly gave. If any manufacturer was'given a large factory full of machinery and a contract so that at the end of a year the cost of bis plant and equipment is amortized and everything is paid for, I do not think any one would object if the Government went to him then and said: Next year we want half your profits.- That is what happened in England, but it is not what happened here. No thanks are due to the Government, nor the country, I repeat, for having, through any part of its programme, caused the munitions business to become such a large business in Canada. The only man in the Government who had anything to do with it, so far as

I know, was the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). He did his best; certainly he blazed the way, and others followed. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Clark) cannot base any argument along that line upon the fact that the private individual put his money into this business and made it successful.


Michael Clark: Does the hon. gentleman not see that he is admitting imy contention that private enterprise is sufficient, under special circumstances, especially when there is a market, to build up industries? Does he not see that he is really conceding my point?


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman may think so, but I do not, and I do not think anybody else does. The hon, gentleman is very sore because his position during the war was antagonistic to the establishment of any industries in this country to help out the returned soldier, and he is 'afraid now of what will happen when he gets back to his riding .and has to face his electors.
These young men, when they come home will want positions, and if you cannot give them farms, then you must provide factories for them, or things of that kind. We all know what position our country took in the manufacturing of the world during the war and no one is prouder of it than I am, but our exports have fallen off already since the war ceased. No effort has been made to continue our war export trade. Nothing to my mind has been done by the Government to help restore our industries to their normal condition. Anything of that kind that has been done has been entirely due to the private individual, and God knows he has difficulty enough. There are hundreds of factories idle in this country, and the reason soldiers are walking the streets discontented is because business is not being carried on as usual in this country, whereas imports from the United States have virtually doubled. The Americans who never went to the war are getting the money, making the boots and shoes and hats and everything else for our returned soldiers. That is not right, and I think my friends the farmers will agree with me. We simply have to go to their relief. I said in this House last year that we would have to fix a price for wheat, and a lot of free traders, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), for one, said that was against free trade principles. But the Government had to come to that idea, .and so did the grain growers and the farmers, because things were not normal, and until they are the Government must
[Mr. J. A. Currie.J
assist. I say that an additional tax on everything brought into this country of from five to six per cent-the average is now only twenty-two per cent-would give the Government a sum ample to pay all the gratuities for the returned soldiers and to set aside a sinking fund and wipe out the debt in ten or fifteen years. Anybody who knows anything about finance knows that. He knows that from that twenty-two per cent duty we are drawing to-day about $165,000,000, and yet we have men saying that all the taxes should be put on the shoulders of those who have a few dollars. Why should our method of taxation bear hard upon one class of people of this country? Everybody knows that income taxation is the hardest and most disagreeable kind of taxation in the world. It is like the hut tax on the poor African negro who has to pay five dollars a year for nothing. There are lots of cranks going around who say there should only be one kind of tax and. that should be collected from the land. If that method of taxation should be adopted my friends the farmers would have to pay every dollar of the war debt. The best form of taxation is that which bears most lightly on the people. Suppose we had not won the war. Suppose our soldiers had not broken the Hindenburg line. Suppose we had not been victors in this fight. Apart altogether from the $500,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 that it would have cost this country to carry on the war for another year. Suppose we had lost the war, how much do you think every farmer and every other man in this country would have had to contribute to the German tax that would have been immediately put on? There is not an acre of ground in this-country that would not have been sold over again to the farmer. There is not a bushel of wheat that would not have been taken, just as they took the wheat from the Roumanians and paid nothing for it. Bear in mind that the .men who prevented that condition from existing today are these very men whom I am endeavouring to represent in my modest way in the House here to-day. These are the arguments which the men themselves have, and I think they are arguments that can be repeated to this House and to common sense people everywhere, in support of further gratuities to the men.
I have told you how the money could be got by the German surtax from what they have to -pay for the war, and they will pay it. They will have to pay that $100,000,000,000, and if they cannot England will lend them the money just as England and Ger-

many bought the bonds of France to help France pay off her indemnity to Germany. Now we are going to get a piece of that in* demnity and this Government will be derelict in its duty when the question comes up as to how much of that indemnity we are going to get if it does not present these arguments and point out that we are not receiving millions of dollars' worth of territory, we are not receiving empires comparable with South Africa or Mesopotamia, or that we went into the war without any hesitation and did not expect anything out of it, but as $100,000,000,000 of an indemnity is coming from Germany, and I hope something from Austria too, Canada is entitled to some of that coin, and we are desirous of putting that money in the hands of the men who fought for us.
Now comes the question how this matter can best be dealt with by the House. The Bill to which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has drawn my attention is not sufficiently wide to my mind.


John Wesley Edwards: Before discussing that phase can my hon. friend say whether the returned soldiers who have asked for $2,009, $1,500 and $1,000 for those respectively who went to France or England, or remained in Canada, make any distinction as to the length of time a soldier may have served in France? W'ould they give the $2,000 gratuity to the soldier who was in France a week, and the same amount to a soldier who had been in France three years?


John Allister Currie: There has been no distinction made by the men. Ever since tne men started to come back efforts have been made to raise these distinctions by outsiders who wanted to break up the men's organization. The first effort was mane before the Pension Committee to see that the men got the same rate of pension as the officers. Coming back to my hon. friend's question, I have seen a man come from England and go right into the trenches and be killed inside of five minutes. 1 know another young man who was in the trenches only six minutes when he lost his left leg and left arm. (He draws the same pension as the man who served five years in the trenches. There is no distinction made. It does not matter whether he was in the trenches five minutes or ten minutes or ten years.. There is no argument in favour of quibbling of that kind. But they have made a distinction between the men who did not get to the trenches and those who did. The men are all agreed that the gratuity for the former should not be as
much, but so far as the men who were in the trenches and were under gun and shell fire are concerned it makes no difference whether they were there ten minutes or ten years. It is just luck whether he gets killed inside of five minutes or not. None of the soldiers would support these distinctions. The last men to make distinctions between themselves and the officers are those who fought under the officers. The junior subaltern who led his platoon with rifle and bayonet and fought just like one of the men, the little lad whom they followed over the top at the zero hour was not drawing as good pay as an armour sergeant, and his wife at home suffered [DOT] more than any private in the ranks for the simple reason that the Patriotic Fund would not allow her to receive a cent. Hia average pay would not 'be more than from $3.50 to $4 a day; the sergeant was drawing more money and his wife was receiving assistance from the Patriotic Fund. The men I have spoken to say: "We want the officer to get his proper place, if there is any proper place for him. There is an occasional officer who is a rotter, but there are rotters everywhere and you run across them occasionally. That cannot be helped."


Charles Gavan Power: I did not quite gather the full effect of my hon. friend's reply to the question of the hon. member from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). Did I understand him to advocate that all men who served in France should receive equal gratuity, that the military landing officer at Boulogne for instance should receive the same gratuity as the man who fought in the front line trenches?


John Allister Currie: The law has clearly distinguished between the man who is entitled to the war medal, the man who has fought dn the actual war-zone and the man who has not. The distinction that has been made is, to my mind, amply sufficient. One man might have been in the trenches for nearly five years and have been fortunate enough to have escaped without being wounded. I know of several who have never left the trenches except for a furlough of ten or twelve days and have emerged unscathed, whereas, on the other hand, others have not been in the trenches ten minutes-indeed, in some cases, three minutes-when they were killed. The widow of the man who unfortunately was killed 'at the end of the war and the widow of the soldier killed after only ten minutes of struggle should be placed in the same category so far as

compensation i-s concerned, for their sacrifice to the nation's cause is precisely the same. There is no difference between their position, and it is not in the interests of the returned soldiers that any distinction (should be made between oases off this nature. Great efforts are being made to create such distinctions, which are not only invidious but, from a national standpoint, should be severely discountenanced. A good deal has been said derogatory of the conscript, but for my part I raise my hat to the man who went overseas after the enactment of conscription. It was the conscript forces that broke the Hindenburg line; the Canadian army contained over fifty per cent of conscripts, and the irresistible advance of these men shattered the enemy. So it ill becomes us to say that they were not just as good fighters as the volunteers and not entitled to every consideration. You cannot divide the returned soldiers by any such line of demarcation, because the moment you argue in that way you give him to understand that you are antagonistic to him, and he takes it for granted that you are stirring up trouble between him and his comrades. A considerable amount of far-fetched criticism is indulged in at the expense of the returned soldiers, and an attempt is being made to intimidate the farmers and others with absurd stories about the alleged recklessness of the men who have come from overseas. All kinds of yarns are told about them, one example being the story of the returned soldier who, hired by a farmer, was sent to milk a cow and finding the animal refractory killed it with a pitchfork. The soldier, however, cannot be found.


Michael Clark: Did any one find the
cow?


John Allister Currie: No-I am afraid this tale is on a par with fabulous pair of socles which the woman knitted for use overseas and which were found at Hudson bay. That is an innocent story compared with some others, but the evident intention is to prejudice the farmers against the employment of these men. As to what we should do, I think the Government could appoint a special committee of the House to deal with the whole question, so that there might be no possibility of narrowing the scope of the committee. I think myself, it would be a very good thing to have a motion passed in this House to investigate some of the new departments with a view to ascertaining just what they are doing. The returned

soldiers are not pleased with the Department of Soldier's Civil Re-Establishment. I have received a number of letters in reference to that organization, and I think that the entire subject should be inquired into by a parliamentary, committee. I know a pamphlet has been sent to the members stating that it is not the intention of the committee 'to go into anything that has been done by this department. If it is necessary I will introduce a resolution, and I should like to see this committee, if it is appointed, take up that matter and carefully consider it. The returned soldiers are sending all kinds of complaints to me, and other mem-, hers are receiving complaints also to the effect that this department is of no earthly use. The complaint is made that a man is being taught about automobiles, for example, by one who does not know the difference between a carburettor and a muffler, and men are trying to teach telegraphy by a system in vogue twenty years ago. This subject should be investigated, and the President of the Privy Council will, I hope, introduce a resolution giving us the assurance that this committee when, it is appointed will have the power to inquire into all these questions, and will not simply deal with this particular question alone.
I have spoken at greater length than I intended, Mr. Speaker, but I have endeavoured to answer all the arguments against the proposition that the returned soldier is entitled to further consideration. I have shown the House that he is -not asking too much, and I think I have made it quite clear that he is a good and eminently loyal citizen, who is ready to stand up for law and order when revolution threatens. His whole object in life is to see his country worthy of its position as one of the greatest, and I have every faith in his honesty and integrity. No one has <a greater -stake in the country than has the returned soldier, and we must bear in mind that if in our efforts to help him the country is put into debt, he is helping to liquidate that debt.
I am -a returned soldier and I pay my income -tax. I pay my income tax on the enormous amount I receive as a member of Parliament. We are all willing to pay our share, 'and1 the -returned soldier is willing -to take off his coat -and work strenuously to make hi.s country worth while. I trust therefore that we will stand behind these men and give them every advantage which it is in our power -to bestow. I will be willing, Mr. Speaker, to -answer any questions that may be asked of me, and I hope that we shall reach the conclusion that these returned men deserve everything

which a grateful Govern orient and country can do in their behalf.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member has told us what the returned soldiers want .and what the resolution passed at Calgary meant, but he has not told us what he himself wants. He has not 'told us whether he is in favour of the proposition or not.


John Allister Currie: If the hon. gentleman will read my speech he will find that I endorsed the gratuity to returned soldiers in accordance with the Calgary resolution. I also said that I consider the widows and orphans and mothers of men who were killed in France are entitled to a gratuity the same as men who oame home. Further, I am infavour of a substantial amount to every student going to the university. That is my position on the question.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre):: In rising to speak on the subject before the House I desire at once to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Simcoe North (iMr. Currie) for bringing this matter up in the way he has done. I quite agree that this is the place in which to air grievances, the place where allegations can be proved or refuted as the case may be. With much that my hon. friend has said I am in hearty accord, but with some of it I do not at all agree. However, with regard to his statement that the soldiers (fame back rolling through foam and spray and did not'know what they were doing, I may say that that cannot apply to me personally.
I think, Sir, that this is a proper matter to come before the House. When' everything has been said to the contrary, the fact remains that there is unrest amongst the returned fighting men. This unrest, in my opinion, is caused solely by the inevitable injustice of war. With your permission, Sir, I will cite a couple of illustrations of the injustice consequent upon war. There are two brothers, one of whom went overseas and into the trenches, the other going into a munitions factory. The poor boy who went overseas remained there for a year, suffering all the horrors and hardships incident to modern warfare. He never slept in a bed, he was greatly inconvenienced by vermin, and eventually, a big shell dropping near him, he was disem-bowled-his comrade takes him back to the dressing station where he dies. The 'brother in the munitions factory has slept every night in a good bed, and has made more money than he ever made before. He is alive and. has married since. Both these
men were doing absolutely essential war work. The lad in the trenches could not have lasted one week unless the fellow at home supplied him with the necessary munitions, but I think it will be conceded that there is no comparison between the sacrifices of the two men. Take a second example, a couple of doctors. One of them goes overseas and the other stays at home. They could not both go. The man who went overseas returns and sees some of his old patients going into the other medico's office. These patients had to go_ somewhere. He also notices that the medical stay-at-home is living in a much bigger house than when he went overseas, and that he drives a much more expensive car. So we have it right down the line from the lawyer, the doctor, the civil engineer to the -man digging; we find that the felloF who went [DOT]overseas got the bad end of the stick. There is no use in denying that. We find, since the beginning of the war, lavish display and luxury cropping up. The streets are filled with new motor cars. In my own province in 1914 there were 10,000 odd licenses for cars; the last return shows that there are now 27,000.
I am not going to try to speak for all the returned soldiers in Canada. I speak for myself. I do not begrudge any man a car; I would like to see every man own a car, but if there are spare cars going around, I would like to have one, too. That is my personal feeling, and in expressing these thoughts to my comrades I find that they are met with at least a smile; they understand what I mean.
The average man did not go to the war for the money that was in it. He does not come back expecting to be paid for it. You could net pay him if you tried. But the fact -does seem to me apparent, Mr. Speaker, that if any man during the last five years really earned a new motor car it was the man who risked his life for his country. There is one other phase that has appealed to me personally, and that is the psychological end of it. I yenture upon this question with a certain amount of diffidence, for I do not know much about psychology, but the soldier comes back to Halifax and he is still very largely influenced by the spirit which took him over and bore him up through all the trials and troubles that he encountered over there. He is in a heroic mood. He is cheered and acclaimed by the people at home. He wears his medals with pride, he is smiled on by the ladies and everything is just as he hoped it would be when he was on the

other side. But in a few weeks he is de-mobolized, and you cannot demobilize the soldier too quickly to please him. It is something he has been looking forward to for a long time. He, has been looking forward to the time when he would, be back safe and sound in old Canada and at work again. But once you get back to civilian clothes and get back to work you seem to miss something. It begins to gall you under the collar. I do not know what it is that [DOT] the men miss; perhaps it is the comradeship, but personally I think the smiles of the ladies have a good deal to do with it. It is a fact that all women love a fighting man. , If he is in uniform he is received with a proud smile, but for some reason or other when he gets back to civilian clothes they size him up in a little different manner. Sometimes I think they size him up for his ability to keep a house -going, to support a family and to maintain a car. But there is a distinct difference between the soldier in uniform and one in civilian clothes. That cannot be helped.
I have tried to bring before the members of this- House some of the points of view that have a bearing upon the question of the returned soldiers and some of the causes for the prevailing unrest. Now that we have the unrest I shall try to suggest, if I may, the remedy. First of all, I think we must realize the tremendous job ahead of us. The successful re-establishment of the returned soldier is so intimately hound up with the general prosperity of this country. The job of reconstructing the ravages of the war is such -a big one, that it is going to take all the men, all the returned soldiers, all the women, all the babies for the next twenty years to accomplish -it. We want to -realize that it is a big job just as the w-ar was a big one, and we can only deal with it successfully iby having goodwill and an absolute desire to accomplish the end. Goodwill is something which only comes by sacrifice to the common end.
It is hard -perhaps to express to you -exactly what I.mean -by comradeship. There is nothing quite like it in the world. With it you can do anything; without it you can do nothing. I remember that once it was my duty to help 'bury in one orchard all classes and all ranks of the sons of Canada and there lie, if my memory serves, the son of a senator, the son of a millionaire and the son of a labour union leader in one shell hole. I have yet to learn that any one class in this country has all the virtues or all the good points which go to make up

this common, citizenship and goodwill without which we can -do- nothing. *
Right here I should like to say -a word on another phase of the subject. I want to register here and now my protest against the loose way in which we are using the word " profiteer." Who is the profiteer? Is it the man who makes profits? That sounds very like a good business man. - Can any hon. gentleman suggest to me that we could run this country successfully if we eliminated or hounded out of business our successful business men? Is it likely that we will ever get that goodwill and unity that I have spoken of by c-alling some of our men profiteers? I can never -believe that ninety per cent of the business- -men, of this country are profiteers. God only kn-ows, I hold no brief for the man who has made money out of the distress and turmoil of this war, but there is not in -my acquaintance a man of the calibre who might -properly be called a profiteer -and I w-an-t to register my protest right now against the loose way in. which profiteers are being spoken of in almost every newspaper in- the country. It was brought to my attention more particularly during the labour parade in- Ottawa. They had a -dummy on a string labelled "profiteer they were hauling him up and down on a derrick and every time he went up to the top the crowd -cheered. The question just struck me: What is a profiteer? The more I thought of it the more satisfied I w-as that it was time for me to stand up and say something on the subject.
Last session- it was my duty to place on record my protest against the use of the word " Bolshevik " with reference to a few men who were striking to better their conditions of life and I equally and just as emphatically wish to go on, record as protesting against the loose way in which the word "profiteer" is being used.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it-has been my -privilege to be very closely connected with the work of re-establishing the returned soldier. I am proud to be able to say that in my opinion of all the countries engaged in the task of re-establishing the soldier, Canada stands second to none.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George William Andrews: But I would say this:
there is much yet to be done. I believe we can do it, I believe we have the will to do it.
In 1917 the election programme was: The last man, the- last dollar if necessary to win this war, and you will remember that I was returned by the biggest

majority ever known in Canada. That, I believe, was the true spirit of Canada. It is the spirit which prevails now, and we shall win in our efforts to surmount the difficulties that confront us.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who served at the front for some time and saw the courage, sacrifice, tenacity, and cheerfulness of our men under most appalling conditions, I feel that it is perhaps my duty to take pome slight part in this discussion. I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that a discussion of this kind is perhaps wise for tne good of the country at the present time. I have become more or less convinced that free and open discussion on practically all occasions lets off steam, so to speak, and perhaps does good in the country. I also agree with the hon. gentleman that in' certain cases injustices have been done by the Government in the handling of the returned men, although at the same time I submit that this Government has done exceptionally fine work in its handling of the men. Still I agree with him that there have been injustices done. For example, in my own city, I have seen the appointment made of a man who was not a returned soldier to a $3,000 position, which I protested against. That position might well have been filled by the selection of a returned soldier from some other part of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Sir, I think that cases of that kind should not have occurred. They are the small items in the handling of the returned soldier which have caused a great deal of the dissatisfaction and unrest in this country. But I submit also that the Government of Canada, just the same as the other governments of the wrnrld, was inexperienced in the handling of such vast problems as we have had to handle since this war began. Therefore, I think that the Government, whichever party happened to be in power, could easily be excused for having made a number of mistakes in the handling of the men who came back from the front.	,
Now, Sir, I wish to disagree with the hon. member (Mr. Currie) on one point which he made. He stated that only fifteen per cent of the returned soldiers are members of the Great War Veterans' Association. I have it on the best authority, from one of the high officers'-


John Allister Currie: I said active members.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member now states that he said " active members." I did not so understand him; I thought he said " members." I was about to say that I have it on the authority of one of the high officers of the Great War Veterans' Association that over 200,000 of the soldiers who "came back from the front, which is something like fifty per cent of the total, are members of that association. However, the hon. gentleman may be correct in his statement of the number of active members; I am not a very active member of the association myself, so I cannot check up his figures.
I also wish to make one allusion to the remarks from my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews), who has just taken his seat, who said that the existing unrest is very largely the result of the inequalities which existed between the men who served overseas and those who did not serve overseas. I agree with him mat a great deal of the unrest is caused and brought about by, perhaps, an accentuation of the differences which really existed before, and for centuries before. But I believe that the recent war will, perhaps, bring about a type of civilization in this world whereby the people of the world will not stand for those vast inequalities which have existed in the past.
Mr. Speaker, as a returned man, and as one who made a fair amount of financial sacrifice in going to the front, I do not know [DOT] anything that I could accept more easily than $2,000, unless, perhaps, it were $3,000. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you if you could tell me who it was that' originally set this cheap price of $2,000 upon the glorious individual actions of our men at the front-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: -those men who won imperishable fame at the front and won a reputation equal, if not superior, to the men of any other country who served in the armies of the Allies. In making that observation, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I used to think that was only a figure of speech, but since serving overseas and seeing the work of the noble boys who fought over there, I firmly believe1 that the Canadian corps was at least the equal of, if not the superior to, any other corps that fought on the western front. Then, Mr. 'Speaker, who is it that sets a price of $2,000 upon achievements of that kind? Why all the riches of the Indies could not buy the imperishable fame that our men won in Flanders and France by their sacrifice and

their courage? I should like to ask further. -I should like to ask the hon. member for Simcoe, or anybody who advocates that $2,000 be paid to our soldiers-if the men are willing to sell that heritage of glory for a mess of pottage, in the shape of $2,000, which is mentioned?


John Allister Currie: 1 want to answer that- question., 1 think it is a very cheap and contemptible form of argument against the returned men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member may think what he likes about it being a cheap form of argument, but I must say that I could not express in parliamentary language my opinion of his style of argument.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask if our boys ever expected to get $2,000 when they went to the front as an extra gratuity? As one who went and served over there I submit they did not expect any $2,000; I never heard a gratuity of any kind discussed over there. I did not expect a gratuity and so far as I am concerned the gratuity which I received was a total surprise to me. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this House or out of it who thinks more nobly of our boys who -served, so courageously at the front than I. There is no person in this House or out Of it who thinks they should receive better treatment from this country than I think; but at the same time I wish to say that I have yet to discover any man, in this House or out oi it, who does not hold the same view as I do regarding the very finest treatment o! our boys who have returned1 from overseas. And, Sir, I resent, as a returned soldier, the imputations which have been cast upon serious, high-minded public men, who do not wish to blindly promise $750,000,000 to the returned soldier unless they see some possibility of raising that sum, unless they see no fear of bankrupting our country in doing it, and unless and until they feel sure that they will not bring about the collapse of the whole financial structure of this country by attempting to pay that sum. Mr. Speaker, anybody I think will agree with me in thqse remarks when he looks.at the immense increase in the debt of this country since the war began. Let me briefly review our financial position: Canada owed $330,000,000 before the outbreak of hostilities or a matter of $40 per head for every man, woman and child ip the country. Canada to-day owes 
$250 per head, amounting practically to $2,000,000,000. The interest on our national debt was about $15,000,000 per annum before the war. -The interest on our national debt to-day is $115,000,000 per annum. Our pension bill, which was nil before the war, or practically nil, is to-day something like thirty to forty million dollars per annum. Another $125,000,000 is being spent on the Soldiers' Settlement Board. Another thirty cr forty million dollars-I have forgotten the exact figures as I am giving them from memory-on the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. Then there is the upkeep of the country, the deficits in the operation of our railways, and vast other sums which have to be raised. Therefore, I think it is a reasonable view to take that we should seriously consider how we are going to obtain the $750,000,000 for the purpose in question. I admit the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) has informed us that we are going to get it from Germany, but before we undertake to spend money we must obtain it, and. we certainly have not yet obtained any indemnity from Germany. But I agree that if eventually Germany does pay the indemnity which has been imposed on her it will be the duty of the British Government to see that Canada gets her just share.
I think this- Government will look after that part of it, and if they do not they will be derelict in their duty.
Personally I think that one of the greatest menaces in this country to-day are the demagogues who are ready at a moment's notice to accede to the irresponsible demands of any class of people. In my opinion they are panderers to popular prejudice, who are ready to promise anything which the people demand, so long as they do not have to give it themselves; and all they demand in return, Mr. Speaker, is the vote of the people to whom they are pandering. Unfortunately it is a sad comment Upon our public life that too frequently these demagogues get the votes, and the high-minded, serious citizens, citizens who love not only the returned soldiers but this country of ours, are shoved aside.
Mr. Speaker, $750,000,000 is an immense amount of money. Outside of this imaginary indemnity which we are to receive, I have not heard it discussed where this money is to come from, nor how it is to be raised. I have not heard or read of its being discussed in any public meetings whether th^ vast majority of the men who have served overseas desire this proposed gratuity of $2,000, nor have I heard it discussed whether it is the best thing for

them. 1 have heard the fathers of soldiers, and soldiers themselves, in fact most of them I have met knocking about this city-one who served with me and lost a leg-say they were not in favour of this $2,000 indemnity. We need production in this country. Will a payment of $2,000 to each of these returned men help production; or, as some people claim, will it send fifty per cent of them out on an extended holiday and lessen production? These are vital questions, and they are not generally discussed at public meetings.
The men who have returned from the front should receive the best treatment this country can give them. But I wish to repeat what the President of the Council gave to the House the other day, that so far as this country is concerned we have treated our men better than any other country in regard to monetary arrangements.
I agree with the remarks made, I think, by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) that no money can repay the men who have been out there-$2,000, $3,000, $10,000, $20,000, could not repay them for the sacrifices they made. But, as a matter of fact, Sir, these men did not go out there for money. What one of these men would have gone to work at a job like that for $1.10 a day? One compensation' to those of us who served out there-and it is rarely mentioned-is the satisfaction of knowing that in this war we played the parts of men. Is not that a priceless possession for us to hand down to our .children? Mr. Speaker, I would not sell that possession for any figure you could name. And what about those who do not need or do not want this $2,000 gratuity-men who perhaps, as the hon. member for Simeoe mentioned, do not require the money, men who are well fixed financially? Some of these returned men do not wish .to get anything else but a good position, and are they to be forced to take $2,000? Then there are the men who have better positions to-day than they would ever have had had there not been this war; are those men to be given $2,000? I admit that such men are vastly in minority, I admit that the majority of the men who went to the front made financial sacrifices-and if I may be excused for a personal reference, I am one of those who did -make a financial sacrifice. But as far as I am concerned, I am ready to accept that financial sacrifice as part of the price I paid for the privilege of going out theie .and helping in my humble way 21
to .preserve civilization by curbing the abnormal .ambitions of the German Emperor.
Mr. Speaker, let us think of our dead- our noble dead, those men who but a short time ago lived and loved as we do now. Would they demand $2,000 to be permitted to come back and join us here? I think of two of them at this moment, two who assisted me when I was medical officer of the Twenty-first Battalion-Private Boswell and Corporal Holden. They were among those whom I grew to admire, to respect and to love out there. They were charming, gallant boys, one of them with a little wife and family waiting here and longing for him to come back. I can see them now, Mr. Speaker, as they strode smilingly into danger zones that the bravest hesitated to enter. I can see them for days and nights after the battle of Vimy Ridge standing under heavy shell fire in an open trench dressing wounded .men, snatching an odd hour of sleep in the snow and mud at the bottom of the trench, and never uttering a complaint. Those men were recommended by me for decoration for that act, and it was only one of a thousand noble deeds which they performed. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that those men would demand $2,000 to come back to life, and love, and health and youth here in 'Canada? If the dead know what we do here on earth-and perhaps they do-must they not smile sometimes at the demands of the living? How they must say to themselves: Are you not satisfied that you came back in health, while we must lie out here in the cold soil of France and Flanders? Let our country keep its $2,000, but give us back our lives, our loves, our youth. When we think of them and the price they paid, does it not seem petty that we should be demanding money for the price we paid?	.	,
I do not wish to be misunderstood in speaking of this $2,000 gratuity, or in speaking of this question at all. Let me repeat .that this country must do everything it can possibly do to help these men who have come back from the front, and cases of injustice must be righted. Some system, it appears to me, must be devised whereby cases of real hardship can be helped; cases which require assistance to start them anew in life should be given that assistance.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Simeoe regarding the university students; a lot of whom enlisted when they were about to enter the university and they gave up their future to serve their country. It seems to me that some system of loans might be devised whereby those



boys would foe assisted to complete their education and be put in a position to qualify for a professional career. In addition to those, some system should and must be established in this country whereby all classes suffering hardship should be helped, because I do not believe it is the opinion of our people that any man who played a noble part over there should suffer hardship, or any of his dependents accept charity.
As the hon. member for Simcoe explained, Great Britain has organized an institution of this kind and is helping students to complete their university course and qualify for the professions. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that some such system as that applied not only to the students but to all other classes would meet with the support of the people even if it cost $100,000,000 or $150,000,000. I believe the country is very desirous of repaying our gallant boys for the noble part which they took out there at the front; the only thing they ask is that the price be not prohibitive, that it be within the resources of this country.
What would it profit our soldier boys if they gained these demands at the cost of the destruction of our country?. I think that blatant demagogues should not be encouraged; ranting, irresponsible agitators should not be tolerated, because they are neither friends of the returned soldiers, nor good, loyal citizens of our country.
As a returned soldier who has at heart not only the interest of the returned soldier, but also the interests of my beloved country, I appeal to our heroic men to show the same steadfast qualities here in Canada that helped to hold the line in France, and not to allow petty politicians looking for votes or irresponsible agitators looking for notoriety and power to seduce them into betraying the country which they so recently offered to die for.


Michael Clark: * Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few practical words upon what is, after all, a very practical and urgent question-we should not be discussing it if the House had not voted that it was an urgent question. I would wish from the bottom of my heart that we should approach it with the utmost sincerity and with absolute freedom from any party bias. The speeches which have preceded what I have to say in this debate have been admirable from that point of view. I think we are indebted to the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie); he need have made no apology for bringing this question before the House; I think he has'

done a public service. The advantage of approaching it without party bias, if we have regard to the urgency of the subject, is that there will be a possibility of our arriving unanimously at a wise method of handling what is, after all, a somewhat difficult question.
I do not intend to be debarred from saying what I have to say upon the subject by the appeals, and even the attempted dictation, of those reckless and "blatant demagogues "-I think that was the expression of the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion)-who outside this Chamber have shown considerable inclination to draw party support for themselves from a federal question in a field of political endeavour which is not federal.
I shall very likely be misunderstood by many friends whom I have amongst the returned soldiers. I have been for years a much misunderstood man, so that the experience of being misunderstood will not be a new one to me. I purpose, Sir, in the short time that I shall have the good fortune to retain the attention of the Chamber, to say what I have to say on this subject with courage and with an attempt to put ideas before the House for its practical solution which will meet the demands of fair play to all classes of the community.
There need be no surprise that this question has been brought to the doors of the Government and to the doors of Parliament. There need be no surprise, Sir, because the returned soldiers have been invited to bring it, both by the Government and by the official Opposition in this House. I am afraid that at this point I shall not receive the support of many members of the House of Commons. But I repeat that both the Government and the Opposition have invited this approach.
What did we have at the last session of Parliament? We had a housing scheme introduced, mainly for the relief of the returned soldier. We had ah incursion on the part of the Government of this country into road building-which, in my judgment, is a purely provincial enterprise-an incursion which was made with all the encouragement possible from considerable portions of the Opposition, especially those of them who came from Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is a splendid province, but its in-
5 p.m. habitants have Scotch blood in them, and they can never resist the attraction of something that is going to do them good in worldly affairs.
Then, we had a shipbuilding scheme brought before the House, largely it was

said, for the benefit of the returned soldier, as the roads were. I trust we shall hear how many houses have been put up for returned soldiers, hofv many returned soldiers are working on the roads, and how many at shipbuilding. There again the Opposition, in the person of the most capable gentleman who still temporarily occupies the position of leader (Mr. McKenzie), gave every encouragement to the Government-no doubt not losing sight of the fact that the plates for the ships were to be bought in Nova Scotia.
Then we had a large scheme of land settlement-a huge scheme of land settlement-for the benefit of returned. soldiers. But a far more serious invitation than any of these held out has been held out to returned soldiers to present such a claim as this by the neglect of the Finance Department-not so particularly of this Government as now constituted as of the previous Government-to curb profiteering in the only way it could have been curbed-that is, by drastic taxation imposed from the first war session of Parliament. I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that it is within my knowledge, as the result of intercourse with all ranks and conditions of returned soldiers, that they have been incensed and their whole nature has been revolted by the thought, on the one hand, of what they have gone through and what they have suffered, of their comrades who have died to the number of sixty thousand; and, on the other hand, of what they have seen since they came back-men who had not two dollars to rub against one another at the beginning of the war but who are now riding in their motor cars and owning their hundreds of thousands and in many cases their -millions of dollars. So I say, Sir, that there need be no surprise that the returned soldier is corning to this Parliament and asking that his immediate needs at least receive consideration for a little longer.
Now, I have referred to the invitations that have been held out to the soldier by the Government. But so far as I can see, the official Opposition in this House are still more culpable. I studied, Sir, with much interest and with very great care, a document which will lend itself to- extended consideration, probably, in a future session of this House-the platform of a convention which met in Ottawa in August last.
I do not know precisely what was done on that platform in the way of promising gratuities to the returned soldier-we shall no doubt hear from the Opposition on this
question; I hope they will tell us exactly where they stand in regard to it- but I know there is a large body of belief in the country that this question of a further gratuity to the returned men was one of the planks of their platform. It is an open secret anyhow that it was supported by many of the members who attended that convention, and that it was discussed in the Resolutions Committee. Everybody knows that, but as I say, although I have studied the somewhat extended and interesting document very carefully, I could not find precisely what it was that they were prepared to do for the returned soldier, and we shall listen with interest to the official expositors of that document in this debate and hear exactly what it- was that they held out to the returned soldiers.
There was more in that platform that invited the returned soldiers to knock at the door of this Parliament than- any direct reference to the gratuity. Why, there was a plank in that platform which engaged to take care of human Canadians from the cradle to the grave, by means of the State. The maternity fee was to be -paid when the Canadian came into -this world. I suppose for a brief period he was to be handed over to my hon-. friend the President of the Privy Council (\Mr. Rowell) to have a house provided for him when he was at the prime of life. If by any chance he became sick he was -to be insured by the official Opposition returned to power on this platform, against sickness; if he lost employment he was to be insured against unemployment-all by the State; and when he got old, in a country with less than two people to the square mile and an infinity of resources, he was to be provided with an old age pension, and, I suppose, finally he would be returned to my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council who would no doubt give him the necessary consolation in his last moments.
Now, what inference was a returned soldier, with all the weariness of war on him, and all the hardships of a pretty severe climate in front of him -to draw from the policy of the Government and the platform of the Opposition? Why he could draw only one inference, and that was -that we had money to burn in this country, that we had so much money we did not know what to do with it. The poor fellow, after all, had been at war, and he would- like a little consolation. I listened with interest to the poetic assurance of my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) that all the wealth of the Indies

could not reward the soldier for what he had done. That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, but all the verbal appreciation of a more eloquent man than my hon. friend would not fill his stomach three times in one day. There are two sides to that poetry business.


Robert James Manion: Besides verbal praises for the men who served at the front, did I not advocate assistance in every possible way for the returned men who required assistance?
Mr. :M. CLARK: Since my hon. friend has asked me a question, I must say that his speech was the most admirable specimen of facing both ways on a question that I have, ever seen in my life. He said in general terms that he was willing to do anything in the world for the returned soldier-so everybody in Canada has said who could speak-but the next moment he said that all the wealth of the Indies could not reward him. What was the meaning of that sentence? He uttered many other sentences along the same line. I did not make my remark ill-naturedly, although it has provoked a somewhat ill-natured retort. We will leave it at that. The public and the House will form their own appreciation of exactly where he stood on this question.


Robert James Manion: I hope so.
Mr. M. 'CLARK: I was trying to elaborate the point that official politicians are largely responsible for the fact that the soldiers are , at the door of Parliament with this demand, and I think I have given considerable evidence that there is some foundation for that statement. If these things have not happened, if these are not to be the policies of the parties in Canada, there will be every opportunity for reply. I said, before I was led off the line of my thought, that it was perfectly natural, indeed almost inevitable, that the returned soldier should, from a great many considerations, have arrived at the conclusion that there was money to burn in this country. Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when somebody has got to say, not only to the returned soldier, but to every citizen in Canada, that there is not mon.ey to burn in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I think the time has come when that must be stated in ia loud and emphatic voice not only to the Federal Government but to the Provincial and Municipal Governments of this country. The real truth, Sir, is-and we had better

all realize it, we shall be the better patriots the sooner W'e do-that fo.r a small population of eight millions such as we have in Canada, we are carrying a debt and obligations as a result of the war which are well-nigh unbearable. The country is in a condition of enormous debt and facing insolvency almost. Don't let me be thought for a moment to have any doubt of Canada's ability to bear her burdens? Canada will bear the burden 'and clear the debt, but the facts about our financial situation at -the moment ought to be stated, and stated in the plainest and most unmistakable terms. To take any other course, for political ot *any other reasons, is to be dishonest with ourselves and dishonest with the country.
Now I come to what, after all, as I said to commence with, is a very practical question, and I do not think it is very abstruse or very difficult. We can look at it from two angles in the main, and I think we can look at it from two angles only. We can look at it from the angle of the nation, and we can look at it from the angle of the returned soldier.
Another statement that has to he made emphatically which was made by my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River, and which I am very happy to endorse, and which the Government are taking steps to make by these very publications which we have ordered printed this very day, is that Canada has done far and away better in the matter of financial help for her soldiers than any other belligerent country within the Empire or outside of it. We stand at the top in that respect. Sir,
I am proud of what Canada did in the war and I. am proud of what she has done since the war. It is worthy of Canada. We are a big people and we know it. We have a big country and we know it, and we are out to do big things in the world; and as our men veritably did what my hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) claimed for them,-as they made the first break in the Hindenburg line, so we in the civilian trenches behind the ranks are at the top, as they were, in what we have already done in sheer gross material assistance to our soldiers. I am not now referring to the other things that have been * done, which may or may not be of assistance to the soldier or the country, according as they were wisely conceived and will be wisely carried out. We have not only given this aid, hut we have done an enormous amount in the way of the re-instatement of our men in civil life at the sacrifice of others of our citizens, and that is a con-

sideration that ought to affect the mind of this House, as well as the minds of the veterans in their attitude on this question.
I wonder if those who are most insistent npon this question ever reflect that there were many civilians who held positions in the Civil Service both of the Federal Government and of the Provincial Governments, who have had to step down, and have in many cases, I am sure, gladly stepped down in order that the returned soldiers should take their places. In many cases these civil servants stepping down are tender girls who did their bit in the war according to their ability and upon whose earnings parents are dependent for their support. Numbers of them have already been dismissed and others will be dismissed in the course of coming weeks. They will be dismissed not merely in the interest of economy but to provide places for returned soldiers. If it be true-and it is substantially true, I think, as it has been stated to-day-that each man or woman who stayed at home and did the .best they could in their own work here was morally as virtuous and as heroic, if you like, as the soldier himself, then the civil servants who are suddenly deprived of their occupation and income would be entitled to come to us and ask for relief. But we know that they will not do it. That consideration, however, should modify our attitude on this question.
I have referred to the financial position of the country, which is as serious as my language can describe it. What the country has done for the soldiers; what those who are giving up positions are sacrificing for the soldiers now; and the very serious financial position of the country at the present moment-these are the main thoughts that ought to be in the mind of the committee which will deal with this question, and that ought to be in the minds of hon. members when they approach the consideration of it.
I have said that the subject can also be looked at from the point of view of the soldier, and at this point let me say that I should like to know from some member of the Government who may speak on the subject later-as I have no doubt some member of the Government will-whether there are any statistics as to how many soldiers have been replaced in civil life. I understand that when my hon. friend the Minister of Militia demobilized a man, that man passed from the Militia Department's care and was handed over to some other department of Government. I should like some
minister to state whether there' are any accurate statistics as to the men who have already been replaced in civil life and those who have not been so replaced. I think that that is a consideration of the greatest importance. I had occasion to address a meeting on Celebration Day, July 19, in the little town where I live, and I told the audience there with very great pride that from that little town and district 150 men went to the war. A very considerable proportion) of them, I am sorry to say, will not come back, but those who have come back are replaced to a man. Statistics have been kept by the people in that neighbourhood, and those who have come back have been all replaced either on the farm or in the village, or in the service of the local Government of my province. I have similar information about other districts in my constituency, and I have not the least doubt that this is the case with regard to the rural districts all over Canada. However, the practical point I am trying to bring to the attention of the minister is that we ought to have as near an approximation as possible in statistics to the actual numbers of men who have been replaced and those who have not. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) that there is something very alluring about the policy of giving $2,000 to a man-at least for the man who is to receive the $2,000. It is a policy which, amongst the recipients, would not need any active propaganda to make it reasonably popular; I quite agree with my hon. friend in that respect. But this Parliament has responsibilities, and one of them is to ask, in regard to the soldier himself: Suppose he got the $2,000, would it do him good or not? Now, Sir, I am certain it would do some men good. I know of some returned soldiers whom I could trust with $2,000 to put it by and let it breed and take care of the interest as well as the original capital. But I know some others who are now on the farm-I know them intimately-who, if they got a *hack of $2,000 would immediately go off the farm. They might not stay off. but they would have a look at old 'London again. It is the duty of this House to consider seriously whether, if this demand were acceded to, we should not be doing more harm than good to the soldiers themselves. From the soldiers point of view

and here I have no doubt I am going to make enemies in the ranks of the soldiers-I think it is .necessary to say that there is no heroism 'in mendicancy. If there is any man among 'the returned veterans who has the spirit of

la mendicant, then he should lay that truth .to heart, that there is no heroism in mendicancy. However, we shall have light on the subject when we know exactly what has been done for the soldiers since they were .demobilized.
Now, in regard to the Government's attitude so far on this question, I think the ,statement of the Prime Minister, which has been very much criticized and in which he expresses the view that he did not see the need of a commission, was a most courteous and reasonable statement, as indeed his statements always are. It not only said .'that the Government did not see the need of a commission but that they had all the 'facts in their possession which were necessary to settle the question. Well, that being iso, one arrives at the point at which the (Government's position is not quite so strong, (because if they had all the facts at their 'disposal necessary to settle the question, Iwhy in Heaven's name do they not settle lit? Why appoint a committee? This com-knittee cannot ascertain any more facts than the Government has, if it has all the facts. I do not therefore understand why .this matter is being handed over to a committee, after the Government have told ;the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific 'that they themselves know all about it. .After all, they are the parties who are primarily responsible.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Committee's have been
[DOT]numerous enough. Why not one more for the soldier?


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Cyrus Wesley Peck: With the multitude of commissions that we have had appointed in this country-and they are as numerous as the sands on the seashore-is not the returned soldier entitled to one?


Michael Clark: Well, according to my hon. friend's question, if a returned soldier

comes to ask for a committee, then any other body may do the same.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: The rest of them got it but the soldier did not.


Michael Clark: My point was after all, as my hon. friend who has a very fair mind will observe, that certainly a committee is not needed if the Government have all the facts. I am going to give my 'hon. friend a further reason why a com-[DOT]mitte is an unuesirable method of handling the question. I might reply to my Iron, friend in regard to a committee-


Cyrus Wesley Peck: A commission I said; I did not say a committee.


Michael Clark: wants to go into a little business. Well, I trust the Government won't, without very great and very grave consideration, try to find embryo Rockefellers in the ranks of those who are most urgent amongst the veterans for this 32,000. I trust the Government will not look there for the best business men that they can find. I do not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of any man. who- went to the front, but I do say this: That for building up .a business, and every man almost in this House knows what I am saying is true, you want in the first place business inspiration-that -must be your calling-and you want very great mental astuteness and you want determination. Every business man listening to me knows that what I am saying,is true and it is a great doubt in. my mind-especially if the description of the returned soldier given by my hon. friend from 'Simooe (Mr. Currie) has even a glimmer of truth in it-* if large numbers of successful business men could be found in those who are most urgent for money under this particular head. What are we to do then?
I have said that we should not leave the men without something for this winter; and personally, having regard to all that I have said about the gravity of Canada's resources, I believe we should start this winter as beginning from the first of November to the last of March. That is what I do in regard to the feeding of my cattle-I always try to have feed enough for all the cattle I have from the beginning of November to the end of March. Now having said that as' to the winter, during which these returned men may suffer want and suffer want to the point of becoming a menace to the public safety-and here the national question joins the personal question, here the nation's interests join the soldiers' interests- looking at this as a practical question and seeking a wise method of dealing with it, I would give a gratuity to the soldiers from the first of November to the end of March. Limit it as you like, make it the lowest thing that you can call a living wage. I may be asked "Why do you urge that, after you have .said that Canada has already done more for her soldiers than any other country?" My answer is this: Canada has, but Canada also has a climate which is vastly more rigorous than any other country in the Empire, and that I take it is a complete answer to that question. There is no inconsistency in claiming a high position for Canada and yet bearing in mind that we have so much of our work closed down in winter and that our climate is so

rigorous. That is what I would say for the returned soldier. "For whom mainly would you do it?" I may be asked. I would do it for every man among them; I would make no distinction between the humblest private and the commander-in-chief. This is a democratic country. I would do it as an urgent public necessity and an urgent necessity for the soldiers themselves; 1 would do it along the line of seeing that every returned soldier, at least, had enough to keep body and soul together in this severe climate for the first five months, for the first winter that- they have been at home altogether with us once more; and I would do it as a democrat-I would treat them all alike. In that way you would relieve yourselves of all the heart-burnings, and they would be numerous, which would arise if 'you dealt with special cases and you would put yourselves in the position of saying: When the month of April-comes we shall all be living in the finest country in the world to get along in, if you have a man in you. We shall be able to say: This is the final decision, this closes the question, and next April we are all going to settle down to be good Canadians.
I intended to say something about how I would get the money. I would not get it the way my hon. friend from Simcce talks of getting it, because he would not get it that way at all and it would be a very poor way of getting it. Talk of getting money from Germany to relieve the soldiers this winter is not to be considered for one minute, just as I think giving $2,000 to each soldier is not to be considered for one moment-I do not believe the majority of the men are considering it, and certainly the majority of our fellow citizens are not considering it. I would get the money along the lines of the policy that was laid down by Mr. Asquith in a very lucid and powerful speech which he delivered the other night-delivered in a way I could not deliver a speech, but I could say all the things he said, and have been saying them continuously during the last five years, and the House will recognize them when I repeat what he said. He said: " I have no panacea, no special panacea for the condition of England at the present moment; you have got to remove all the restrictions from imports which you put on during the war"-and strangely enough the Government did it from the first of September. That is Number -One. He said further: "And the next thing you have got to do is to institute drastic economy.'1' Why, we could save what would pay for the soldiers,

what I have said should be done for them, if the departments of this Government were handled by business men upon business lines as the business men of this country handle their own business. Drastic economy; and I would get it by bringing Parliament down early in the new year and giving every member of it a primer on political economy and let him get to know something about the proper methods of taxation. I would do it by taxing the rich.
I would do it by direct taxation.


John Allister Currie: Class taxation.


Michael Clark: Well, there must be class taxation to the extent that you cannot get money from a man who does not have it. If my hon. friend says that; if his zeal for not going along the lines of class taxation carries him to the length of saying that paupers should pay taxes, then I take his point for what it is worth. The point is not mine-it was Mr. Asquith's recommendation to the people of Britain. I desire to impress these three points of a great speech upon the Government and upon the House: Take down your import restrictions; trade to make money. Money was never made in any other way. Make the nioney first.
Economize; do not spend. That is the way tc get rich whether you are an individu il or a nation. Make money on the one hand and do not spend it on the other. Mr. Asquith's third point, which he sa'I would be more disagreeable, was more drastic taxation-and	that in England, Mr. Speaker, where some incomes are paying sixty per cent income tax. Let me at this point repeat, that what is rankling in the minds of the returned men is that, against advice, the Finance Department, under the ex-minister, did not put on an income tax at the beginning of the war. Our debt would have been less, and what would have been vastly more valuable than that, our people, rich and poor alike, from the first days of the war would have learned 'the lessons of service and of sacrifice.
I have given the House my poor thoughts upon this question honestly and fearlessly, and without any party feeling, as behooves one -sitting on these cross benches. When we arrive -at spring, if we shall have tided over the winter in this way, we shall be all Canadians together, let me repeat, in a country which I have learned to love, and which is capable of the greatest things for ourselves both individually and as a nation; but I want to say that we shall only be a people equal to the record we
have made in the war, we shall only be a people worthy of the great natural resources which Divine Providence has given us as a magnificent heritage, if, whether we be veterans or civilians, we bring into civil life the same qualities of courage, of endurance, of holding on to the end that has sent Canada's name to the very topmost pinacle of the Temple of Fame. Those are the qualities we must cultivate if we would build up Canada.
This country is amply able to provide for -all of us. Do not let any of our soldiers hunger this winter. Deal with them all alike on democratic principles; give them at least a living wage for the first five months of the winter; leave no heartburnings by giving it to one and refusing it to another, and when April comes, this decision having been recognized by Parliament and Government and people and soldiers as final, let us stand as men before the world, and may every one of us be able to say about his civil life as our soldiers are well able to say about their military life:
In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud;
-Beneath the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody but unbowed.
It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll.
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight oclock.


Daniel Lee Redman: Mr. Speaker, I declared in Calgary last summer that I was opposed to the $2,000 bonus to each of our returned men, which meant a total payment of $800,000,000 because I believed that the country could not pay it. On the other hand, there is a large field of reasonable inquiry -to which we should devote our attention. The subject which is before us to-night, Sir, is this, what has been accomplished by the present schemes of re-establishment? What further is required; how much money will it take to meet these further requirements, and what part, if not all, of that money can our country afford to pay?
There are several proposals before us. There is the -proposal of a new organization known as the Gratuity League, or something of that kind, in Toronto, -that a flat gratuity of $2,000 be -paid. There is the proposal of the Great War Veterans' Association, passed by their Vancouver convention last July, that the Government

pay a bonus to the soldiers, that bonus to be limited by the ability of the country to pay. I need hardly point out that the Great War Veterans' Association is the most powerful body of returned men in Canada; that it has within its ranks-I should think that this is a fairly correct estimate-some
200,000	returned men, and that it has as its sympathizers the dependents of these soldiers, and I think, many soldiers who belong to no organization. This being the case we should consider to what organization we should give the greatest consideration.
I do not agree with some hon. gentlemen who have said to-day that this very intricate and involved subject can be settled by one debate in this House. I believe that the subject should be gone into by a committee or commission which will ascertain with the greatest care all the facts which are relevant to such an inquiry and which will survey all the possible remedies to meet the needs of the case. With this end in view I put a resolution on the Order Paper some days ago which, as I have previously explained, I withdrew because the Government saw fit to appoint a parliamentary committee. I understand, from the assurance given by ministers in this House, that the appointment of that committee will be based upon a Bill already submitted, or that the Bill will be so amended as to enable such a committee to go into the entire question of soldiers' civil re-establishment and in doing so to have the broadest possible scope.
I believe that such a committee will be more satisfactory even than the commission which was first suggested by the Great War Veterans' Association, because its personnel will consist of members of the House, who are now available for action; a staff is also available. In the second place, such a committee will be made up of men who are responsible to their constituencies. The inquiring body will not consist of men who may have no special qualifications for the work, or who may even b.e biased one way or the other. Another reason why a parliamentary committee will be more satisfactory to soldiers than a commission is that the committee must report during the present session of Parliament, and when the report is in an opportunity will then be presented to the Government to bring forward any money Bill which may be necessary in order to give effect to the recommendations of such a committee. Moreover, in the original resolution of the Vancouver con-fM. Redman.!
vention, a joint parliamentary committee, not a commission, was asked for. No such body as a joint parliamentary committee is possible under our constitution, so that a parliamentary committee is the nearest approximation which can be had to comply with that request. Having served during the last two years on the Pensions Committee of this House, I am certain that a parliamentary committee will accord to the war veterans and to all interested parties the fullest possible consideration of all the facts which bear upon this complicated subject. I am certain that such a committee can adequately deal with this question.
Now, taking my definition of the subject which is before us and having in view the desirability of surveying the existing schemes for demobilization and for reinstatement into civil life of our soldiers, let us first see what the present schemes are.
On Friday the President of the 'Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) gave us a great deal of very useful information and a number of very interesting figures showing that the provisions which Canada had made for her soldiers were infinitely superior to those which had been made by other countries. Let us examine .for a few moments the charts and figures which he gave us.
In the first place, it may be pointed out that pensions1 affect only those who have been wounded or dependents of those who were killed in the war. While our pensions are admirable, even their limit is not adequate to meet the cost of living which at present prevails in our country.
, Then, the question of re-education. While (Canada has proceeded further and more successfully in this matter than any other country, only a limited number of our returned soldiers are assisted in that way. In fact, it is questionable whether the courses which have been given to many returned soldiers adequately fit them for the new vocations which they have taken up, or whether it has really put them in a much better position than they were before.
The question of medical treatment has been adequately dealt with, but that applies only to those who have been wounded; it *does not go far towards re-establishing the returned soldier in civil life.
. It was shown that France, England and Germany have not dealt as generously with their soldiers as Canada has dealt with hers. While that is true, we must not forget that France, England and Germany are impoverished by this war to an extent .which we in Canada have not begun to approach. Moreover, in the countries men-

jtioned other schemes are carried out, in '.addition to the gratuities ankl pensions, comparison of which was made with ours. In .England there is unemployment insurance; [DOT]and they have been more generous in the affording of facilities for the education of soldiers in universities than we have. It is .quite true that United 'States compare very unfavourably with Canada in this matter. In that regard I can only say that in my *opinion United States has not dealt fairly, let alone generously, with its soldiers. Moreover, the United States soldiers were only in the war a very short period compared with our men, and the sacrifices which they were called upon to make were as nothing compared with the sacrifices made by the Canadian soldiers.
, In respect to the gratuities which have been paid by the Government, and which were generous and voluntarily given, the soldiers have made several complaints, gome of these complaints, in my judgment, are well founded. In the first place, these gratuities were given according to rank. That was a fundamental mistake in a matter of principle, because gratuities were .given for the purpose of re-establishing soldiers in civilian life as civilians, not as officers or privates in the army. There has been resentment and there is still resentment among private soldiers on account of ..the adoption of that principle, which seems to me to be an unfair one.
, In addition to that, I think the Government would have been wise had they made .arrangements whereby some board could have sat in various centres and instead of paying monthly to the men this wage or allowance which was given monthly, that board should have afforded a man an opportunity of getting the amount in a lump sum if he could show that by so getting it .he would be able to re-establish himself forthwith in some business.
A great deal of agitation and irritation has' also been caused among soldiers by .reason of the fact that a certain number of the dependents of soldiers who returned to Canada, since the day of the armistice have had their way paid home, whereas ,those who, at the invitation of the Government, were patriotic enough to send their [DOT]dependents home from England previous ,to the date of the armistice, had to pay [DOT]*their way, and no effort has been made ,to re-adjust that unfairness.
A great deal of complaint has been made by those Canadians who, instead of enlisting in the Canadian army, for various .causes enlisted in the army of Great Britain or in the armies of our Allies, with the result that their fellow .Canadians who enlisted in the Canadian army are receiving .infinitely better treatment than they are.
, Last session the Government brought forward a housing scheme-an excellent .scheme, well-timed; a scheme which, had .full advantage been taken of it, would in .many communities have solved the problem of the shortage of housing accommodation. .That scheme was brought in, as we understand, mainly to provide houses for returned soldiers.
I am sorry to say that in the province of Alberta, and I believe in many other provinces, the scheme up to date has been ineffective. I do not think that is the fault of this Government, but of the various Provincial Governments who have refused to take advantage of the scheme. In any event the soldiers who have been looking forward to getting homes under that scheme have seen their hopes disappointed, and ' have in consequence a feeling of justifiable irritation.
The land settlement scheme of the Government has been an excellent one and has provided foT many soldiers. I do not agree with those who say that the land settlement scheme is not of advantage to soldiers. I think a man who can borrow several thousand dollars and get on a half section of land in our western country with its splendid possibilities, and with the almost certain increase in land Values about to come, with full equipment, has an excellent chance of getting ahead in the world and is pretty well on the road to re-establishment. While that scheme is of advantage to a great many of our soldiers, you can understand the feelings of the others who wish to go into business' of some other kind. , It is bound to cause dissatisfaction amongst them. I think that the land settlement scheme, while not the underlying cause, was perhaps the proximate cause of the birth of the 82,000 bonus scheme.
Let us consider the position of those of our soldiers to whom none of these schemes have been of any advantage. Many of our soldiers, it is true, have been able to reestablish themselves, but a large proportion of our soldiers have not. I have said in this House so often that it must be getting monotonous, though I have never said it as well as or as fully as the cause deserves, that our soldiers returning to Canada are entitled to be absorbed into our economic life; they are entitled to the best positions they are capable of filling. They have come back to this country after two, three or four years' absence overseas, having sacrificed

the positions they held when they left, and are returning to us perhaps slightly more unfit for economic strife in proportion to the time they were overseas, some of them suffering from physical handicaps, and some perhaps from mental handicaps, on account of the experiences they have gone through. They come home to Canada where we in the meantime have had every opportunity, owing to the exceptionally good financial conditions prevailing during the war, of improving our own financial condition. Many of these men have not yet been absorbed into our economic life. I claim it is th^ir absolute right to be absorbed by the Canadian people into the economic life of this country.


John Allister Currie: How are you going to put them back into civil life without some money?


Daniel Lee Redman: I have no objection whatever to that question. My objection is to offering to give them a sum of money which I think every reasonable human being knows we cannot give them.
As I said last year, I think the Canadian Government might have gone further in absorbing more soldiers into the various departments of the Government, not only for the good of the soldiers so employed, but for the example it would set to other employers of labour throughout the country.
I need, hardly remind the House that Great Britain has recognized so clearly her obligation to re-absorb her soldiers into civil life, that she has made arrangement whereby if a soldier cannot obtain a position during the first twelve months after his de-moblization he is entitled . to a certain stated sum each month he is idle. I believe, Sir, that no comprehensive scheme has yet been offered by this Government at all commensurate with its obligation to re-absorb our soldiers into the economic fabric of our country. It is true that last session a great amount of money was voted for public buildings in various centres. If this work had been gone on with it wrould have been of very great assistance, particularly in our larger centres. A vote was passed for the erection in Calgary, for instance, of a post office, which we greatly need, but no work has been done on that yet. Had the contract been let I believe that to-day we would be able to employ two hundred stone-cutters in Calgary cutting the stone for that building. We have stone-cutters who came out from the Old Country to Calgary on account of the quantity of stone we have in that vicinity. If the contract had been let many of these 
men would to-day be employed, and many more still next summer. So I think it is the duty of the Government, if no other solution offers, to afford work of this nature in, the various centres in order to relieve the unemployment which I believe is coming. I am not saying that there is a great deal of unemployment in Calgary or other cities in Canada to-day, but I would point out that a large percentage of our men in Western	Canada are	now at
work in the harvest fields and in a very few weeks they will be coming into the cities. While I do not wish to assume the role of prophet, I do believe that thirty or at all events sixty days will not elapse before we will have in Calgary and in every other city in Canada a large number of soldiers who have been, back from overseas but a short period, and who, through no fault of their own, and in spite of their best efforts to get employment, will not be able to get a job this winter. I need hardly say that we are responsible. These men are still the wards of the state until they [DOT]are re-absorbed into our economic life. The proper note was struck here to-day when it was suggested that the comparison which these men must draw between their own position and that of those who have been financially Successful during the war must aggravate the situation. All of us in employment in this country to-day and receiving some emolument know 'that it is hard to keep up with the cost of living, but what would be our position if we had been away from this country for several years and come back with a feeling that we had not the opportunity of getting into the industrial or commercial world of this country but were on the outside looking on, with a conviction that our country did not realize its obligation to us. Possibly the Government might assist by grappling more energetically than they have with the problem of the high cost of living. I believe that problem is being grappled with in the United States much more effectively than in Canada to-day, and this session should not come to a close until we have passed all enabling legislation that is required to enable our Government to deal with this problem as effectively as it is being dealt with in the United States. That might have its influence.
I think I have gone over the various schemes which have been suggested, and whether I have convinced you, Mr. Speaker, or not, I have at least convinced myself that the present schemes for the re-establishment of our soldiers are not adequate,

but that something further is required. What is required? This problem is much too complicated and intricate to be solved in one debate. It must be referred to a committee that will take evidence and make full inquiry into the matter, and on the facts adduced finally form their opinion. Some of the suggested remedies which will come before that committee will be the following: The cash bonus scheme which has 'been suggested; the Great War Veterans' scheme for such bonus as the country can afford to pay. I think they will also consider some such scheme as has been suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) here to-day, of a bonus during the winter months. Perhaps they will consider the question of unemployment insurance.
That is now a practical possibility in this country because the Labour Bureaus, which under recent legislation have been instituted from one end of Canada to the other, provide the machinery whereby we can ascertain clearly whether a man has had an opportunity to obtain work, and whether he is unemployed through no fault of his own. Perhaps they will consider the question of industrial loans which Australia is now grappling with and which have been discussed by the soldiers throughout the country. In dealing with the problem of the re-establishment of soldiers in civil life, one matter of importance which should be earnestly considered is the assumption by the State of that proportion of insurance premiums which will represent the amount of disability which a soldier may have sustained and for which he will be taxed by the insurance companies when he seeks insurance. Some men have returned with various disabilities, such for instance, as an impairment of the lungs or heart, and it is their right to insure their lives for the projection of their wives and families. They are willing to pay the ordinary premium which we are all ready to pay, but they may find that the disability which they have suffered in the service of the country is such that probably they will be called upon to pay two or three times the premium ordinarily paid. Surely that added proportion of the premium it is the duty of the State to shoulder. We have a responsibility to see that the man who has been overseas shall be enabled to protect his family by means of insurance at the same rate as before he went to the war. All these are questions which this committee should carefully examine into.
We should not come to a definite conclusion here to-day. Certainly we should not get the idea that there is nothing in this discussion but the alternatives of granting or refusing a gratuity of $2,000. In any event, we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion until the evidence has been submitted to the committee and we have had an opportunity of perusing it and very carefully weighing it. After we have done that we shall be in a better position to come to a proper determination in regard to these various questions that are involved in the problem which is now engaging the serious attention of all thinking and responsible citizens of the country. In all this discussion to-day if we do nothing but survey the question in a general way and come to the conclusion that some further substantial scheme of re- * establishment is required we shall have done a great deal. We must realize that something further is required in order to constitute an adequate re-establishment of our soldiers in civil life. Something further is required before the State shall have fulfilled its obligations to the men who went overseas risking their very life for the national ideals and the national wealth, a portion of which may be required to adequately re-establish them now that they have returned. We should approach this subject, I think, from an entirely unbiased standpoint, unbiased by the voting strength of any organization which may make representations, utterly uninfluenced by the clamour which extremists may create, and solely with a view to ascertaining just what is required. When we have definitely decided what the requirements will demand in the way of financial aid, we should then undertake the raising of the money for that purpose with the same zeal and enthusiasm which characterized our efforts in securing the necessary money to carry us 'through the war, because the care of the returned soldiers, the proper and satisfactory treatment of the wounded, and the duty which devolves upon the State to see that full and complete justice is aocorded the wives, and children of those who have suffered for us, are all equally as sacred a trust now that Peace has been consummated as was our duty during the heat of the struggle to put forth our greatest efforts to prosecute the war to a .successful con-elusion.
i Mr, JOHN H . BURNHAM (Petebboro West):	I think, iSir, that every member
on such an occasion as this should express

*as far as possible the feeling which prevails in the district he represents. I am ,not one of those who think that every question should be relegated to a committee, because I am convinced that this House has some brains and that its members are capable of imparting to one another the information which they severally possess and *that, having a certain degree of judicial .faculty, they are well aJble to exercise it. At the same time, of course, we must .bear .in mind that matters of detail are always .referred to a committee and in that respect there can be no objection to that procedure. The soldier wants one thing and one thing only, and that is employment. ,To give him money is simply to postpone .the evil day, if he has not employment. ,To give him money when he is unemployed ds merely to attempt to cure a disease by .administering a palliative. The soldier, I repeat, does not want money as much as he wants employment and the opportunity .to settle down seriously to earn something .for his family as he formerly did. Under the circumstances, therefore, when I heard ,on former occasions the exdVfinister of Public Works, the hon. member for Carleton .lay down the dictum that in order to .effect economy in this country we must realize that there was no necessity for engaging in public works, I felt that the death knell of the soldier had been sounded, and ,the soldiers thought so too. They said that .they evidently were to fight the battles of .the country and were to be compelled to pay for the war on their return. Naturally the soldier was very much irritated. It is .apparent, Sir, that it is a short-sighted policy to leave any considerable proportion of the population without employment, .for this is only to create another disturbing element in 'the community even if the soldiers are provided for. The country stands .in a position exactly similar to that of the man who wishes to borrow money. If he goes to a money-lender and asks for money .inevitably the question is put to him: What purpose is it needed for? If it is intended for improvements, then ten chances to one the money will be lent; if, on the other hand, improvements are not contemplated it will not be advanced. You can borrow the money in a country that has more money than it knows what to do with, namely the United States. This 'Government could and should borrow money for .public works and give employment now and during the coming winter to the soldiers and every other idle man in the country. The Government can raise $350,000,000 more; for what purpose? To waste it? Not 
by any means. It is only using it as a medium of exchange, and we could have the soldier translating his work into buildings for the betterment of tbe country at the same time benefiting himself. I think that the Government did the worst thing in the world when it conceived the idea and gave expression to it that economy consisted in cutting down expenditures in necessary public works. I say we should go on with public works. Borrow money and proceed with public works which will be an enduring monument to the technical ability of the country and which will serve the very urgent purpose of giving employment to those who are in need of work, thus amply justifying the expenditure. Build good roads and .bridges and erect buildings; do anything you can conceive of that will be of permanent benefit .to the country for the future and that will give [DOT]much needed work to those who are suffering, and you will render a magnificent service to the soldier who wants employment above everything else. That is the service he wants. He does not want a donation as a means of pacifying him; he wants work. iHe went to the war as a man and at home he desires to be treated as such, and it is altogether unfair to the soldier to portray him as a beggar. He is not a beggar. Give him work; give every honest man work and there will be no fear of rebellion or revolution.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I find that most of
what I had intended to say has already been stated during the course of this debate. I quite agree, as I hope to show later on, with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Burnham) and I also agree with the hon. and very gallant member from Calgary (Mr. Redman) who spoke before him. I say " gallant " member advisedly, because he must be gallant -and I am sure he showed his gallantry to-night as much as probably he ever exemplified it on the field-when, as a member from the constituency from which this demand for $2,000 arose, he was able to say to the voters who sent him here that he was not in favour of such an extravagant demand on the public purse of Canada. For this I congratulate him. I also agree with him that the gratuities as they have been distributed so far have not met with general satisfaction. For instance, we have at the present moment staff officers drawing staff pay with their war service gratuity. I think it is absurd, unreasonable, and unjust. There may have been a reason, but

hitherto I have not been able to ascertain it, for staff officers drawing increased pay. (Since they have returned to civilian life at all events they should not receive a larger gratuity than is given the average soldier.
, It has been said during this debate that ,we should all approach this subject from a non-partisan standpoint. Up to very recently, I too had been endeavouring to approach all subjects in reference to the soldier from a non-partisan standpoint. I was one who voted at the convention of the .Great War Veterans, and in my own branch *in Quebec, to keep the soldier out of politics. I am sorry to be forced to come to the conclusion that all questions relating to the soldier ought to be considered as *partisan questions. Under our system of Government it is only through party politics that the common people have ever been able to achieve anything. We sit down *supinely in this House, the members on *the one side and the members on the other *saying:	We will not make this a party
question; everything is lovely; we have done so much for the soldier; we are all favour-, *able to doing everything we can for him- ,and the result is that the soldier gets nothing. I believe that such things should not ,be. Therefore, when anything is brought up in regard to the soldier, I am a partisan. I shall begin being a partisan by renouncing *my own party in regard to the soldier. In the Liberal party platform there was a clause, which advocated a cash bonus. I am absolutely opposed to any further payment of a cash bonus to any soldier. I am under the impression that the gratuity has been wasted, that we have already treated our soldiers generously in reference to gratuities and that we have done enough.
. There is another reason why I am a partisan in this matter. The present Government-I call it the Tory Government

have been playing politics with the soldier. They have been endeavouring to take the soldier to their bosom for political purposes only. *They have been endeavouring to control the soldier's vote throughout the country. *Even before the soldiers were a force in this country, and whilst they were still a *force in politics overseas, they sought to control the soldier's vote. Now the day of reckoning has arrived and it is for 'the Government to make good their promises to the soldiers. Let those who promised the soldiers everything during the election in ,1917 make good. I have in my hand an extract from the minutes of a meeting of honourably discharged soldiers held under the auspices of the Grand Army of Canada, .Vimy Post No. 4, at the Irish Rangers
Armoury, 91 Stanley street in the city of Montreal, on August 1, 1919. This document is written on the paper of the Grand Army of Canada. The motto appears there **-and I commend it to the Government-
We will not break faith."
It was moved by Comrade H. B. Jones, seconded by Comrade J. E. Lapointe, accepted by the majority and unanimously resolved' as follows :
"Whereas the Grand Army of Canada, Vimy Post No. 4, in resolutions passed on April 30th, May 6th, and 13th, 1919, reminded the Government of various promises given, and
"Whereas among them was one previously given on behalf of the Government in December, 1917, before the election, of a peace gift to each soldier of $2,500, and
"That we honourably discharged soldiers gathered at this meeting (open to all returned men) remind the Government that as Peace is already officially proclaimed, and that it is now time to fulfil its ' You have a vote ' pledges, and pay to all discharged men who served in France, $2,500 and to other pro rata,
"We ask the delegatee of the G.A.C. to present this resolution in person to the Right Honourable Prime Minister in Ottawa,"
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true extract from the minutes of said meeting.
With reference to this resolution, I suggested to the soldiers that it would be well to collect the $2,500 from the people who had promised it

from the Unionist party- and that there was no reason why this money should be collected from the people of Canada who did not make this promise. This promise apparently was made in France by the Unionist party canvassers, and therefore I should think that the Unionist party, which had so much money at the last election, ought to collect this $2,500 and pay it over to these soldiers.
This Grand Army of Canada is a wonderful organization. It has a paper entitled The Grand Army of Canada Weekly Journal, and in it I find some most interesting things. I"n the " Open Forum," page 14, of the issue of May714, 1919, we have a letter to Sir Thomas White from W. E. Collins, Secretary of Vimy Post Grand Army of Canada, Montreal. It is rather long and I will not tire the House by reading it all, but among other things he refers to the fact that when Russia had signed the Peace Treaty some difficulty was found in paying separation allowance to the wives of certain Russian soldiers in the Canadian army. The writer says that:
The Canadian Government opened an office at India House in London for Canadian Russian soldiers and placed same in charge of Major Yurkevitch, of Montreal, who was assisted by his own daughter and Lieut. Novitzky. It is claimed, however, that this office was incompetent and incapable of handling the matters under dispute.



if he likes, if he is able to do so, but have him under proper supervision, and see to it that he undergoes this vocational training, and that he does it conscientiously and does it well. In case he does not attempt conscientiously to learn a trade in which he can earn more money, he is not a good citizen and we should le't him look after himself as he probably did before the war I would solve the difficulties of the students in a similar way. The Vocational Training Branch of the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department could be extended to the students also in such a way that they could finish their university course, and their tuition fees, with perhaps some personal compensation, should be paid by the depaitment. So that, in fine, my solution of the problem-take it for what it is worth; it may demand a great deal more study-is simply to Jiave public works carried on by the Government in order to give employment to the men at fair wages and under decent working conditions, and to train in the vocational training corps those other men who cannot obtain such work.
Befor# closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an extract from a letter written some time ago by one of the men in the platoon which I had the honour to command at one time. He comes from Toronto -and he is a very good man in spite of that. He was looking for a job, and he says:
Our Royal Canadian Army gave me my grand finale with a huge gratuity of seventy-five dollars.
I am glad to say that that is abolished now.
I am back in the bank again and hate the damn place like poison. Also X can't live on the money they pay. Mr. Power, if you know of any position you think S.C. as you knew him could fill, you might let me know. Can't see how I can make enough to live on in the blooming bank, and I prefer outdoor work.
Then he proceeds:
Do you ever feel a hankering for the billets in some old Belgic barn with all the boys lying around, scraping the mud off their clothes, etc., while waiting for the rum, to come up? Sometimes, when I feel I should like to be with them again, I think" how naked it would be with all the old boys gone. Army life surely has that miserable way of making a chap restless and giving him a great big longing for something, not definitely put forth in any way, shape or form.	.
That, I imagine, is one of the things wrong with the returned soldier to-day. He has been led away by agitators, until he has that hankering for something which he 	Vl
cannot put definitely into any shape or form. It is true that lately he has put his hankering into the definite shape of $2,000, but as a general rule he has not been able to give it any definite shape or form. . He has been spoiled to a certain extent. Now we blow on him hot, now cold. We told him he was a fine fellow; the next thing we did when he asked for a job was to throw him down. He has been sent from pillar to post and has obtained no satisfaction. I am sorry to say that among a large number of our returned men this dissatisfaction has led to agitation, which ' must be stopped if the Government of this country is to be respected.-As an ex-soldier I, for one, must enter my protest most emphatically against those agitators who are endeavouring to stir up strife, to make out of the returned soldiers a militaristic class, and to force them to ask for something which we cannot concede; in fine, to make the returned soldier something else than the good citizen which he should be. According to the press despatches, certain returned soldiers prevented one of their own members from explaining his views in contradiction to* theirs; and other soldiers, having invited the editor of a very reputable paper to address- them, afterwards refused to listen to him and so ill-treated him that he was obliged to flee. I protest that soldiers such as these are not worthy of our consideration. If our men went over to fight for anything it was for liberty, and another thing which they also should have included was free speech. I deny to any man, be . he a soldier or be he a member of the Government, the right to refuse the right of free speech to any citizen of this country. Our soldiers should learn-I think a large number of them have learned-that to settle down in civil life requires a certain amount of time. They had pure physical courage; in fact, in point of physical courage the soldiers of Canada yielded place to none in the world; hut they will find when they return that to be good citizens they will require a higher kind of courage still- that moral courage, higher than the courage which made them carry Vimy Ridge, higher than that which made them assault Passchendaele-that courage to bear disap- , pointments, ill-luck and the vicissitudes of the ordinary life of a citizen without grumbling, and taking upon themselves once more a spirit of sacrifice almost.as great as the sacrifices which they made when they were fighting for us overseas.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Mr. Speaker, I wish to detain the House but a very very moments to express my opinions upon this matter and to explain my position. I desire first to disassociate myself from that cheap despicable demagoguery which is playing to a certain class of returned soldiers. I have a different conception of the returned soldier than seems to be entertained by some people who describe him as an imbe-
9 p.m. cile and in a shaken condition very much like that of a man after he has 'had a very' good night, and that he is going to be a great charge on our hands. I had perhaps as good opportunities of seeing our soldiers at the front as any one. As I saw them leave the trenches on those gray battlefields on many a morning and charge against the best troops of Europe, I thought they were supermen, and that is what they were. While I maintain that a man cannot have gone through the war without a certain impairment of his mental and physical powers, at the same time I think when our men come back here they are not going to need these tears of pity that are showered upon them. All the returned soldier wants, Sir, in my opinion, is not to be mollycoddled and pampered, because, as has been already stated in this House, no money can recompense him for what he endured. Many a man must have endured at times sufferings which a million dollars a minute would not have induced him to undergo; but he knew his duty was to stand in that terrible hell-theatre of war and meet every danger. So when he comes back what I think the returned soldier wants is nothing but a square deal and a reasonable opportunity to make a living.
I had the temerity to interrupt my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to-day, and I want to explain my attitude. I do not intend to camouflage my position in any iway. It seems to me that my hon. friend may not perhaps have understood the early stages of this movement, The executive of the Great War Veterans' Association came to Ottawa and approached the Government upon this question of gratuities and other questions, and they asked, as I understood it, that the Government should appoint a commission to examine the question of gratuities and all other questions that appertain to the returned soldier. The Government assured them that if they wished to do so, they might examine the records of the different departments, but such an examination was not necessary.
Then some members of the- House who are returned soldiers had a meeting. I do not think this is any secret; in any case, it should not be, because there is nothing to hide in these matters. So far as I am concerned, I do not want any camouflage. Then it was decided that these members should interview the Cabinet, and this was done. Many of these hon. gentlemen, like myself, took the position that a commission should be appointed. I do not desire commissions should be multiplied, because governments often answer a demand by appointing a commission. But a commission is one of the instruments of Government whereby we often obtain a scientific idea of public opinion. These members, therefore, asked for a commission, and I supported them in that request. But the Government did not agree to that suggestion; they wished to appoint a committee, and a Bill has been brought down dealing with the subject. I thought that a commission- was the best means of obtaining this information, because it could go from place to place in the country and if its personnel was made up of good, honest men it would obtain more valuable information than could be obtained by a parliamentary committee.
My friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) who has such a mastery of debate in this House, rather reproached me as not being an old parliamentarian. I do not know that that is any very great disgrace; at any rate, his remark does not make me angry. But, Sir, I know enough of politics in this country; I have studied the politics of this country long enough to- know that a parliamentary committee often involves a great deal of camouflage. I am not going to say anything against this committee; God forbid that I should, -because I want to do everything I can to help in the attempt to deal satisfactorily with this question of the re-establishment of the returned soldier. But I say that a great deal of camouflage is often employed in these parliamentary committees; they are sometimes loaded, and it has been noticeable from time immemorial that parliamehtary committees have brought in reports that were suspiciously favourable to the Government. So I thought that the appointment of a commission was the better way. I have to stand by my position and the Government may stand by theirs. However, I do not mean to throw up my hands. Sir. When the Government appoints that committee we should enter into the thing in the proper spirit. I hope that returned soldiers and all the

various bodies who are interested in the returned soldier will present before this committee their views concerning the objects which they have in view.
With regard to the question of a gratuity, I hope to explain my position in a way that will not be ambiguous. I do not believe that it is possible, having regard to the finances of our country, to grant all the extreme demands that have been made in regard to gratuity. I simply say that I think something might be done. Any man who has examined this question will certainly say that the gratuity should be readjusted, because it is a notorious fact that men who have suffered most and have served the longest have not received commensurate reward.
There is also the question of pensions- what we shall give to sustain the widow and the orphan. On three occasions in this House last year I took the stand that the pension to widows and orphans was not adequate. I take that stand now, and I intend to maintain it. What I say now applies also to pensions to disabled men, the wounded and the afflicted. As I explained once before, Sir, the question is one which does not so much concern those who have come back to Canada in the full possession of their physical strength; it affects those who have been left to us as a sacred charge by those men whose last thoughts on the battlefield were of their dear ones at home. So I say that these pensions to the widow and the orphan, to the wounded and afflicted, should be increased. I stand for that now and will always stand for it.
I associate myself with a great many of the remarks that have been made by hon. and gallant gentlemen who have preceded me, especially those of the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) in regard to education. I think that a great deal might be accomplished in that direction. We might extend the work which has already been done so that it would include all young returned soldiers in the vigor of life who wish to obtain a professional or technical education or a training in the trades. If we did that, we should be doing just as much to increase production as we are doing under the land settlement scheme.
I agree with the hon. gallant gentleman from Quebec South (M.r. Power) that we should not introduce any party, consideration into our discussion of or dealing with this matter. We should render our tribute -honest men will do it; the soldier will always do it-to those to whom credit is due; to the Government for the things that they have done for the returned' soldier.
[Mi Peck.]
Some people have sneered at the Soldier Settlement Board. I think that is most unfair. This country and the returned soldier owe ,a great debt of gratitude to the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) for the courage, the ability and the confidence with which he introduced the measure for land1 settlement, 'and for the manner in which' the plan has been prosecuted. In my part of the country the land settlement scheme has been a splendid success; the returned men are entering into it and great results are being achieved. I look forward to its success with a great deal of hope and confidence. I am anxious, therefore, to render my tribute to the hon. gentleman who is responsible for that plan of land settlement. In all ways I want to render to the Government any credit that is due to them for what they have done- and they have done a great deal. Hon. members have said that the Government of this country have done more than the Government of any other country has done for returned soldiers-.all the more credit to them. Canada had the greatest soldiers in the world; therefore she wanted to give them advantages and benefits very much greater than those which were offered to soldiers in other countries.
Although I differ from the Government in respect of the method of inquiring into this matter, I .think that we should all go at it with a view of trying to achieve some definite results and of giving to our returned .soldiers everything that can possibly be given, everything that the country is capable of giving them, not only to reward them for their great services, but also to re-establish them in civil life.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, my only excuse for rising to take part in this debate is that my silence might be misconstrued'. I may say at the outset that I agree with very much that has been said on the floor of this House to-diay and to-night. We all agree that the soldier did not go to fight for money and that this country cannot pay him for the services that he gave. Furthermore, we should be thankful to the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) for bringing to the attention of the House the subject which 'is now under discussion.
It is a subject on which I think every man ought to take_ a stand for the good of the country and for the good of the returned soldier. If we look for a moment at the causes of the dissatisfaction which exists in this country to-day, and it does exist T

think we shall probably get an inkling as to the remedy, if the Government only had the courage to apply it. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) was right when he said this afternoon that the cause of the unrest among the returned soldiers is the fact that on returning they find the men who stayed at home while they were fighting, have become rich. They feel in consequence that they have been more or less victims of circumstances which were beyond their control. They see that men have been promoted and had their salaries increased and some have become rich, while the soldiers come back comparatively poor. They find out, which is absolutely true, that the Government has failed to get from the profiteers an adequate portion of their war profits, and I think if the Government had the courage, and some government will yet have the courage in this country, to take from the profiteers the undue profits which they made while the soldier was fighting to keep them and their families and their business in existence, they would hit upon the first thing to relieve .the unrest in this country.
There are other causes, and they are not far away from the one I have just mentioned. I raise the question of insurance for the disabled. There are men in this country to-day crippled from wounds and disease, who see dissolution approaching in the not very distant future. They know they are going to leave their families unprovided for, and I say it is the paramount duty of this Government to look after these people, and to look after them at once.
Now I come to the different soldier establishments in this country. I said on the floor of this House last year that it was nothing less than an insfult to suggest that there was not among 300,000 returned soldiers a man competent to become deputy minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. I have nothing to say against the man who occupies that position, but I say this-I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until these things are redressed-that in all departments pertaining to soldiers alone, such as the Pensions Board, and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, the officials must of necessity be men who have served at the front. Under no other conditions .will the returned men have confidence that they are getting a square deal. I had read on the floor of this House a year ago a list of the higher-paid officials of the Pensions Board, not one of whom had seen service
at the Front. These are some of the things that are agitating the men who fought for this country during the war. This Government will yet have to take hold of this mess and clean it up, and until they do, we shall have dissatisfaction; we shall have people coming to this House and demanding $1,000 or $2,000, not as their just reward, but in order that they may be into it as .well, for they have a sense of justice and equality. 1 agree with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that the soldiers are fair and have the interests of this country at heart, but they must have a fair and square deal. We have seen too much of the military autocracy that stayed at home lording it over the people of this country. The day for that kind of thing ought to be past. I agree with my hon. friend that that has been a source of dissatisfaction to the returned men. This.military autocracy that stayed at home received promotion and salary increases. They have been riding around in Government automobiles at Government expense. But what happens to the returned soldier when he comes home? If he is twenty-dour hours'' late he gets ten days' pay deducted. These-things are bound to cause irritation and trouble.
. This Government deserves considerable credit, but I do not think we deserve any credit at all for looking after the widows and orphans and the disabled, because that is simply our duty, and our stern duty. The war gratuity was an act of graciousness on the part of this Government which I think the soldiers have appreciated. If they have not done so, they should have.
I agree with the; hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that the land settlement scheme has also been [DOT] a good thing for the soldier. It raises a man's earning power from $1 or $2 a day to $10 or $15 a day, and if he has the necessary energy and' ability it affords the soldier a ready means of re-estalblishing himself into the civil life of this country
, One other thing that is irritating	the	people of this	country' is the fact that this Government have put	out	all their loans	free of
taxation. It is indisputable that that has been the avenue through which millions have been sunk away that were made by men during this war. The loans offered them excellent security at a good rate of interest, and enabled them to escape the taxation which they knew was bound to come. These are some of the things which the returned men are thinking about, and they are going to think about them until they are adjusted in a more equitable way.

As to the solution of this trouble, I say frankly I do not know what it is. I do not agree with the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that this country can raise $600,000,000 or $700,000,000. I do not believe we can; I think it is impossible. If we are able to get $1,000,000,000 from Germany I might revise my ideas about giving the $2,000 gratuity, but at present I do not think we can possibly do it.
There are some things which must be done. .1 have mentioned insurance as one of them, and it is a very important thing. It might also be possible to give the men some other assistance in re-establishing themselves in civil life. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to-day, in a very brilliant speech, suggested a possible remedy for this winter. These things must be considered. What the remedy is I do not know. But I do know that there is a great deal of discontent among the returned men of this, country which has a just and righteous foundation. They did not enlist for money, and I repeat their great demand to-day is not for money. That is only the outward expression of a dissatisfaction which they feel at the conditions they have found on returning. I am very glad this matter is going to a committee of the House. I think that nothing pays like the truth. Let the light of day in on this question and let us see where we stand. If we cannot do anything, let us tell the people so, -and give our reasons, but if we can do anything it is up to this country to do it.
I hope that some men either in this House or out of it will be able to furnish the necessary ability, intelligence and good judgment to guide this country safely through the troublous times which are undoubtedly ahead of it during the coming winter. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said to-day, we have a hard and rigorous climate. We know that work is going to toe scarce, and it is imperative that these men shall be looked after. I heartily agree with the hon. member when he expresses the opinion that the country will not allow these men to go in want during their first winter' -after the war, and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that some solution will he found that will satisfactorily settle this question in a peaceful and amicable way.


John Wesley Edwards: I have listened with close attention and great interest to every speech which has so -far been made in this debate, -and I will pay this tribute to every gentleman who has

spoken, that whether or not his views -agree with mine, I can freely give him credit for sincerity in the expression of them. I may frankly say at the outset that I do n-ot agree with some of the opinions which have been advanced this afternoon and evening by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. It is true we owe -a great debt to the Canadian soldiers who went t-o France, not only those who are sleeping their last -sleep there, but those who have been fortunate enough to return to Canada. They acquitted themselves in a manner which has brought undying honour and fame to the name of Canada. They did their whole duty as soldiers on the battlefield, and it is -for us as men. occupying responsible positions in the gift of the people to realize our -responsibilities and do our duty -as fearlessly as did the men who fought -for us across the seas. The easier thing for a man to do on an occasion of this kind is to fall in lin-e with the clamour, and agree with those who are demanding this, that or the other thing. That, however, is not fulfilling one's duty -as a public man, at any -rate, not as I conceive that duty. We require in this country to-day, more than- -at any other time in our history, -men whq will exhibit in public life tire -fearlessness which characterized our boys overseas-. We require men who will have -courage enough to face any issue, however unpleasant it may be, to face perhaps even unpopularity in the expression of their honest convictions, and when necessary to say "no-" in the interests of their country.
I wish to commend very highly indeed the excellent speech which was made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). It was thoughtful; it was carefully rendered; it was a sincere expression of the opinion of a man whose interests in the returned soldier no one will question or doubt for a single moment. And when that hon. gentleman concluded,, I for one had no misgivings as to where he stood on this question. I was therefore sorry to hear the expression which fell from the lips of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), charging the hon. member for Fort William with duplicity in this matter, and accusing him with facing both ways. I d-o not agree with the member for Red Deer in that opinion. I say that at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for Fort William I was left in no doubt as to his position on this question, and in regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Red Deer, until the last- ten minutes of his speech I certainly felt that he was

going to agree in principle with the member for Port William. It came therefore very -much as a surprise to me when the hon. member for Red Deer took a right about face on the matter and seemed to favour the granting, if not of $2,000, 'at least of a portion of it. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member or Simeoe (Mr. Currie), in bringing this matter before the House, has ex pressed opinions which I dare say will find approval on the part- of very many soldiers in Canada, but I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence and fair-mindedness of the returned soldiers to believe that a great many of them will not approve of the attitude and the words of the hon.. member. The hon. member for Simeoe, for the purposes of his speech, divided the soldiers into three classes. The demand was made for $2,000 for every man who had gone to France; $1,500 for the man who got as far as England; and $1,000 for the man who had enlisted but did not leave Canada. He gave his approval to those demands on the part of certain soldiers in this country.


John Allister Currie: That is the Calgary resolution.


John Wesley Edwards: Just so. That is the
Calgary Resolution and not that of the hon. member for Simeoe. Very true, Mr. Speaker, that was the Calgary Resolution entirely until the hon. member gave it his endorsa-tion and then it became his as well. I think I am not misstating the position of my hon. friend when I say that he gave his endorsation to the resolution passed at Calgary to which I have just alluded. I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. friend, and if he does not give his approval to the position taken in that resolution passed in Calgary I shall be most happy to pause and allow him an opportunity to state his views.


John Allister Currie: I approve of it; I said so. The hon. member tries to make out that I engineered or fathered that resolution. That is not the case.


John Wesley Edwards: Not at all. My hon. friend from Simeoe is congratulating himself to a greater extent than I had any intention of doing. I did not credit him with having fathered the resolution. I said that my hon. friend from Simeoe endorsed the resolution. He has acquainted us with the fact that he was not responsible for the resolution, and if I had allowed this matter to pass at that, I suppose the impression might have been created in some minds that he did not endorse it. I thought, therefore, that it was as [DOT]well to clear the matter
up, and the hon. member now says he does endorse the position taken in that resolution. Now, my hon. friend has a perfect right, if he sees fit, to endorse that resolution, but I will say from my place in the House that I do not endorse it, nor do I approve of the position taken in it.
The proposition contained in that resolution is one which is impracticable and which could not possibly be carried out in this country without serious loss and damage. It is a proposition which I believe the majority of returned soldiers, when they fully understand the situation in Canada, will themselves agree was unreasonable. I asked my hon. friend from Simeoe (Mr. Currie) when he was discussing this matter if he would give the same amount to a man who had been in France only a week as he would give to a man who had stayed there for three years, but he made no distinction; he said one should get the same as the other. Well, I have in mind a certain gentleman in this country who went over to England. He took a Cook's tour as far as France, was there four or five days and came back to Canada. While I am speaking I have in my mind's eye a gentleman who for twenty years or more attended annual drill twelve or fourteen days in the year, paraded around with all the gold braid arid feathers he could put on himself, and was a big man for the time being, and was elevated to the rank of Colonel.
When the war broke out he did not offer his services until public sentiment became so strong against him that he did join up with the army and went overseas as second in command. He went as far as England with his battalion. It was broken up and he had his choice of reverting to a lower rank and going to France to fight or taking a Cook's tour, going over to France for the purpose of observation for four or five days, then back to England and then home. He took the second course. He went over to France for four or five days, came back to England and then came back home. Under the proposal contained in the resolution which the hon. member for Simeoe endorses, that gentleman would receive $2,000. I feel fairly safe in the county of Fron-tenac. I do not intend to boast of my majority or of my personal popularity there. It was not my popularity that got me that majority; it was the popularity of the Government I supported. Although I had pretty nearly 2,000 of a majority at the last election, if any such'course were pursued as that which the hon. member for Simeoe would endorse, or if a man of that kind was given $2,000 of the money of this coun-

try, I do not believe I could get elected again in Frontenac. I pay that tribute to the intelligence of the people of Frontenac. I do not believe they would endorse any such proposal as that. Nor do I think it would be reasonable or fair to give the same consideration, in the matter of paying $2,000, to every man who has set foot on the soil of France whether he had been there for twenty-four hours or four years. Yet that is what the resolution which my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) endorses calls for.
The other class to which my hon. friend refers is the class of soldiers' dependents, the widows and children of those who gave their lives in the Great War. Mr. Speaker, I want mv position in regard to this portion of out population to be defined as distinctly and clearly as my position in regard to the grant of $2,000. I, for one, am willing to mortgage this country, if necessary, to the hilt, in order that the dependents, the wives and children of the men who gave their lives in France, shall live as comfortably and as well as they did before their sons or husbands went overseas. I am willing, and I believe the people of this country are willing to go the limit in looking after the dependents of those who are sleeping their last sleep in Flanders' fields. There should be a full endorsation in the Dominion of Canada by its people of anything the Government may do along that line. Our treatment of these people cannot be too generous.
Let me come to the other class-the student class. I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Eed Deer (Mr. Clark) that he rather favoured this Government giving assistance to students to complete their course with the exception of theological students who would not get much consideration from him.


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend
permit me to correct him in what he gathered? I made no distinction in regard to students at all. I made a statement about the kind of student I admired and that was the student in all faculties at the Scottish university, at which I got my own degree, who went, supported by the slender means of his parents, carrying a bag of oatmeal, and in many cases became a professor. I did not refer to any faculty whatsoever.
I want to correct my hon. friend's false impression.


John Wesley Edwards: I am very glad to be set right in the matter and I will do myself the honour of entirely agreeing with my hon. friend in regard to the class of people to whom he has referred. I was

under the impression that he rather favoured the idea of Government assistance in the way of a grant to students to enable them to complete their course in Canada. But in that he has corrected me. There are quite a number in my own county who have approached me in regard to this matter and who think that the Government should put up money to enable them to complete their courses at college. Whom are you going to define or designate as students? Is it just those who are fortunate enough to be able to attend the universities? Are these the only ones who should be classed as students? Every person who is acquiring knowledge from thos.; who have had the advantage ahead of him deserves to be classed as a student whether or not he goes to a university. Therefore, the apprentice to the plumber, or the carpenter, while he is learning his trade and getting little or nothing in the way of wages is entitled to be called a student. The returned soldiers in that class would be excluded from any of the benefits that you would give to the boy who had been attending a university. The boys who gave up their university course, made great sacrifices to go overseas. There are thousands and tens of thousands of others who also made great sacrifices but who could not qualify as students for any grant of public money. The objection I have to any such method as that is that you could not discriminate, that if you made a grant to certain of the returned soldiers who had partly completed their courses you would be discriminating against others who had perhaps never entered a college but who could not qualify under the definition of student and who would have just as good claims as the man who had attended college for one or two terms.
But some say: There is discrimination any way under the Land Settlement Act.
I think it was the hon. member for Red Deer who said that he believed that that Act was not passed with the primary idea of assisting the soldiers but rather with the idea of assisting to get men back on the land. I do not take that view of it myself but let us consider that for a moment. We have passed an Act which gives, certain assistance to men who proposed to take up farming. Is the returned soldier who asks for assistance to enable him to open up a corner grocery in the same position? I do not think so. The Government in the ease of assistance given to the man who goes on the land, takes a first mortgage on the land as the Government's

security. They would not be dealing fairly with the people of this country if they did not endeavour to secure them for every dollar which they loaned on land or loaned on any other thing. In regard to an amount of money put into a grocery store, what security could that man give? He gets the money from the Government, buys goods and puts them on the shelf. They are perishable; they are easily convertible into cash.	.
If his books show him that he is going behind there is great temptation for that man to avail himsell of the privilege of disposing of what goods he has and getting out. The Government has got to have security. But there is another reason which is worth mentioning; every man whom the Government might assist in opening up another line of business, such as storekeeping, is adding one more to the army of consumers in this country, whereas every man whom the Government might assist in placing on the land is adding one more to the army of producers, and to that extent in the latter case is attempting to solve in a practical way the high cost of living by greater production, just as our difficulty in that regard would be increased in the former case by opening up positions for people in cities and towns. I, therefore, do not agree in that respect with an editorial published a few days ago in the Toronto Globe from which, however, I wash to quote just a few words. I do not agree with that part of the article which says that:
" The Government should try to do for men in the cities and towns who are unfitted, or have no Inclination for agriculture, what it is doing for men going on the land."
I do not think the Government would be warranted in following that line and for the reason I have attempted to give. But because of certain remarks which were made by one or two hon. gentlemen this afternoon in regard to the Land Settlement Act, I shall place on Hansard a few figures published by the Toronto Globe quite recently. I think it was the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) who rather made light of the Act and of the Government's loans to men going on the land, arguing that such men were being loaded up with a debt. I think there is a very great advantage to the man who avails himself of the terms of that Land Settlement Act, and I think the Government is deserving of very great credit indeed in having put that Act through. _ The Globe says:
The exact number of applications received by the Soldiers' Settlement Board up to August 23
was 30,903. The applicants wished to be located
by provinces as follows:
British Columbia	 5,313
Alberta	 7,6'72
Saskatchewan	 6,932
Manitoba	 4,720
Ontario	 3,027
Quebec	 1,282
New Brunswick	 864
Nova Scotia	 709
Prince Edward Island. . . .	384
Of these, 23,087 had been approved.
That is to say of the 30,000 applications for loans to go on the 'land, 23,087 have been approved.
The number who actually received loans up to 23rd August was 9,691, and the total amount of money advanced was $29,038,901, an average loan of $2,996.
It may be of interest to follow those figures just a little bit further.
The $29,038,901 has been divided among three classes of loans:	(1) on purchased land;
(2) on Dominion (free) lands; (3) on lands already owned by soldier-settlers. Most of it has been advanced on purchased lands-$15,-627,579 for the land itself, $2,027,139 for buildings and other permanent improvements, and $5,387,339 for stock and equipment.
You will see from these figures that of the $30,000,000 in round numbers which had , been advanced up 'to the 23rd of August in loans to those who want to settle on the land, the majority of those taking advantage of the Act are prepared to buy farms rather than go and get free grants of land. Over a million acres have already been handed over in free grants to soldiers, but the majority of them prefer to buy improved farms, and I take it one reason for 'that preference is because they have a certain amount of money to put into the proposition themselves. As a matter of fact, the $15,-
627,000	which has, been advanced as loans on lands purchased indicates that the soldiers obtaining that money put in one-tenth of that amount themselves, or over $1,500,000, because under the Act, as I understand it, they have to put up one-tenth of the amount of their loan on lands purchased.
Now, Sir, I noticed from my reading of 'the statistics just quoted the pretty general distribution of the soldiers so far as the provinces, are concerned, and that it seems to me is a good thing for this country. It indicates that not alone in the western provinces, but in the older provinces in the East as well, the returned soldier has availed himself of the provisions of this Act, and many thousands of them are going to the land. I believe, Sir, that if no more of them went on the land than have gone up to the present time, there has been ample justification for the Act which has been passed. No hon. gentleman in this House, I am sure,

will question that it has been something which has added materially to the permanent assets of this country, that these thousands of men already have shown an inclination to go on the land, have applied for this loan, and are in a fair way, not only of making a good living for themselves, but assisting in greater production by themselves becoming producers in this country. Therefore, it seems to me that those who make light of this Act are not taking the broad view of it that I think the measure warrants.
I would like to ask one or two questions before I take my seat. Several hon. gentlemen have made comments on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I fully agree with the motives behind the suggestion of that hon. gentleman. I am sure every member of the House will agree with him in his statement that we must not see any of our returned men in want during the ooming winter; (but I question very much, indeed, the wisdom of the suggestion the hon. gentleman has made. He would hand out to the returned soldier, beginning with the first of November, a certain amount which he did not mention, but which I presume would be along the line of the gratuity which was granted to them, for a period of five months.
, Now, let us take one or two cases. John Brown arrives at Halifax this morning from overseas. Some days are required before he is finally discharged. He is under pay, of course, until he is discharged. We will say he gets his discharge the last day of September. Immediately that happens he starts to draw seventy dollars a month for six months. 1 am, of course, assuming that he has been overseas for three years or more. So far as John Brown is concerned, he will draw seventy dollars for October, November, December, January, February and March! ,But the suggestion of the hon. member for .Red Deer would mean that, in addition to drawing that money, he would also draw a further seventy dollars a month, .beginning with the first of November of .this year, for five months. I do not think you can argue that in his case he needs the other seventy dollars a month in order to keep him from starving this winter. .Then we will take the case of a man who got back here on the first of January. He ,was discharged on that date. Up to that time he was drawing pay. He then started to draw his gratuity and drew it for six months. At the end of six months 'his gratuity stopped, but during that period he has had an opportunity of supplementing 	"
his pay in other ways in order to put him [DOT]through the coming winter.
( How are we going to justify ourselves in making a grant for five months to carry men through the winter of 1919-20, and not make .a similar grant next year to carry men through the-winter of 1920-21? What better reason can we offer for saying that the public generally must take it for granted that that ends the gratuity business than .we can offer in regard to the gratuity which has already been granted? Is it not conceivable that a year from now there will be soldiers who have just got out of hospital, who have been kept going for all those months, gradually getting stronger and stronger, looked after by the 'Government of course until the time came for their discharge from the hospital, and who when they get that discharge are told: You are now recovered and you must get out and make a living for yourselves? If those men are unable to find work, what are we going to do with them? I do not see, Sir, how it .will be possible to do otherwise than treat them in the same way as. the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) suggests we should treat the returned soldiers now.
Those are cases which I have put in the form of questions, and I would like some hon. gentleman who may discuss this matter further to give me their opinions thereon.


Michael Clark: May I intervene? I had given some thought to the considerations which my hon. friend raises.
I would like to point out to him in the first place that the number of men drawing the double gratuity under the cases which he has portrayed would be extremely limited, and that there would be a certain rough justice in the men who are last in getting their release having a Kittle extra money to afford them a little extra chance to get on in the world. I do not think there is a man in this House or in the country who would grudge them that extra chance, especially as those cases are limited in number. If ifoffered a chance of a final settlement, the number being so .small, I do not think any one but my hon. friend, who is a very close and clever reason,er, but whose reasoning is very fine sometimes, would really grudge the little extra in what would be exceptional and limited cases.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend has a very unfortunate habit, I may say, Mr. Speaker, of always concluding that when he expresses an opinion upon any matter the last word has been said upon it, and that any person who has the temerity to

differ from him is in a class by himself. Now, the hon. gentleman is so sure of his position that he includes with himself every other hon. member of the House ex* cept myself. I am extremely unfortunate, of course, in that regard, and. I appreciate the unfortunate position in which I find myself; hut notwithstanding that, I have on many occasions'-and I say it with extreme regret-followed the arguments of my hon. *friend very carefully and found what appeared to me, with my limited intelligence, very serious defects in his line of reasoning; and there are defects in his present argument which appear to me, and which 1 venture to think may suggest themselves to other hon. gentlemen, despite the evident assurance of my hon. friend that he has everybody else thinking his way.
Now, Sir, I take exception 'to one word which my hon. friend has used, and I take exception .to it in the very strongest terms. He has the right to differ from me in opinion, as I have the right to differ from him; but he has no right to assume, nor has he any right to imply to this House that I stand [DOT] as one who would grudge to the returned soldier any sum which he in his generosity would give him. I wish to tell my hon." friend that I will go just as far -as he will in generous treatment to the returned soldier, tout in pointing out wihat I think are defects in the suggestion which he makes-, I believe I am taking -a course which though it may not appeal to returned soldier voters-it will not be popular in that regard-is more in line with the welfare of this country than is the course taken by my hon. friend. He ih-ad no hesitation this afternoon in speaking very strongly in opposition to the idea of acceding to the demands of the soldiers for the $2,000 grant, and. if 1 recall his words correctly, it was in his estimation something which would bankrupt this country. He said that we did not have the resources to make such a payment. I wonder where the length of our resources comes in to provide the hon. gentleman from 'Red Deer with the money to carry out his proposal. To meet the $2,000 grant -would mean an expenditure of $750,000,000 or $800,000,000. If the suggestion of my hon. friend were adopted it .would cost this country about $250,000,000. If we are justified in asking in all seriousness : Where are you going to get $800,000,000 to meet this demand of $2,000 each, I think, without being accused of grudging the soldiers what is due them, I have a Tight. to ask: Where does my hon. friend propose to get his $250,000,000 which would
be required if his suggestion were carried into effect?
The hon. member for Red Deer has not told us in definite terms where it is to come from, nor has the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), t The memlber for North Simcoe suggested that it would come from Germany, but that suggestion was repudiated, and very properly so, by the member for Red Deer. Just as properly we might repudiate the suggestion made by the member for Red Deer, because his was just as indirect as that of the member for North Simcoe. I submit that the member for Red Deer should follow up his suggestion by stating definitely how this money is to be obtained. Of course, it would be entirely 'wrong, from his point of view, to get it from the tariff. The hon. gentleman in one breath denounced such expenditures as those involved in the housing scheme and the good roads proposal, and he very kindly enunciated a great economic principle when he told us that the way to get rich was toy making all the money you could get and not spending any. He told the Government that the way to get rich was to raise revenues by direct taxation and so on, and not spend the money. But in the next breath he deviated from that economic principle by advocating the expenditure of $250,000,000, without even telling us where the money was to come from.


Michael Clark: I should like to follow the Scotch practice of answering my hon. friend's question by putting one to him. If war had lasted another year-I do not doubt for a moment that my hon. friend agrees with me this time, that we should still have kept in it-where would the money have come from?


John Wesley Edwards: That is a question which I cannot answer; I doubt very much whether my hon. friend could answer it. We did not have to cross that bridge. I think we would have found the money, though.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: But it is to be remembered that money was coming into this country while the war was on that is not coming into it now. Hundreds of millions of dollars were flowing into Canada for the purchase of munitions and supplies which are not coming into the country now. That suggests to me, as it does, no doubt, to my hon. friend, that had the war continued another year, sources of obtaining money would be open to the people of Canada at

the present time which are not now open demnation goes to me as well as to the Gov-to them because of the conclusion of the eminent; it goes to every member of this war. But merely to ask where the money House, including the member for Muskoka, would come from if the war had continued for we all allowed the measure to go through another year does not tell us where the in the form that it did, and we were silent
money is to come from to meet his suggested expenditure of $250,000,000.
As one who represents a farming constituency, I point out to those who advocate this expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars that they are advocating a course which, if adopted, would compel the Government to place a federal tax on every farm in Canada. If that should happen, farm values would immediately tumble. I was talking to a man the other day, a farmer who had returned from overseas, and he asked me what I thought of this proposed gratuity of $2,000. I said: "The Government will not do it; they cannot do it." He said: "Don't you think they should do it?" I said, "I certainly don't think they should do it." I added, "How would you like it if in addition to your municipal taxes you had to pay a federal tax of $50, $75 or $100 on your farm?" "Well," he said, "I would simply sell the farm." I said, "To whom would you sell it? I suppose you would sit up at night watching for some fool to come along who was eager for an opportunity to pay taxes that you were running away from."
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to go as far as any person in this House in doing what we can for the returned.soldier. Our first duty in that regard is to the wives and children of the men who lie buried in France, and I will go the limit, and then some, so far as they are concerned.. Our second duty is tp the men who are partially or totally disabled; I will go the limit so far as they are concerned. I am willing to mortgage this country in order to assist these two classes. But il should not be- doing my duty as a member of this House if I were to support a proposal to meet the clatter coming from certain men- in this country, without giving due consideration to what bur- -den we were thereby placing upon the people. That, I say, I will not do; -whether or not that course causes me to obtain support is a secondary matter and one which I do not think I or any other member of this House in a similar position should consider.
Permit me to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a remark made by the member for Muskoka (Mr. P. McGibbon) with which I do not agree. He criticised the Government very strongly in respect of the non-taxable feature of the Victory Loan. Well, that con-
at the time it went through. I do not feel like kicking myself in that regard, nor do-I feel like taking any kicks from any hon. gentleman who is in the same position as I am so far as that is concerned.
I wish to express -my entire agreement with certain sentiments which have been voiced by hon. members of this House in regard to pensions and gratuities to returned men. Gratuities were given to these men not in recognition of their services, but in order that they would not have to take the first job that came along; in order that they might have the choice of a position in getting back into civil life. Moreover, the private soldier is entitled to just as large a gratuity as is the major, colonel or general;
-i would have made no distinction whatever. And when it comes to fixing pensions for the widows and children of dependents of those who were killed overseas, I see no reason why the wife and children of the officer should receive any more consideration than the wife and children of the private soldier. Speaking as a medical man.
I know that the wee babe of the poor man will -suck just as much milk out of the bottle as the babe of the millionaire.
It will cost just as m-uc-h to feed it, and I do not see any reason why more dollars should be allowed for feeding the Child of the rich man than the poor man i,s allowed for feeding his child of the same age.
I believe that this debate has resulted in good. There has been a candid expression of opinion, and we will arrive at correct conclusions by criticising one another's views, doing it kindly, and I hope, courteously. I believe that it was the wisest course to 'appoint -a Parliamentary committee rather than a commission to inquire into this matter. No matter who may be chosen to sit on that committee, whether from this side of the House or the other I believe they will sincerely try to do -their duty regardless of politics or -anything else.
A Parliamentary committee in touch with the people and the soldiers will enable the returned men -to place their views before this House through the committee, and I believe will result in great good.
Mr. W. K. BAtLDWIN (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, many members have expressed the opinion that we should -all take a baud' in -this debate. I shall endeavour to confine myself strictly -to the question. There is

one question that requires to be dealt with perhaps more urgently than the question of unemployment among returned soldiers, and that is the land settlement scheme. This work was commenced early in the spring. I saw the man in Sherbrooke who had charge of it, and he had then found forty-three farms, but he bad not found a *single soldier to go on the land about the beginning of haying, because he could not get title to the farms. The men who sold these farms had not planted any crops, had not cultivated a garden, and had no potatoes in the ground. Things were generally running loose. He did place one .soldier on one of these farms; this soldier was a bachelor. There were no crops on the farm. In another instance a man who sold his farm to 'the Government had planted no potatoes or crops of 'any kind. I will guarantee that this Government in three or five years will own a considerable number of farms 'because the soldiers who go on them will be starved out. I know a farm that, cost $900 four or five years ago that was sold with four cows and a double *wagon to a returned soldier for $4,500. Before Christmas he will have to work by the [DOT]d'ay to feed his family or else abandon the farm. That is an abominable state of affairs. The Government could have found practical farmers who would have not asked a sou marquee to find farms of producing value for the'soldiers that could have been purchased at a reasonable figure, and on which the soldiers could have made a living. A senator has said, not in the Senate but outside of the Chamber, that it was simply criminal the way things were going in connection with locating soldiers on the land.
1 think the returned soldiers who have spoken in this debate have been the most moderate of all the speakers. They have not endeavoured to exact anything from the Government, because they know the country's financial condition. But there is something in this country that we could give to the soldiers who are deserving. We have *enormous areas of land in the great West which, in my opinion, should have been bought in large blocks for the use of the soldiers, who could have been put under an instructor, just as in the United States many counties have farm instructors They would then have had a chance to make a success of farming.
I think it is absurd to suggest that the soldiers should be paid a flat bonus whether they have been in the service only a week, a month or a year, and regardless of
whether they went to England or Scotland or France. Men have crossed the seas who have never heard the sound of a gun, and they have come back deep-chested, rugged fellows.	Their	families	have takencare of their money and have perhaps	$700	or $800	saved up.
Probably seventy-five per cent of the Great War Veterans believe in doing right and have got positions. I had the pleasure of speaking at a Great War Veterans' meeting in my county, at the county seat some time ago. 1 went there without hesitation not knowing what to say. I heard two young men speak, one from this city and one from Montreal, and it would be unparliamentary for me to use the language they used in flaying the twenty-five per cent of the Great War Veterans who are slackers, who would sell the last stitch they own to get money to get drunk on paregoric or Jamaica ginger to keep them in a state of inefficiency. Give them a flat rate. Why, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said this afternoon, some of them would soon see London again, and go ahead destroying themselves as long as the money lasted.
I agree with the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) that we cannot do too much for the returned man who is suffering from disabilities, or for the widow and orphans of one who is lying in France. We received in our boxes to-day a paper showing that the Canadian married soldier gets $600 and the single soldier something less than $500, whereas the United States gives only $60. It is true that the United States has insured her soldiers, but when the men get back they have to keep up the insurance themselves. From time immemorial soldiers have been looked after by a pension system, and that is what I advocate. Let a pension be paid in accordance with the years of service and the degree of disability sustained. That is the system in England and in the United States. After the great Civil War in the TJnited States the rate was $4 a month to commence with, and a few years afterwards it went up to $20 and $30 a month. They gradually paid more until now practically all the veterans of that war have passed to the great majority. The annual total pensions paid in the United States on account of thatr war amounted to only $42,000,000, whereas in Canada we have practically reached that amount to-day.
I do not see how in all reas,on we can give to the soldiers much more than we are giving, and the advocacy of this enormous grant is altogether incomprehensible to me. We have a tremendous debt, and I am con-


Mr. OOPP:: What does the Government say?


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: If I recollect rightly, the Prime Minister gave a very definite statement on the matter. I secured from the Great War Veterans' Association a copy of a letter written by the Prime
Minister that seemed to me to leave no ground for the question which the hon. member has asked, as to where the Government stands. If I can comprehend the English language the Prime Minister pointed out very clearly where the Government stood. Every man in this House or out of it will agree that it is our duty to do everything in out power for the returned ' soldier. We must do everything possible for him for his good and for the good of the country. But to say that you should establish a system of cash bonuses to keep him in idleness, is to contradict yourself when you express the conviction that you should do something for his good.
. I agree, as I believe most men will who have studied this question, that there was a necessity, and that there is a necessity, to provide for the returned soldier during the transition period from military to civil life, to give him an' opportunity of getting his feet, so to speak, and to provide him with an opportunity for getting back into civil life. The next thing necessary for the physically fit returned soldier is to provide him with an opportunity for getting back into civil life and if the Government and the country can do that they will be doing the best thing they can for the returned soldier. To continue the system of cash bonuses beyond the time actually required to enable him to provide for himself is to begin to pauperize the returned soldier and you cannot have a virile man and a pauper in the same suit of clothes.
There is, however, a class of returned soldier, outside of the physically fit, that we can never lose sight of, and that is the class represented by those who have come back maimed in any degree whatever. There are also the dependents of those who will never come back. I cannot put my position any more readily than by saying that if any disabled returned soldier, or if the dependent of any soldier who will not return, is ever permitted to suffer in this country after the service that they have given in this war, the country will not .be doing its duty to the men who upheld the honour of 'Canada, as they did, in France and Flanders. My judgment is that the country will never permit them to suffer. Canada, as has been said so well and so many times on the floor of this House and throughout this country, has done, and is doing, more for her returned soldiers and her soldier dependents than any other country that went into the war; she is doing almost double as much as Great Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

, There are, however, some other problems in connection with these men that will have to be faced. There has been pointed out the problem of the men who during this coming winter, or during the next winter, may find it impossible to secure adequate employment and it will be necessary to find some means of taking care of that class of men. With the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. iClark) that we should grant a flat rate to .all returned soldiers for five months during this winter, I cannot agree.
, There are two bases upon which payment of any description might be made to returned soldiers. The first is: Do they deserve it as a class? Can we by any system of cash payment compensate a man for the sacrifices that he has made in going over to fight for us in France? I say we cannot. ,To even suggest that you can compensate a man by a cash payment for his services in this war is to offer insult to the men who .were over there. The next basis is that we must as a matter of necessity do something to provide against the contingency which has been suggested this afternoon

the possibility of returned soldiers, or the families of returned soldiers, suffering during this, the first winter they are back in Canada, due to lack of employment. That is another question altogether. That is dealing with a situation that becomes a matter of actual necessity on the part of an individual and does not apply to a class. It does not include the majority of returned soldiers. I believe that I am within the mark when I say that the great majority of returned soldiers who have come back home, and who are physically fit, are to-day in positions equally as good as those which they occupied before they went overseas, if not better. I meet a considerable number of returned soldiers I know a number of employers of labour and I know hundreds of returned soldiers who will tell you that they are in better positions than ever they had before and that they have better incomes than they ever had before as a result of those positions.
There is a point in connection with that to which I would like to refer briefly. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) this afternoon, in dealing with this subject,
. consciously or unconsciously, left the impression on my mind that there was an attitude of mind on the part of a large number of people in this country antagonistic to the returned woldier and that there were a considerable number of employers who were not treating their ex-employees

who had gone over and given service in this war fairly when they returned. I have made it a part of my business during the past year and a half, since the men began 'to return, to see if I could find one such case on the part of any employer. I have written to the Great War Veterans' Association in different parts of the country and up to date I have still to find one case of an employer failing to give his ex-employee on his return a position not only as good as he had before but as good as he would have had if he bad remained. I do not say that there are no cases to the contrary, but what I do say is that when any general statement is made that would imply that there are such, the case should be cited in order that returned soldiers and the country as a whole will not be under the impression that all employers of labour are in that class because to my personal knowledge they are not.
There are one or two classes of returned soldier to which I would take the opportunity of briefly drawing the attention of the Government in connection with this whole matter. One belongs to that class of Canadian citizen who went out of this country voluntarily, paid his own transportation to Europe, joined up with one of the Allied armies in France or Flanders, served during the whole period of the war, as in many cases he did, paid his own transportation- back to Canada and then finds himself stranded practically without one cent of consideration and without any recognition notwithstanding the fact that he, a Canadian citizen, fought side by side with other Canadian citizens practically in the same army and for the same cause.
There is another class, the reservist, whether he be British, French or Belgian, who was called home at the outbreak of the war. He comes back to Canada now and finds himself in a similar position. I commend to the judgment of the Government the advisability of dealing with these men exactly in the same way as they would have been dealt with had they been in the Canadian army. For my part I fail to be able to discriminate between the man who fought with the Canadian army and the man who fought side by side with the Canadian army whether in the British, French or Belgian army. They will not be a very large class; yet there are many individual cases of actual hardship as a result of the fact that .these men are not getting the treatment that the Canadian soldiers are getting. Not only is it a case of actual

hardship, but there is a sense of inequality that must always rankle in the heart of the man who feels that he has done exactly the same as other men did but who, because he was doing it in a little different way, or under different auspices, finds himself discriminated against. I do not believe that the Government has been doing that from anything else than a sense of its duty to the country but it is worth while in my judgment considering whether these men should not be treated as Canadian soldiers have been.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that in so far as I am concerned I am in identically the same position as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). It may not be a popular position to take, but it is the position I conceive to be right in the interest of this country and in the interests of the soldiers-and that is that a system of cash bonuses under which we would undertake to compensate men in dollars for their sacrifices and services at tthe Front, is an insult to -the men themselves. Apart from that my judgment is, that this oountry cannot conceivably meet the demand that has been placed upon it. When we talk of finding $800,000,000, and when we hear people suggest that we might ha^e found it if the exigencies of the war had made it necessary, 'had the war gone on for a year or two or three years more, it seems to me that there is -an utter lack of -appreciation of wihat the -whole subject means. I have not any doubt whatever in my mind but that should conditions develop during this winter which-will bring [DOT]about hardship or suffering, or anything nearly akin to either one of them, a means will be found to alleviate that distress and to make it possible for the returned soldier to get back on his feet-those of them who are willing to- get back on their feet as the majority of them are.
I had the privilege of meeting a command of the Great War Veterans' Association on Sunday night last, and they told me to a man: "We do not want anything in the nature of a gratuity to the returned soldier whatever; we feel that the people of Canada, through the Government, has dealt most 'generously with him; they are doing everything in our judgment that the country can afford on behalf of the returned soldier, and that is all that we can legitimately ask."
Mr. FREDERICK F. PAR.DEE (Lambton West):	I intend to occupy only a few
minutes in expressing my views upon this subject. It appears to me the first thing we have got to realize is that amongst a certain percentage of the returned men [DOT]there is a very considerable amount of unrest. That -has been voiced in various public meetings that have been 'held, in the deputations that have waited upon the Government, and in other ways. We know that amongst -that percentage there is very considerable dissatisfaction. It -always appears to me, Sir, that when a crisis arrives -perhaps the present situation cannot be dignified with the name of a crisis in so far as the returned soldier is concerned-but when any great question arises before the people the surest and best way to get over it and the surest and best way to give satisfaction to all concerned is that each party should speak its own mind1 and should come out fully in public discussion. Therefore, I think at the present time it is very fit and proper that the members of this House, being the people's representatives, and representatives as well of the soldiers that have come back from overseas, should discuss this matter very frankly. Speaking for myself, I am in favour of the appointment of a committee. I am in favour of the committee taking up the various questions that have caused this unrest and this disquietness and looking at them in all their phases, and if possible bringing down some recommendations to the House that would be best in the interests of the country and in the interests of all the people. I am, however, just in this position, perhaps through no fault of the Government, that I am not quite certain what this committee proposes to do. Some of us served last year and the year before that on a Pensions Committee. That committee gave much time and much thought to the matter of pensions, and so far as I can see, having been a member of it, having regard to our means the provisions brought down in the Pension Bill enacted as the result of our recommendations were just and generous. Is the committee which is now suggested to look into the question of the $2,000 payment? Is it to look into any further gratuity to the soldiers? Is it to look into a further increase in the pension? Or is it generally to look into the complaints that the soldiers have made and that have been spoken about here to-day? I may say very frankly at the moment, and I have no hesitation in doing so, that in my opinion a gratuity of $2,000, or $1,500 or $1,000,



that has been spoken of by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), is purely without the question. I cannot think for one moment that the great majority of the men who went overseas, as was so eloquently put by the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to-day, feeling that they were doing a man's work and that they were doing their full duty to their country-they went and served in that respect and under those auspices-or at least a very small percentage of them only, are coming back here to-day and asking the country to put up dollars and cents for the services they have performed. Those men I know, and I have the pleasure of knowing a great many returned soldiers do not look upon the matter in that way. I think we are very safe in saying that the great percentage of the returned men do not so regard it; I feel certain that the great percentage of the people at large are not in accordance with any such demand as stated. But, Sir, I do think that it is the bounden duty of the people of Canada that they should take this into consideration: The returned man who to-day has come back lessened by a great percentage of his earning power, lessened by a great percentage in the joy that he gets out of living, lessened in a great percentage in the pleasure he can get out of his home life and his family, is to-day entitled from this country to more than a pittance in the way of a pension-he is entitled to something that will put him at least on an equal, if not a better, footing than on the day he enlisted for service overseas. I think with regard to the returned men who have come back disabled, I think further with regard to the dependents of those men-the wives, the mothers, and the children-that it would be a standing disgrace to the people of Canada-no matter to what extent we would have to go in the way of financial aid and in the way of incurring financial obligations-that we should permit those people to become charges upon this country or in any way to^ suffer for the loss that they have sustained in the latter case by reason of the fact that their own men and their own support gave up their all in order that we might enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity. To those classes of people I say the very utmost consideration ought to be shown. As to the men who have come back in health and strength, I admit that to me they are all they ought to be. They are men who were prepared to make the great sacrifice, who were prepared to give their
fMr Pardee.]
all if necessary, in the defence and in the saving of the country. To them every honour should be due, and every honour is due. But I say, and I do so knowing that the vast percentage of them agree with every word I utter, that those men who thought this country was good enough to go and fight for, and if necessary die for, fully realize the responsibility that is upon them and know that this country is good enough to again fight for in the arts of peace and make it a country worth living in. Those, I am satisfied, are the ideas that the vast majority of the returned men hold. Those ideas are the ideas they ought to hold. Those ideas are the ideas that influence the greatest manhood that a country could possibly have, and which must necessarily make this country go on and prosper and grow great, as she ought to. I say again that a $2,000 gratuity to all the men who have served overseas is financially an impossibility. I say that so far as appointing a commission to inquire into the financial position of this country would be a surplusage. The financial condition of this country was disclosed last session in the Budget speech. We know our assets and we know our liabilities; we know our income and we know our outgo; we know as well as any private corporation possibly could exactly where we stand. Canada to-day to my mind-although 'far from being bankrupt with our great resources and our splendid people-has reached the position in which we have got- to say that a halt must be called, and to-day is the day that a halt should be called.
There should be retrenchment in every way. There is no question that there have been extravagances, and those extravagances must cease. We must cut our coat according to our cloth, and, as a nation, we must live accordingly.
In closing, Sir, let me say simply this: That to the disabled men and to the dependents of the men who, as I said before, fought and died that Canada and the Empire might live-to them the greatest consideration must be given. Failing to give that consideration, the people of Canada wall fail to do their full duty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, this debate has taken an exceedingly wide range-a wider range than, perhaps, the motion justifies. However, I am not saying that in any regretful or critical mood, for I think that we have had a debate of very great value. We have had expressions of opinion-not all of them in accord-upon a very wide range of subjects, very many of those opinions, in-

deed, being entitled to our most careful consideration. But I think it is well that I Should come back to the motion which is before the House and confine myself to it.
The question of urgent public importance to debate, which is the purpose of the motion before the House, is " the claim of the Gratuity Association of Returned Soldiers and the interview of its representatives with the Government." I am not clear that beyond the mention of the existence of that association we have heard anything in particular about it in the debate, and I do not recollect-I may be mistaken-that we have heard anything about the interview, save, indeed, some observations which were made about the slamming of doors in these peoples' faces. Let me say at once in connection with this whole matter that there has been absolutely nothing in the nature of the slamming of doors in anybody's face. Whoever has approached the Government upon this subject has been received with perfect courtesy by the members of the Government, and I am quite satisfied that none of the gentlemen who called upon us will state that any doors were slammed in their 'faces.
It is quite true that when the delegation from the Gratuity Association of Returned Soldiers waited upon this Government they got a perfectly frank answer. The question of the granting of a gratuity indiscriminately, without regard to the needs of individuals, with no connection whatsoever with affording a means for reestablishment, this Government very carefully considered and reached the conclusion that neither the financial condition of the country, nor the best interests of the men themselves properly understood, would justify the granting of such a gratuity. And the Prime Minister wrote in frank terms and announced that conclusion. That was the question, that had come before the Government in the first instance. The statement of the Prime Minister is contained in the correspondence which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) read to the House a day or two ago, and certainly that statement left nothing to be desired in the way of clearness.
The representatives of the Gratuity Association of Returned Soldiers asked for an interview on Saturday last, which interview was granted, and wre heard most fully what they desired to say. The only answer that could be made, and that it would be fair to give to that deputation, the Government having looked into the question as carefully as it w'as capable of doing, was
23J
to tell them perfectly frankly that so far as the Government was concerned it had reached its conclusion that theie was no way out-if I may use the expression-in the direction of granting the additional gratuities such as were proposed in the resolution of the Calgary gathering which has been read to us and which the deputation was pressing for.
As regards the question of a Royal Commission, the position of the Government was equally clear. The facts which led to the conclusion that the Government reached seemed to us so palpable that no Royal Commission could add to or detract from them. But it was made a ground of complaint, and it was stated, if I followed more than one of the speakers rightly, that there was a grievance in this; that the refusing of a Royal Commission implied the refusal to put before the soldiers the-facts on which the conclusion was based;: and it was stated that if that had been granted and the facts referred to properly established, why, the soldiers would have: had no cause for complaint. It is perfectly true that the Government declined to appoint a Royal Commission, but in the letter of September 5 conveying that refusal it was clearly pointed out that the means of information were absolutely at the disposal of the representatives of the soldiers or of any committee that they might choose to appoint. These are the words of the Prime Minister in that letter:
You will realize, I hope, that it would be undesirable to establish a commission or appoint a committee to inquire into facts which are within the knowledge of members of the Government. We are quite ready, however, to place all avail! able information on the subject at the disposal of a committee to be named by your association. If such a committee is designated to me, I will see that it is put in touch with accredited representatives of the Department of Finance, the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment and the Department of the Interior, which are those chiefly concerned with the matters in question.
I trust that this suggestion may commend itself to the judgment of the Executive Committee.
I think I have made it clear that there has been nothing in the nature of closing doors in the face of any representation of soldiers or anybody claiming to represent any section of them; that they have been received, their representations have been heard and we have put absolutely at their disposal every source of information that would enable them to appreciate the facts bearing upon this question. I take no credit to the Government for that; that is

a courtesy that we owe to the public ot Canada generally and a courtesy that we certainly do not owe in any less degree to the soldier who has deserved so well of Canada. But I point that out because I understood it to be suggested-or at all events I gathered that it was felt in some quarters-that there has not been a perfect readiness to receive and listen to and consider representations coming from any source, more especially representations coming from the soldier, and to put at the disposal of those interested every information under our control.
There are two perfectly distinct things. One is this proposal for a system of gratuity based merely upon the fact that a man has served in a military capacity, having no connection with what that man needs, the gratuity to go equally to the man who is in the enjoyment of large wealth, to the occupant of a position-a position under this Government, even; a position in any walk of life-that gives him ample revenue, that makes of him even a wealthy man; and to the soldier who may be in absolute need. I am not going to elaborate an argument in support of the view of the Government that that is an impossible way out. The gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Pardee) has put it very forcibly. The member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), numbers of hon. gentlemen, have made perfectly clear to this House that the one request with which this (correspondence was concerned is one that can not be entertained. That, at all events, is the settled view of this Government.
But side by side with that view there is the totally different question of soldiers' civil re-establishment. A good deal has been said about the committee that i3 to be appointed. It is well that there should be no possible misunderstanding; certainly the statement of the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Howell) the other day left no room for nlisunderstanding. Side by side with this question of additional gratuities-or, rather, occupying the field alone, because there is, in our judgment, no room for this question of additional gratuities of the kind that I have referred to-occupying that field alone, then, is the question of possible improvement in our methods of dealing with the matter of soldiers' civil . re-establishment. Now, the great bulk of the suggestions, if not all that we have listened to this afternoon, have had to do with a possible improvement in our method of dealing with the question of soldiers' civil

re-establishment. With regard to that matter the President of the Council announced that a Bill was to be brought down, and that Bill has been introduced. When that Bill reaches the proper stage it will be referred to a special committee and there these suggestions will have opportunity of being made and being supported by such arguments or such proof, if necessary, as gentlemen interested may think it wise to adduce. It has been said that there is nothing extraordinary about this; that that is what is done with every Bill. It is not coptended that there is anything extraordinary about this; on the other hand, I hardly think it is correct to say that that is what is done with every Bill. It is proposed to submit this Bill to a special committee, which will afford the opportunities that I have mentioned.


Mr.   CTJBRIE@: Will the Government
widen the scope of the Bill so as to enable this question of the gratuities that have been referred to-gratuities to returned soldiers, the widows and mothers of the fallen, and students-to be discussed by that committee? We want that clearly understood, because as it stands the chairman of the committee can bowl that out at any time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is from both our
points of view desirable that the scone of the committee should be clearly understood.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman will
pardon me, because I am very anxious on this point


Charles Joseph Doherty: That committee will
not be concerned with the question of the adoption of a system of gratuities such as I have described. That I have tried to make perfectly clear. Whether its judgment be right or be wrong upon that subject, the Government has reached a definite conclusion for which it must assume responsibility before this House and before the people-a definite conclusion that there is no way out, as I said before, in the direction of the system of additional gratuities that has been proposed.


John Allister Currie: As I understand it, then, this committee cannot-and the Government will not give it power to do so-discuss the question of gratuities such as those which have been referred to? If that question is to be discussed, then, and if the matter is to be dealt with by this House, there will have to be a motion for a special committee for that purpose?
, Mr. DOHERTY:	It is, of course, open
to my hon. friend or to any other hon. member who wishes to have a further dis-

cussion of that question, to take steps to do so in accordance with the rules of the House.


John Allister Currie: The 'Government do not
intend to initiate any method of having the members 'discuss that question further?
, Mr. DOHERTY:	The Government does
not contemplate initiating any proceeding calling for the discussion of that question. My own impression is, judging from the discussion we have had this afternoon, that the sense of this House endorses the view which I have expressed on behalf of the Government. However, if any hon. member thinks it desirable to have further discussion of that specific question, it is for him to take such steps as the rules of the House [DOT]permit him to take with a view to having that discussion.
, But I was going on to say that there is open in connection with this Bill the whole question of anything that properly pertains to soldiers' civil re-establishment. I am [DOT]not going to go over all the suggestions that have been made in that regard, It is not impossible that in connection with suggestions which may be found acceptable and which in the judgment of this House ought to be acted upon, it may be necessary to provide for some additional expenditure. But that is quite a different thing from this precise system of gratuities to which I have referred.
. Mr. REDMAN: When the minister mentions this " precise system of gratuities," does he mean the straight $2,000 bonus? Or would it be possible for the committee to consider some monthly payments or the payment of some sum which would naturally come under civil re-establishment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Anything that comes under the heading of soldiers' civil reestablishment will naturally be open for discussion in connection with the Bill dealing with soldiers' civil re-establishment, and as I said a moment ago, it may involve the expenditure of money. What I hope I have made clear is that there is no intention. to provide a committee to look into this question of the system of gratuity as a gratuity. The gratuity that has been already granted, it might be well to point out, was not granted as a gift or reward for services rendered. It was granted because it was thought that it was a fair thing to grant a reasonable time for returned men to look around .for employment, and that was the sole idea with which the gratuity was granted. It was not in. any sense a payment for services rendered. Certainly
nobody imagined it was an adequate reward for the services rendered.
Having then, perhaps, made the position clear I might leave the subject here, but so much has been said in the way of criticism of what this Government has done, or rather, of what they have not done, that I think it is perhaps worth while to correct some of those observations at all events, and to point out some of the existing conditions which do not seem to have been brought to the knowledge of hon. members generally. Before I proceed to that might I say that I gathered from the address of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that he coupled with this demand for a cash gratuity the question of gratuities to widows and mothers, and gratuities to students, So far as the suggestion of gratuities to widows and mothers is concerned, the question it raises is whether or not the pensions provided are adequate. Now the subject of pensions was dealt with most fully and most carefully by a committee of this House last year, and we have as a result the pensions provided in the present statute. Of course, nothing in this world is perfect. It is perhaps open to question whether in some respects these pensions might not be modified or increased, but that is a distinct and separate question by itself unconnected with this question of gratuity. As regards a gratuity for students, that I think is a question that bears directly and pertinently on the question of soldiers' civil re-establishment. I am not going to express an opinion at the present time whether it ought to be granted or not, but it may be looked upon as a question pertaining to soldiers' civil re-establishment, and is therefore a question that may come up for consideration in connection with the Bill.
My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie >
pointed out the source from which he said this money could be got. I think I can satisfy 'the House in a moment that there is no source 'there from which we are going to get additional money to pay these additional gratuities if we ever did determine that they should be paid. Under the Peace Treaty Germany will pay every dollar that Germany can pay, and s'he will pay every dollar that she can pay whether we pay these gratuities or not. The fact of our paying additional gratuities will not increase Germany's paying power.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is not quite fair with the House. Germany's indemnity is a fixed sum of $100,000,000,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman will forgive me for putting it in -a blunt way, if I say he is entirely mistaken. If he will look at the provisions of the Treaty he will find that there is no fixed sum payable by Germany, and that the system is this: Germany, having acknowledged her responsibility for the entire cost of the war, the Allied -and Associated Powers on their side recognized that Germany was unable to pay the entire cost of the war, and that it would be worse than useless to try to collect it from a country absolutely denuded of means to pay 'that large sum.


John Allister Currie: What was that large sum fixed at?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They did not fix the sum because the best financial experts -that the different countries could command reached the conclusion that with the evidence before them it was impossible to establish precisely what the damage was that called for reparation.


John Allister Currie: How much did this country claim?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We never got to the
position where countries made claims.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows what the Bill is?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What Bill?


John Allister Currie: The Bill of this country. How could these gentlemen arrive at that conclusion unless they had some figures before them?


Mr DOHERTY:: Nothing has been decided as to what Germany is to pay. There was a very long discussion upon the question of what was the nature of the claims that could be advanced with the hope of their being paid, not the particular amounts that were claimed by each nation, but what was the nature of a claim that could be entertained. Having compelled Germany to acknowledge her responsibility for the entire cost of the war, the Allied and Associated Powers acknowledged that it was impossible to collect that amount. But they did not proceed on the basis of fixing a particular amount. They went on then to enumerate the kind of claim which Germany should be compelled to pay, and speaking roughly-I do not suggest this as covering everything-that claim is the claim for damages of different kinds and classes done to the civilian population of the different countries. I can safely say that the cost of the war does not figure 
among the things that may be claimed, with this exception: that you may include in the claims that may be made the pensions and the allowances which are made to soldiers and their dependents, which are to be capitalized. But let me point out that they are to be estimated at. the rates allowed by Prance.
These claims are to be put before a commission which is to hear the parties with regard to them, determine which are to be allowed and which are to be rejected, and, according to those determinations, to establish a sum total amount,-not an amount for France and an amount for Great Britain or for Canada-but a sum total amount by adding them all together; *and then to provide means as to how Germany shall pay and in what instalments. That sum total so paid is to be divided among the Allied and Associated Powers in accordance with an agreement to be arrived at by them. The hon. gentleman will see therefore that we are not dealing with any fixed sum, and when we get reports from Australia that they will receive $400,000,000 I can only say that I have great respect for the statesmen of that country, and I presume they have figured out what they anticipate, but they are not making a statement based upon any settled amount which anything that can be found in the Peace Treaty, has ever determined as being due to Australia.
Mr. CURRIE? The hon. minister is directing his remarks chiefly to me, and I think a question and an answer will help matters. Is it a fact that no effort was made by the representatives of this country at the Peace Conference to make representations to the various Governments and authorities that we were entitled to a certain indemnity? It is not a matter of the cost of the war; it is indemnity according to Treaty. The Germans did not take ten minutes to decide how much they wanted from France in 1870 and they got it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They decided how much they wanted from France and they got it. That is true.


John Allister Currie: And you would have got it from Germany if you had said how much you wanted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose the hon. gentleman was there and knows of the procedure and is aware of everything that happened. However, let me say that no country demanded any specific amount or

received it. Once the unanimous conclusion was arrived at that you had to limit your demands to certain classes of claim; once the most competent people that could be found to deal with the subject had determined that Germany could not pay more than would meet, without fixing a specific sum, the full amount of claims of the classes referred to, it became useless at that time to discuss any definite amounts because a commission was appointed to determine what those amounts were.


Peter McGibbon: I understood that the first levy on Germany was to be twenty-five billion dollars.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There have been discussions in regard to various suggested amounts and twenty-five billion dollars was spoken of as being the maximum that by any stretch of imagination Germany could possibly pay; but it never took the form of a claim. No man could say to-day what is the amount of damage done to Northern France and Belgium by the German invasion. That is a matter that must be most carefully gone into. As I understand it, all these things are to be determined by the commission appointed, and it will be open to us to put before that commission all the claims that we may have that are of the nature covered by the Treaty. As I mentioned a moment ago, the unanimous view was that you could not include the entire cost of the war in that sort of claim, because it would be utterly futile to do such a thing.


John Allister Currie: The minister will pardon me, but I do not want any misapprehension to exist in regard to his words. He states that the sums that are to be payable to those who took part in the war are to be in proportion to the damage done to the civil population. I presume therefore that the only amount which Canada could get would be compensation for the trawlers destroyed off the coast of Nova Scotia, and that we shall be debarred from receiving other remuneration, by reason of the fact that our civil population have not suffered in the sense in which the people in the war zone suffered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said I was speaking generally. I did point out that there was to be included an amount to represent pensions, and allowances to dependents of soldiers, because that is treated as damage to the individual. But I also pointed out that that was not necessarily to be based
on our scale of pensions or allowances. To secure uniformity the French scale was agreed to.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take up so much time, but I was led into this discussion by questions. I will point out that whatever may be the amount that we get, we shall not receive any more by reason of these gratuities, so that there is no way of getting the money in that direction. We shall get our share of all that Germany can pay and we will have to make that go as far as we can. If we assume an additional burden of eight hundred million, whatever we do get we may devote to the liquidation of that sum, but we shall not have it to meet pensions with, nor to meet any of the other things that are necessary, and we shall have to go to the people of Canada in the last resort to raise that money, including of course among the people of Canada all of the returned soldiers, all of their friends and their connections and relations, who I suppose would amount to twenty-five or thirty per cent of the population. They will have to pay this money if it is to be paid. That, therefore, is the answer I make to the suggestion that we have only to go to Germany to get this money.
We have had criticism from one side and the other. We have been criticised because we did not carry on sufficient public works in order to give employment to the returned soldiers. We have been severely condemned by the hon. member from Red Deer, amongst others, because, on the other hand, we did a great deal too much in the way of public works. Witnout trying to settle which parties to that discussion are right, may I point out that there are some things that have been done? It is said that these men are entirely out of employment, and the suggestion has been made that the Civil Service 'Commission, which makes the appointments, have not fairly treated the returned soldiers. I hold in my hand a return from the Civil Service Commission showing that some sixteen thousand returned men have been placed in public employment. The return is up to the 29th of August, and in the last five weeks of the period we were placing them at the rate of over fifty a day in the public service, and in the period preceding that, at about forty a day. I have not been able to secure such figures as the hon. member for Red Deer requested, showing what has become of every demobilized soldier and how many have been re-established in civil life, because it has not been found possible for us

to trace the soldier after his demobilization and, above all, to trace the one who finds permanent employment and is absorbed in the civil life of the country. But I have some figures that are significant. Of 30,000 applications for employment made to the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment, eighty-nine per cent have obtained employment. Out of 6,000 re-trained men, that is, men who have been injured and have been given training, ninety per cent have been placed. These are the people we have under our eyes, and when you find such percentage in employment among those of whom we have knowledge, it is not unfair to assume that similar conditions prevail throughout the country. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) himself told us that in his neighbourhood all of the returned soldiers had been absorbed into civil life.
I am sure we all, in our respective neighbourhoods, know of many and many returned soldiers who have been absorbed into civil life and who are in the enjoyment of good positions. It was suggested that it was only the inferior Government positions that Went to the returned soldiers. The credit is due to the Civil Service Commission and not to the Government and the responsibility is with the Civil Service Commission and not with the Government; but we find amongst the 16,000, men occupying such positions as those of Pension Commissioners and other positions whose designations show on their faces their importance.
It is not well to run away with an exaggerated idea of the position in which returned soldiers as a whole find themselves. Certainly it is not well to assume that the Government is indifferent to the position in which the returned soldier finds himself. We have suggestions as to particular things and as to particular classes of soldiers. For instance, there has been the suggestion in regard to insurance for disabled men, that we pay the difference, as I understand it, in the premiums resulting from the condition in which they find themselves. That is a matter that might very well be considered in connection with some phases of soldiers' civil re-establishment.
For the benefit of those who have complained that we did not have sufficient public works to provide employment, let me say that we had sufficient to bring down criticism upon us last year. Provision was made for public buildings at London, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal and Calgary, work on the Welland canal, shipbuilding in

which very large numbers of returned soldiers have been employed; road building, which afforded work not only directly to the returned soldier but to others; millions have been spent in railway construction and we have endeavoured to make provision for housing which has been referred to. It would take too long for me to go through the enumeration in addition to the statement which has already been placed upon Hansard showing what has been done. As I have said, if there be room for improvement in connection with Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, in that field we are absolutely open to suggestions. Of course, that statement implies that any such suggestions will have serious and real consideration and there should be an opportunity for such consideration in connection with the Bill that I have referred to.
In conclusion, let me congratulate the House on the manner in which this debate has been carried on. I was a little bit surprised-I do not know whether I understood him correctly or not-to hear the hon. member who brought up this subject make some reference to introducing this disagreeable question. Let me say from the Government's point of view there is absolutely nothing disagreeable in a discussion of how best we can do our duty.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. I said that it was made disagreeable for me; not that the question was disagreeable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sure the hon. gentleman will never regard as disagreeable the discussion of a question in which he is so thoroughly interested. Neither to this Government is the discussion disagreeable of anything that may open to us a way that is practical and feasible of being of real service to the soldier. May I add just one word? I think the tone in which this discussion has been carried on is an example to others who may be interested in discussing questions of this kind. I think we all want to be on our guard in the discussion of questions of this kind, and questions that affect the soldier, in whom we are all interested, to avoid urging claims that may present themselves in such a way as to create a false and exaggerated idea in his mind as to what it is possible and feasible to do for him and what it is fair and reasonable for him to expect.
Above all, I am sure every hon. gentleman in this House will join in deprecating anything in the nature of an appeal to the soldiers urging them on to the making of

claims because it is believed that they are strong enough to force their granting. I saw that a gentleman who was here with a delegation the other day-I sincerely trust that he is mis-reported-is reported to have urged persistency in pressing this claim for a gratuity because, as he said, they are afraid of us down there in Ottawa. Let me say to the gentleman who makes that statement, or to anybody else who may be labouring under that delusion, that while we are anxious to do that which the resources of the country will permit us to do and that which may be of advantage and assistance to the soldier in restoring him to civil life, we are not open to be led into any course of action by dread or fear, or by anybody's threats whether those threats take the form of suggested possible violence, or whether they are confined to the threat of dealing judgment out to this Government through the vote at the polls.
We are, of course, in the judgment of this House, in the first place, and we are, through this House, and ultimately directly responsible to the whole people of the country and, of course, we fully recognize the right of these returned soldiers, or others, who may think we are wrong on this particular question, to exercise their judgment in the regular way and through their franchise. But though we quite realize that, we realize also that our duty is to follow that policy, which, after giving the most careful thought to this very important question, we think is the policy that our duty to the people of Canada as a whole requires that we should adopt and follow.
Mr. DANIEL D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I (have very little to add to what has been so well said in connection with the question that is indirectly before the House. The discussion which we have had this afternoon and this evening must necessarily be more or less of an academic character because the real motion before you, Sir, is whether or not this House shall adjourn. Whichever way the motion is decided, it will not settle any question, it will not establish any policy, it will not sustain or refute any position which the Government may have taken, upon any public question. Therefore, I do not wish to go at any very great length into what may be the policy of the Liberal party on this question of soldiers' civil re-establishment, or what is the policy of the Liberal party in dealing with the returned soldier. It is not necessary because the question is not before the House.
I observed with great satisfaction, indeed, that the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) is showing signs of coming into the proper faith. Although holding on per-tinaceously to tihe Tory party, he finds that there is no light or leading there, he finds there is no unction for his soul there, and he wants to turn to the Opposition to see if there is any light or leading here. Well, Mr. Speaker, we shall be glad, indeed, to offer any consolation that is possible to the hon. gentleman in order to lead him along proper lines and to give him proper ideas on public questions.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am afraid it will 'be very meagre.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not catch the observation of my hon. friend and therefore I am afraid that his statement, whatever it may 'be, must go without answer as far as I am concerned.
This question, before discussing it very much further, seeims to take a very strange position. We were told by the President of the Council that there was no necessity to press for a royal commission, when he spoke at great length, in placing figures upon Hansard the other day, showing the reason why the Great War Veterans' Association should not be looking for this commission of inquiry. He wound1 up with a statement that a special committee was to be appointed to deal with the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act, but incidentally, and as an incident of the work of that committee, it would deal with the question of the gratuity, or the granting of money, to the returned soldier as asked for by the War Veterans' Association or by the committee that has recently been appointed in the city of Toronto. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be permitted to refer to any discussion that took place recently in this House, but Hansard will show what the President of the Council said, and Hansard will show what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) asked. The latter distinctly and clearly put the question to the President of the Council: Is it a fact that this committee, which the minister says he is going to appoint, will deal fully with this matter? The matter that we were discussing was whether or not a commission should be appointed.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to say one word, I know he is not intentionally misquoting me, but what 1 asked, according to my recollection was, if it would be permissible for the war veterans to appear before this committee, and

it was distinctly understood they would be able to appear before it.
, Mr. McKEiNZIE:	That is exactly what
I am saying. That is what the hon. member said, and I would ask you, Sir, what was his purpose in putting that question? What did he put the question for? Was it not for the purpose of ascertaining whether the object of the Great War Veterans' Association's committee would foe accomplished just as well by going before that Parliamentary committee as if they had been granted a commission? I contend that was his purpose. If I am1 mistaken in that contention I want the hon. member to put me right. What further evidence does he require? The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) had a notice of motion on the Order Paper. Clearly that motion was for the purpose of giving the war veterans a royal commission. Clearly that is what he asked for by his motion; but, Sir, the Rules of the House were suspended this afternoon to enable the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion because it is no longer necessary for the reason that the President of the Council had declared this matter was to foe dealt with before a committee. Nothing can be clearer than that. Now, what do we find? The Minister of Justice, tells us flat-footedly that the matter is not to be dealt with before that committee- nothing of the kind. We have been in a fool's paradise all this day listening to this discussion and on the point of going home satisfied with the declaration of the President of the Council that his committee was to deal with this matter absolutely. In dealing with the matter, following observations of the President of the Council, ,we went even so far as to ask how the witnesses would be provided for-that is how the veterans coming from different parts of the country were to be provided for in coming before the committee.
Mr. RiOWEDL: I am quite sure my hon. friend does not wish intentionally to misrepresent what I said, but if he will turn to page 255 of Hansard he will find that I distinctly stated what the Bill provided for and that it would be referred to a committee-that was the (Bill dealing with the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life, and relating to disabled soldiers and the matter of employment. When the question was asked by the hon. member for Fort William my answer'was:
What I stated was that the Bill would be referred to a Committee of the House just as the Pensions Bill was referred last session, and I would anticipate that the committee thus appointed would give the same full facilities for

any representation that might he made in reference to matters referred to it as the Pensions Committee gave last year. They will be empowered, of course, to hear all parties as the committee was then.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly. Absolutely
does the President of the Council mean to say that he is using language with a double meaning? Does he mean to tell this House that while he- was satisfying the hon. member for Fort William that the war veterans would go before that committee, have their case presented and be heard and dealt with in every particular, that he did not mean that?-that he was guarding himself with language which would silence the hon. member and at the same time safeguarding himself so that no evidence would be given? If he says that that was his position, we can understand it. Does he mean to say tlhat he used language that caused the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) to withdraw his motion this afternoon because ;he was led to believe by the language of the President of the Privy Council that 'there was another court provided and another avenue opened which would give the Great War Veterans greater facilities and enable them to go fully into this matter? Does he mean to say that he did not mean that, and he allowed that hon. gentleman to lose his opportunity of going into this matter and moving bis motion under a misconception of the real situation, intending when the real time came to put another construction entirely upon his words? I am sure that when the President of the Council made his speech there was not a man in the House that had any other understanding than that this committee was to deal fully and solely with every phase of the question which the Great War veterans could present before it. Now, we have a different position entirely; the President of the Council says he meant nothing of the kind, that no evidence is to be taken, and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) finds he withdrew his motion without anything to show for it, and the war veterans are entirely shut out. That is the situation and I submit, Sir, that while I realize the gravity of dealing with a subject of this kind, and while I recognize that every member, whether in opposition or supporting the Government, should with the greatest possible care approach a question of this kind and say nothing that would tend to create difficulty or dissatisfaction in this country, it appears to me it was not absolutely square to tell the representatives of the War Veterans' Association the other day that 'they'were to

be heard before the commitee, and now for the President of the Council and the Minister of Justice to declare that there is to be nothing of the kind.
If they go there they have to confine themselves entirely to the- terms of this Bill, nothing else, because the Government has delivered its judgment, and there it is. If I were a war veteran and had been given to understand that I was to receive a hearing, and were told afterwards that I was not to receive a hearing, I do not think I would be pleased. That is exactly the position in which the Government puts itself and its friends in connection with this matter, and I would be disposed to describe it as not dealing in good faith with a question of a most serious character.
If the letters which passed between the Prime Minister and the representatives of the War Veterans are read-they were put on Hansard by the President of the Privy Council-it will be found that one of them is dated the 29th of August, 1919, and is signed by the president, W. P. Purney, the vice-president, R. B. Maxwell, the second vice-president, S. Stalford, and also by a committee consisting of seven or eight members, who style themselves Members of the Dominion Executive Committee; that letter demanded a Royal Commission. The Prime Minister replied that he did not think a Royal Commission was necessary. The secretary, Mr. C. G. MacNeil, writes on the 3rd of September renewing the demand, and on the 5th of September they are again told that they cannot get that Royal Commission. Then the heather is afire and news comes from every quarter that something must be done. Thereupon the resourceful and ingenious President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) comes forward with about three thousand yards of tables containing no end of figures, and in presenting them he explains that a Bill is to be introduced and in connection with it there will be the fullest possible inquiry. That allayed the trouble, and the War Veterans, I suppose, were willing to take what they could get, and if it was not the best it might be good enough, for they would be able to give their story to the Government and to the public, and it mattered not so much in what form it was put. Let me repeat, Sir, that that is all off now, and there is no avenue left open for them to put their story before the Government or before this House.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the discussion, and I thought that the
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Doherty) were going to adhere to their former position, that this question of what should be done in the way of further gratuities to the soldiers was to be heard by the committee referred to, and I did not think it was necessary that either myself or any other member, on this side of the House at all events, should express any opinion, because 1 am sure the training and experience of the Acting Prime Minister and that of the President of the Privy Council would lead them to conclude that when a case is to be submitted to a properly constituted court it is not only unnecessary but highly improper to comment on what the findings of that court should be. I was sitting here happy and contented that the facts, so far as the soldiers were concerned, were to be submitted to a properly constituted committee, that they would deliberate on the matter, and that we would then adopt, amend, or reject as the case might be, the findings of that committee. But now really there is nothing at all to be expected from the Government except a blank refusal, as appears from an alleged interview with the Acting Prime Minister which appeared in the Globe on September 14, and is as follows :
Asked to give a further statement of the position of the Government on the question of $2,000 gratuity to veterans, Hon. Judge Doherty, Minister of Justice and Acting Premier, said:
*' Sir Robert iBorden had already given the war veterans his decision on the point, and it is the decision of the Cabinet Council as well. Clearly it must toe adhered to. We want to be sympathetic with all the demands and aspirations of the returned men, and do all for them that is humanly possible. But there must be some place where we have to make a stand.
"As I pointed out to them yesterday, it is the people of Canada who would have to pay the extra money if it were given, and there is some limit to what they can pay. The figures given by Hon. Mr. Rowell in the House show that we have done very much better toy the returned men than any other country engaged in the conflict has done.
" I am sure that the demand made upon us does not represent the view of the great body of the returned men. Most of them are well able to gauge the situation and understand the impossibility of adding to our debt the immense amount that would be involved."
That is the decision reached by the Government, and that is merely a repetition of what is contained in the Prime Minister's letter hearing date the 5th of September. If the President of the Privy Council had stood by that decision and had not suggested that the question would be considered by this committee, I presume that the hon. member for Calgary

East ,(Mr. Redman) would have gone along with his notice of motion and the question would have come squarely before the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is evidently nothing on which an opinion can be expressed. Nothing is to be done by this committee, the hon. member for Calgary East has withdrawn his notice of motion, and there is nothing before the House of a practical character as to what shall be .done in respect to the demands of the War Veterans' Association.
I think, Sir, that as far as we on his side of the House are concerned, we should wait until something practical is brought forward by the Government, which alone can move in matters of this kind. The hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson) and others may find fault with the Opposition for not doing anything, but we have no control over the finances of this country at present, and anything we might bring in here (by way of legislation dealing with public moneys would be ruled out of order by you, Sir, because it is impossible under our rules for the Opposition to bring in any money Bill. It is therefore without the slightest foundation that fault is found with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am a Liberal. A resolution was passed by the Liberal Party at a convention attended by hon. gentlemen of this House and delegates from all over this great country.
I stand by that resolution, and if my hon. friend will have a better sleep because of my making tins statement, he is welcome to it. He rmght know very well that 1. who have always stood by my party, who am not a wobbler or a shirker, would stand by the resolutions and doings of that party. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. friend. Now I would like to know from him where hon. gentlemen opposite stand, with their various resolutions and Gheir various motions, with one member withdrawing a resolution, another submitting one, and so on until they do not know where they are. I would like to ask the member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) who is not in the Chamber-that bright young

soldier who is a credit to this House and to his country and who came to the aid, as he thought, of the War Veterans by his motion-I ask him when he reads the speech of the Acting Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Doherty) blocking out 'the inquiry that he has been looking for, what will he think of the situation in which he finds himself? What does he think of the attitude of his party toward the returned soldier?


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (York East):: Mr. Speaker-


George Brecken Nicholson: If the
hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) will pardon me, I should like to put another question.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman has already spoken. The member for East York has the floor.


George Brecken Nicholson: I simply want to ask the leader of the Opposition a question.


Georges Henri Boivin: With his consent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


George Brecken Nicholson: I fail yet to understand the leader of the Opposition's attitude with regard to the proposal that a gratuity of $2,000 he paid to returned soldiers. Will he be good enough to tell the House where he stands?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is obliged to accept the answer which has already been given to that question by the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Foster: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Simcoe, (Mr. Currie) was right in bringing this question before the House in order that hon. gentlemen might express their views in regard to it. I do not, however, agree with all that the hon. gentleman has said; nor do I concur in the demands which he has made in this connection.
It is well, however, that the matter has been brought to the attention of the House and that hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity of discussing it; it will clear the air, so to speak, to a great extent throughout the Dominion. Although the discussion has taken the whole of the day and has lasted well into the night, I think it has been well worth while.
A few days ago a deputation waited upon the Prime Minister to ask for a commission or a committee to consider the matter of a gratuity to be paid to the Great War

Veterans. The Prime Minister did not accede to that request. I had a telephone message from one of the Great War Veterans informing me that they had been unsuccessful in securing the appointment of a committee to meet representatives of the Great War Veterans' Association. My reply was that I thought a committee should have been appointed to hear their grievances.
It is apparent that while many of the Great War Veterans were asking for a gratuity of a'certain amount, they were not, I think, disposed to confine themselves specifically to that demand. They feel that they have certain grievances with regard to pensions and re-establishment and they would like a committee of the House to straighten them out. I think it is right that a committee should be appointed and that they should be heard. I am very glad that the Government changed their mind on this question, because while a few days ago they were not disposed to appoint a committee, they subsequently decided, upon second consideration, or, perhaps, in view of further pressure, that a committee of inquiry should be appointed.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. The hon. gentleman who is leading the House (Hon. Mr. Doherty) has stated within the last half hour that the Government will not refer this gratuity question to a committee.


George Green Foster: demands of the Great War Veterans it must be recognized in view of !tihe financial condition of the country to-day 'and our sparse population that we cannot stand the pressure. The alternative is an investigation, so that we may relieve any cases of hardship that may exist to-day or may arise in the future.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have but one observation. 1 am afraid I cannot congratulate my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition on the illuminating character of his address tonight, at least 'as indicating his own views on the matter under consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They could bear only one meaning.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The difficulty . with my 'hon. friend to-night was the difficulty he experienced last week, 'and that was in distinguishing between things thait differ. Last week he failed to distinguish between legal authority and constitutional right. To-night he failed to distinguish between a general war service gratuity and the question of the re-establishment of the individual soldier in civil life. If my hon. friend would turn to the statement I made the other day he would see the distinction I made between, the two. In the opening statement I said:
Mr. 'Speaker, at the request of the Prime Minister X desire to make the following statement with reference to the position of the Government in the matter of a further bonus or war service gratuity to returned soldiers.
The position of the Government is set forth in a statement prepared by the Prime Minister on Saturday last for submission to the House in answer to a question placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for West Edmonton.
Then I went on to give the Prime Minister's statement, as set forth in the letters I read to the House. I made the position of the Government perfectly clear in reference to the two points, namely, the war service gratuity of $2,000 (the Calgary resolution), and secondly, in reference to a royal commission to investigate the financial ability of the country to pay it. That position was that the Government could not accede to either of these requests, and that is exactly the position which the leader of the House here to-night (Mr. Doherty) has taken. I pointed out on that occasion that the Government had already introduced a Bill in the Senate dealing with the Department of Soldiers' 'Civil Re-Es-tablish-inent, that the work of the department was covered by certain Orders in Council under the War Measures Act, that it was the intention of the Government when the Bill

received its second reading to refer it together with all Orders in Council relating to the matter to this Committee, which would have full power to hear witnesses and to summon witnesses if it saw fit. That Committee will have before it everything that relates to the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life, and I am quite sure that it will hear whatever representations may be made on that important and vital question. That includes the questions mentioned by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster). The question of making provision for returned men out of employment is one of the very points enumerated. Representations may be made on all these points- by the Great War Veterans' Association or any other association that chooses to come before that Parliamentary Committee, and I am sure that the committee will give the same generous and sympathetic consideration 'to representations that may be made to it as- did the committee appointed last year to consider pensions. My hon. friend's difficulty is that he fails to distinguish between things that differ.


William Stevens Fielding: If we were asked to vote upon this question of a $2,000 gratuity, I certainly would not be able to record my vote in favour of it. It is well for us to remember that the Great War Veterans' Association, while they began by asking for that gratuity, modified their claim later and only asked for an investigation. Of course, I presume they had in mind ultimately the same thing, but we must take their request as they made it. Even their request to the Prime -Minister, I understand, was not for a specified sum, but for an investigation. Now, it is always -a difficult thing to refuse an investigation to any large body of men, and when we consider those who compose the Great War Veterans' Association and the services which they have rendered I think we should go a long way towards meeting them to the extent of giving them a hearing whenever they demand it on any question.
I regret -that the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) imported a party question for a moment into this matter. I do not think it is necessary. The general tenor of the debate has been excellent, and I think it has served a good purpose. It has been illuminating in the way of eliciting opinions from all sides, and to that extent I think my hon. friend who introduced the motion has served a good purpose. Yet, perhaps, it was not necessary, because there has been a change of attitude on the part of the Government, which has to be recog-

nized. I find no fault with the letter of the Prime Minister, but it is a fact that the attitude of the Government at that moment is not their attitude to-day. I am not complaining of that. I think they were wise in modifying their attitude so far as to say they would give an inquiry to the war veterans.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has been in the House and has heard the statement. They would not allow that.


William Stevens Fielding: I have heard most of the debate, and I suppose we may all interpret it in a different way. I understand that while the Prime Minister at first refused a commission, he has, through the Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council, offered to give an investigation before a committee. That is the whole situation.
How far that committee may go is a question to be considered, but we cannot alter the fact that the refusal which the Prime Minister gave-and I am not finding fault with that-has been modified; but instead of granting the commission he has intimated that he is willing to have an investigation before this committee. I understand through the public press-the ministers can correct me if I am not right- that the representatives of the 'Great' War Veterans waited upon some of the ministers in view of that change of attitude and said that they were content with what was then proposed. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I .am merely stating what appeared in the press, that the leaders of the Great War Veterans' Association were -satisfied with the situation, and if they are satisfied I -am not disposed to complain. 1 take it for granted that while the commission is not to be granted, this committee to be appointed will afford the War Veterans an opportunity to- make out the best case they -can, -and to -that extent I commend the attitude of the Government to-day.


John Allister Currie: To what committee does the hon. member refeT?
-Mr. FIELDING: I refer to the committee mentioned by -the President of the Privy Council.


John Allister Currie: He has not stated that any special committee will he appointed.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it has been stated repeatedly that the Bill to be referred to the committee appointed for its consideration will afford the opportunity incidentally-that is the word-of discussing the whole question, of gratuities. It is with that understanding, I believe, that the War Veterans have expressed their satisfaction. I do not think that any of the statements made to-night have been so emphatic as to prevent an inquiry by that committee in-to the whole matter. At all events, the impression I have ds -that the War Veterans are satisfied with the position of affairs, and if they are -satisfied with it I have no disposition to find fault. I -am not advocating a gratuity of $2,000. The matter appeals to me as a grave and serious one, and I -am glad that the Government have so far modified their attitude as to be willing to give the War Veterans a hearing; and whether this ds done through a commission or a committee the principle is not altered.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to detain the House very long in closing this question. First of all I desire to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). His utterance was brilliant, but he assumed an attitude altogether beside the question. In the first place, he endeavoured to impute certain motives to myself and other people with reference to this matter. Now, it is a very bad thing for any man, especially a member of Parliament, to impute motives to anybody, and I leave the hon. member to the Great War Veterans of Fort William, who will doubtless -attend to him. As regards his position in the (House and the way in which he got in here, I shall say nothing.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker-


John Allister Currie: I have the floor. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it was Burke, the famous Irish orator, who repeated the -story that Addison used to tell about a man who lived at the time of Addison and who amassed a great fortune by the sale of bread pills to people in order to prevent earthquakes. So far as the speech of the hon. member had any effect as an appeal on behalf of the Great War Veterans or of any of the returned soldiers, I can only say that- in my opinion it is a case of -bread pill. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) also wandered far -afield, making uncalled for remarks about a gentleman who went to France on a Cook's tour. A number of gentlemen from this- House enlisted and raised regiments. They went to England and, owing to the fact that they were over age were not permitted to go to the front but were allowed to go to France for a time to see a little of the show. I think, Mr. COMMONS
Speaker, that we should have heard the last of this matter of Cook's tourists. As a matter of fact, only five members of the House got into the trenches, but these other men, many of whom were far over age, served their country well, and they did their duty when they took their units to England. The hon. member for Frontenac, whom I am sorry is not present now, did not make an attempt to go to the front, but many of those who endeavoured to go were older than he. Now, Sir, the position is this:	It has been assumed in the
press and even by the hon. member who has just resumed hia seat (Mr. Fielding) that the Government is going to appoint a committee for the special purpose of considering these gratuities, but the minister, who spoke frankly has told him that this Bill would be referred to a committee like any other Bill, and that the Government were not going to initiate any kind of movement to enlarge the scope of the committee, which would discuss it. But all along it has been assumed that the Government is going to appoint a special committee to deal with this question. The Government has absolutely refused a commission, and it has also refused to appoint a special committee, as it might well do in regard to this question which is one of supreme importance and is attracting a great deal of attention. There is a certain word in use among the Tommies at the front in regard to matters in which there is any shuffling, and that is the word " wangling." There has been a great deal of wangling about this question, when nobody ' seems to understand the position of the ministers and no one can give a clear statement concerning the exact position of affairs in the House, except to make speeches assuming that the Government is going to do this, that, and the other thing and that everything is highly satisfactory. Nothing has been given by the Government to satisfy the demand of the Great War Veterans. They asked for a commission or a committee of the House to discuss this question and the Govetnment has absolutely refused to grant this request. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. I assume from his silence that I am right in this statement. What, then, is the use of evasiveness? We must face the facts. I advocate a gratuity for the returned soldier, a gratuity for the widows and children and mothers of those men who have fallen, and a gratuity for the student. To listen to some of the speeches of hon. members, especially the hon. member for Bed Deer, who I regret is not in his place, one would 
think that the returned soldiers could be satisfied with mere temporizing and fine iwords. It is a helping hand that the soldier needs. So far as the hon. member for Bed Deer is concerned, free trade and work seem to be all that occupies his mind, and it seems that we are going to send the returned soldiers to work houses if they have no money. I do not assume that position. The men who went to the front served for a very small sum daily. They did their duty for a meagre remuneration, looking at the matter from a purely commercial standpoint. It is eminently unjust to suggest that a man who has done his utmost at the front and has made great sacrifices for his country should be asked to continue sacrificing. Are we to say to the men who cannot get food and clothing:	You sacrificed
your all in the trenches and though it is true that within twenty-four hours a coffin may have to be provided for you we will ask you to continue sacrificing in the interests of your country. Is that the position which this country is to assume? These men went overseas and served for a dollar and a dollar twenty-five a day, and now they come home to find that during the whole period of the war their comrades who did not go to the front but were given exemption by the Government have been working in munition factories making four times as much money as they did before. These are the stern facts which the returned men are putting forward, and we must honestly face them. The returned soldiers are not making threats against this House or the country and it is absurd to make that suggestion as an argument. There are no people in the country who will support Parliament and the Constitution more than the soldiers and their dependents. I do not think there is any other question raised that is worth while referring to. We have reached the end of the debate. The speech of the hon. member for Calgary has been wiped aside by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Doherty), and the hon. member for Fort William has the consolation of knowing that he made a brilliant argument in support of a position which the Government has not assumed and does not intend to assume. All the other speeches, as the leader of the Opposition has said, leave us faced with the bare fact that nothing tangible is offered the returned soldier. The Government has nothing to offer to these men who have asked for a fair consideration of the matter of gratuities. If they belong to the category of the sick or are in want of a hand out they can go to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Be-Establishment

which finds them jobs but as far as granting them a gratuity, or discussing it, is concerned, they cannot discuss it before that committee. The President of the Privy Council after spending a number of days trying to ward off the Great War Veterans and trying to make everybody believe that it was all right, that there was going to be an investigation, thus endeavouring 'to create a fool's paradise, reverts to the cold facts as I have stated them. Fortunately I read the statement of the President of the Privy Council, and I was not deceived by it. I read it in cold print and I asked myself the very question that seems to have fooled the leader of the Opposition:	Is
there any committee granted, or is there any promise of a committee in that statement? I found that there was none and that is one of the reasons why I would not back down or withdraw my motion. I wished the whole question to be brought up plainly here so that the House would understand the situation and that none of the members would go home and place themselves in a false position without knowing what had been said or done here. I did not believe in that moonshine and I hope the leader of the Opposition will not be influenced by any more of this moonshine because politics are politics, and things are going on.
I have endeavoured to present the arguments of the returned men on this question whether they are my own views or not. I confess to the House that at first I was of the view that this country had done as much as possibly could be done for them and that it was impossible to raise this vast sum of money. But my attitude on that has changed and it has changed because I feel that there are ways and means by which this amount or a similar amount can he obtained. It is not a new thing for a Government to remunerate its returned soldiers, after coming back from a victorious war such as this. If they had not won the war we might have had some excuse. (Anybody (who reads history will know that after every successful war from the days of the Romans down the country has given grants in money and land to the soldiers who have come back. Why should we single ourselves out and take the attitude that such a thing is a new idea and that the soldiers are not entitled to this money? It has been the custom for ages. I think it was a Biblical custom, was it not? The leader of the Opposition will tell us that it was an ancient Biblical custom dating from the days of 24
Moses. Why should we assume an attitude of alarm, and because the soldiers make a demand for land and money, slam the door in their faces, as the leader of the Government has said? I do not say that the Government have slammed the door in their faces, but apparently they have no money for them. Such being the case, having heard all theqe arguments, having discussed the question here, I am sure that the discussion being academic has not suffered by reason of that fact or by reason of the fact that under these circumstances the arguments can be presented pro and con on a question of this kind because there cannot be any party division. That is why I brought the question forward in this way. Anybody can take part in the discussion, the question can be discussed by ministers quite freely, and members behind them and on the Opposition side can state their views upon the matter. We have heard a great many opinions expressed. But one thing has come out of this discussion and that is that this House wants a committee to discuss this matter with the returned soldiers, and we will have this committee if it is possible before the end of the session.
There has been no argument advanced against my view that we can get the money.
I say we can. That argument was advanced against the first home loan that was proposed in this country. The bankers, who surrounded the late Minister of Finance, when he said that we must have a domestic loan, of the large amount decided upon, pulled enough whiskers out of their grey beards to stuff a sofa. They said that it would put the country into bankruptcy. But the Minister of Finance assured them that after the money subscribed to the loan was got in, the bankers would have more money than ever before, and that turned out to be true. I would not take the responsibility, after this experience, of saying definitely that I thought the money could not he raised. Any man who suggests that is entirely wrong.
A question has been raised as to whether we can get it from the Germans. I am sorry that a more practical attitude was not assumed towards the Germans by those who took part in the negotiations of the Peace Treaty, especially if we are going to get damages to the extent of the damage done to our people and our land. The only people who can claim any damages to their property, if the Minister of Justice is right, will be the owners of the trawlers sunk



off Shelburne and Halifax. We have had no bombs dropped in Canada. I believe there was an attempt to blow up a bridge or two, and possibly damages will be allowed for that. But over and above that there should have been a very sharp decision made and our representatives should have placed the question of damages in such a light that they could come home like Mr. Hughes of Australia, and say that Canada is going to get $100,000,000, $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 in round figures. In so far as I could see, the argument of the leader of the Government tonight was to the effect that we were not to get anything. But I assume that is not quite correct. We are entitled to a share of the indemnity just as much as any other country that fought over there. A share of the indemnity could be given to our soldiers first and to the country second. The navy is getting prize money. When a vessel is captured it is taken into the prize court and the prize money is awarded to the soldiers and sailors. Our position is the same and we should be entitled to share in the indemnity. We should not have haggled too much with the Germans as to what they are able to pay. They are able to pay far more to-day than the people of Canada are able to pay proportionately.
The hour is late and I would be presuming very much upon the good nature of the House if I were to ask for a division on the question to adjourn. I do not regret that I have brought this matter before the House because, although it may be unpopular, I am not unmindful of the maxim of the aged statesman Pericles, that he judges rightly who chooses the unpopular side of a great cause. I am quite willing to take the unpopular side and I am quite satisfied that after the arguments that have been advanced in this House, and the arguments that will be advanced outside of it during the next few weeks, the House will take a more mellow view of this question and will see its way to unanimously appoint a committee to discuss the whole question of gratuities as proposed' in the remarks which I have addressed to the House. I ask leave to withdraw the motion.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the hon. gentleman to what he referred when he spoke of the manner in which I have entered this House?


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman was elected up there without having been named a candidate. If he had to go up against a party fight he never would have come down 
here, and he will have a party fight-I can assure him of that.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has another guess coming about my coming back here.
Motion (Mr. Currie) withdrawn.
Mr. Doherty moved that the Order for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Whidden for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, have precedence over all other matters, excepting the introduction of Bills, until the debate is closed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion at this stage would have to be by unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m.
Wednesday, September 17, 1919.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: Before the Orders of the Day are called:, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Government a few urgent and important questions regarding the National Industrial Conference now in session. I may. say that I have already submitted these questions to the leader of the Government, the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty), having left them in his office at twelve o'clock to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I regret to say that they have not yet reached me.


Joseph Archambault: I may read the questions now. They are:
1st. Why the national labour unions of the province of Quebec and the circles catholiques who represent a very large number of employees and who, according to the report of the Commission on the Industrial Relations in Canada, are an important labour factor in the province, were entirely ignored by the Minister of Labour in issuing invitations to the National Industrial Conference?
2nd. Why the evidence taken before the Commission of Industrial Relations in Canada has not been printed and is not available for the instruction of the members of

the National Industrial Conference who have asked for it?
3rd. Is it the intention of the Government to have this evidence distributed before the end of the .conference?
4th. Is it the intention of the Government to have this evidence printed before any legislative action recommended by this conference is considered?


William Findlay Maclean: On behalf of the Minister of Labour I shall take cognizance of the hon. gentleman's questions and endeavour to answer them to-morrow. It is not possible to answer a series of questions of the character of these at the moment. Further, no- notice was given to the Department of Labour in connection with the matter.



RUMOURED SALE OF WEST INDIES TO UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Brigadier General GRIESBACH (Edmonton West):: I beg to draw the attention of 'the Government to a matter of great national importance. The newspapers of yesterday contained a despatch from London reporting a proposal in England for the sale of the West Indies to the United States. Has the Government any intimation of this proposal, and in view of this report does it consider the desirability at this time of taking steps to effect Confederation with the West Indies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The attention of the Government has not been called to the despatch, and we have no official information on the matter.



CANADIAN GOODS ORDERED BY GREECE.

Mr. W. D. EULER (Waterloo North):: 1 desire to ask the Government a question based on a newspaper report which says that Greece has placed in Canada a new order for twenty-five million dollars' worth of manufactured goods, chiefly woollens, I understand. Is this order being financed by the Canadian Government, and is it the intention of the Government to continue to pledge the credit of Canada for the .promotion of -the foreign export business of Canadian manufacturers?


William Findlay Maclean: The Government is not aware of any such order having been placed in Canada by the Government of Greece, and no financial arrangements have been made in that connection.



$25,000,000 CREDIT TO ROUMANIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some days ago I called the attention of the acting Prime Minister to a newspaper report to the effect that the $25,000,000 which this Government had voted for credit to Roumania had been all used, but that the Canadian Government had no satisfactory security of any kind for the money. The Leader of the Government then told me that he would give the matter his consideration, but evidently it escaped his memory. I should like to know if the Leader of the Government can give us any information now as to whether this money has been all spent and, if so, what kind of security the Government has for it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall give the answer to-morrow. I did communicate with the department but I have not yet received the information.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration- of the motion of Mr. Howard Primrose Whidden for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, September 15.
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, I concur with what is said in the remarks made by the previous speakers on the Address in offering sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder, who have made excellent speeches. Indeed, Sir, it would be a misfortune if I should not speak in a eulogistic strain of my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. McIntosh), whose speech was one continuous congratulation to every one he thought of.
I do not desire, Sir, to discuss at great length the matters included in the speech from the Throne, but I will rather discuss the omissions from that speech. The welcome to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was fittingly placed in the opening passages of the speech from the Throne. I humbly and heartily join in the welcome which has been given in this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the most valiant, the most popular Prince who has visited our shores and who has endeared himself to the hearts of the Canadian people.
I might remark that His Royal Highness must have scandalized many of my hon.

friends on the other side of the House by his knowledge of the French language and the pride he had in using it. Of course, I am referring to those hon. members on the other side of the House who have such a horror of the French language that if'God Almighty was French they would be atheists.
As to the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, we have had resolutions on the matter and a long discussion; therefore I will defer my remarks on this question until Bill No. 3 is before the House. The next item of the Address relates to measures and legislation necessary on the advent of peace. Until these measures are brought down I will refrain from making any statement except to express my sincere wish that they will be real peace measures; that we will return to constitutional government by majority through the representatives of the people duly elected; that we will re-establish the sanctity of our courts as the protectors of individual rights, and that we will re-introduce liberty now that peace has come.
I may say that we in Canada, as well as the people of Great Britain, have been at peace with Germany for a long time; even during the last session we were said to be at peace with Germany. If I refer to an Order in Council dated June 23, 1919, I see that persons resident in Canada are allowed to resume trade with Germany. Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, we are either at peace or at war. There is no middle ground and if we are not at peace and if this Government has allowed persons resident in this country to resume trade with Germany, they are guilty of trading with the enemy and are subject to a severe penalty.
Now, Sir, although it is not included in the Address, may I be allowed to discuss the high cost of living? I might have waited until the House had been moved into Committee of Supply but I have read in the newspapers that our ministers intend to return to England very soon for the Imperial Conference and I am most anxious to bring this matter up while the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and his travelling colleagues are on a visit to Canada.
This session has been called especially for ratifying the Peace Treaty. On arriving here we were practically told by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) that it is already ratified, that it is already signed by the King and signed by our representatives, but that unless we give 
it our approval it will not be dealt with in Paris and we will have to start all over again. Why not say in this House what everybody outside of this House says, what everybody knows to be the truth, that this session was called by the Government to placate the ire of some of its supporters who were disappointed because the Prime Minister did not agree to increase the sessional indemnity? The calling of this session is outrageous in face of the financial status of our country, but we are here, and now that we have been called to attend it-and it is our duty to attend-why not get down to some real work? Why not earn our indemnity by taking up questions of interest and trying to solve problems that are vital to the welfare of Canada? It is with this desire that I will offer a few considerations on the high cost of living and its most obvious cause, the profiteers.
First of all I wish to state that outside of profiteering there are many other reasons, for the high cost of living, such as lack of production, diversion of production of the necessaries of life to the production of luxuries, strikes, the increased cost of production, high tariff, etc.
But as I am convinced that profiteering in its most aggravated form exists in Canada,
I will confine my remarks to this special cause. At the last session I gave the House some figures regarding the profits made by the millers-I am now able to add a few more. I told the House then that the Ogil-vie Flour Mills Company for the year previous to the outbreak of war, had made $470,000 profits. But their profits for the year ending August 31, 1917, were $2,100,000. This increase is enormous. Yet, Sir, the profits of 1918 were $3,551,821 consisting of net profits for dividends, after payment of bond interest and war tax of $1,955,414, and a special contingent account of $1,596,407. This special contingent account, according to the president of the company, was set aside to take care of a sudden change in the value to meet a post war slump. This was camouflage, Mr. Speaker, because according to the company its total stock on hand on August 31, 1918, was valued at $1,462,916, or $1,174,900 less than in August 1917. Therefore, the company provided $1,596,407 to meet a possible decline in value of stock, valued at $1,462,916. Besides the company had its old contingent account of $2,501,000 now termed a rest account, making a very respectable reserve of $4,096,407. The total invested capital of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company at the beginning of last year being $7,-
200,000,	the net profits of $3,500,000 are

equivalent to fifty per cent. Therefore the company which up to 1916 earned a dividend of eight per cent, now earns a dividend of fifty per cent. The Lake of the Woods Milling Company is in the same position. Again the amount of common stock issued by the St. Lawrence Flour Mills Company was $1,200,000. Of this $150,000 was paid in assets-the rest is water. Up to 1917 there was no dividend on the common stock. In that year the profit on actual invested capital was 16.2, and in 1918 it was 29.6. Instead of a debit of $61,000 in 1913 a surplus profit account is now shown of $251,154; and the manager of the company, who is a stalwart supporter of this Government, makes the statement that the millers are making far less than those engaged in any other industry.
An Order in Council passed by the Government, dated March 9, 1918, limited the profits of all meat-packing companies to 11 per cent on the invested capital, all profits above that percentage going to the State.	I wish to draw the attention
of the House to this point: had the Order in Council in question been made applicable to the milling companies, the Ogilvie Flour Milling Company would have had to pay an extra tax of $2,750,000 to the treasury, a very interesting amount you will admit. You have seen how great the profits of the principal milling companies who turn out the basic product of bread, have been.
Now what about the textile companies? The Dominion Textile Company last year made $1,559,888 or 31.2 on its common stock against 21.9 in 1917 and 15 per cent in 1916. If the Order in Council applied to the packers had been made applicable to them, and if the Government had seen fit to collect the extra dividends, this company would have added $1,006,380 to the treasury. We had an inquiry into the high cost of living last year and amongst other things it was shown that a certain clothing company bad made 72 per cent, and the Dominion Textile 300 per cent on the capital invested.
It is impossible for me to give you the exact figures respecting the packing industry, I could not obtain accurate data, but let me remind you of certain facts. The Prime Minister last session when discussing the high cost of living stated that most drastic taxation had been imposed by Order in Council on those engaged in the packing industry-so drastic that the companies affected came before the Government and implored them not to go so far,
that their business would be absolutely ruined; but that the Government was firm and passed the Order in Council under which the State collects all profits above 11 per cent, which legislation was still in force. Now let us see what the President of 'the Privy Council said on the same matter. As reported 'at page 3521 of Hansard of last session, the hon. gentleman, whom I am very glad to see in his seat, said:
Take the question of the profits of packers and cold storage men which has been so much discussed in this House. What was done under the administration of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture? Regulations were imposed which, in the first place, limited the profits on the turnover of the leading cold storage men and packers. They were required under regulations, which were administered by the Government, and under license issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the Food Board, -I forget which-to so carry on their business that their profits should -not exceed two percent on their turnover. Notwithstanding that^ if they earned a profit on the capital invested in the business of over 7 per cent, and up to 15 per cent, one-half over 7 per cent went to the Government as revenue, and the other half went to the packer. All over 15 per cent went to th>-Government. The result was that no packer could earn more than 11 per cent on his total actual capital invested in the business. The packers very strongly resisted these regulations
and protested against them	The Canadian
packers protested against our regulations....
In no country at war have such stringent regulations been imposed upon the packers and cold storage people as have been imposed by the Government on the packers of this country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) telling us one day last session that this Government was owned by Sir Joseph Flavelle. He probably knows more about that than I do. But what I do know and what every other member knows is that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and. the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) never let an opportunity escape to make a brotherly defence of this most deserving titled profiteer. Early last session the President ot the Council was in the House the "chevalier servant" of this notable food king, and related the martyrlike sufferings of the packers under the drastic Order in Council of the 9th March, 1918.
In the face of all these declarations every hon. member has been under the impression that these poor cold storage companies, -which according to the O'Connor report *constituted a monopoly and made enormous profits,-have contributed a tremendous amount of money to the Treasury by giving away all their profits above 11 per cent, especially as the price of bacon instead of declining has been making a skyward

jump, and has now reached an altitude of 65 to 70 cents a pound. But, Mr. Speaker, please do not forget the fact that when the Order in Council touched their very close friends they lavishly indulged in the policy of laissez faire. What huge sums have been collected from the cold storage companies since that Order in Council was issued? What fortunes, large enough, 1 might say, to jeopardize their existence, *have these companies been forced to contribute to the public Treasury? The answer of the Government to a question which I put to them on the 28th of May last will enlighten us. It will be found at page 3008 of Hansard of last session, and I beg permission to read it'
1.	What sum has the Government collected from cold storage warehouse companies since the Order in Council limiting the profits of the said companies to 11 per cent has been passed?
2.	What amounts have been collected from each one of said companies, and what are the dates when said amounts were collected?
Sir Thomas White:	1 and 2. Persons,
firms and incorporated companies engaged in the slaughtering of live stack or the manufacture of products therefrom liable to taxation under the Order in Council of 9th March, 1918, are assessable for all profits in excess of 15 per cent upon capital and one-half profits in excess of 7 per cent up to 15 per cent upon such capital. Regulations under the said Order in Council were in effect from 1st January, 1918.
And listen to this:
The Commissioner of Taxation has been engaged in investigating the business and accounts of all persons, firms and incorporated companies who might be liable to assessment under the Order in Council. These investigations are not completed, but so far as they have proceeded they do not disclose profits in excess of the ' mount exempted by the Order in Council Many firms and companies engaged in the busi

oneerned, sustained heavy losses 'iur-;* ** -1918 calehdar year, which year was most unfavourable to the packing industry.
The President of the Council, who is more prone to defend proflteeis than to defend himself personally, has shown more grit in defending a profiteering company than he did last year when the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Munphy) made precise accusations against him. I read from Hansard at page 3525 what the President of the Privy Council said:
Ret me mention the case which the hon. member for Marquette mentioned yesterday about the Dominion Textile Company and the large i rofts they had earned. Yesterday, by a strange coincidence, Sir Charles Gordon, president of-that company, happened to be in my office, before my hon. friend had spoken. Some question came up about this announcement in the paper showing their large profits, and Sir
harles told me that more than 50 per cent of the profit was made owing to the increase in

value of raw cotton and other raw material they had on hand during the year. In other words, 'hey had bought at a fortunate time; they had exercised good judgment in buying.
Yes, Sir, they had bought at a fortunate time; they had exercised good judgment. Very well. I admire the foresight of traders-especially when they do not use that foresight against the people in order to extract their life blood. But what the Textile Company did is the principal cause of the unrest in this country. Why, Sir, the buying of the necessaries of life in huge quantities at a low price and the holding of those necessaries until an artificial scarcity is created and the price goes up, is the essence of profiteering. This company made 300 per cent on money invested in the handling of an essential necessity of '[DOT]ife, and my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council, approves, protects and encourages such methods, and he cites this instance as a clever and keen piece of commercial intelligence. Was there ever a more glaring defence of the profiteer?
Sir, when the Kaiser left Germany after his defeat he carried with him a huge sum of money. I fail to see any other reason for the behaviour of the President of the Privy Council than that, realizing the rapidly approaching debacle of the Union Government, and that the people armed with whips are only waiting occasion to flagellate the Pharisees, he wishes to carry with him into private life the gilded friendship of the Flavelles and the Gordons.
Another reason for the high cost of living is that there is no restriction on exportation. Charity begins at home, but before permitting the unlimited exportation of foodstuffs the Government should see, first, that there is enough left in the country for the Canadian consumer; secondly, that the foodstuffs which are now filling the cold storage plants to their capacity should be put on the local market, and, thirdly, that the consumer should not, on account of unrestricted exportation, be made to compete with the markets of the old world, now at abnormal heights. It is absurd and criminal that in a country like ours, with its abundant production, a sham, and artificial scarcity should be created under the benevolent and paternal eye of the Government.
I have said that charity begins at home. But if the people of Canada had been deprived of their foodstuffs to prevent friendly Allies from starving, such a course might have been improvident, but at least it would have been generous. But, Sir, instead of feeding the Allies, or instead of

feeding any one, Canadian foodstuffs are rotting in the warehouses of Europe. Let me read an extract from the Montreal Star of September 4. It is a despatch from Paris:
A tremendous drop in food prices in the United States may be expected in the next few months, Herbert Hoover said in continuing his testimony yesterday before the committee investigating war expenditures.
The speculators have reached the end of their powers, Hoover declared, and are no longer able to maintain corners in stocks, owing to Europe's inability to purchase America's over-production.
" Warehouses in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Copenhagen and Stockholm are now full of foodstuffs from America," he said, "but no outlet exists, as the countries needing food are unaJble to pay for it at present prices."
On that same day certain statistics were published with regard to Canadian exports of foodstuffs. I quote:
Ottawa, Sept. 3.-Statistics of Canadian exports of foodstuffs in the twelve months ending July 31 may tend to substantiate the theory o ' H. C. Hoover that a factor in the cost of living is European imports for speculation in such commodities, many of which, according to him, have not reached the market.
Canadian exports in the period mentioned include 16,2'Q2,320 pounds of butter. 145,208,450 pounds of cheese, 55,486,266 bushels of wheat, 181,819,455 pounds of bacon, 131,246,513 pounds of beef, 12,414,976 pounds of canned meats and 33,572,004 pounds of pork.
Now, the Government was not only permitting, but encouraging these accumulations. During the month of May last Mr. Henry B. Thompson, Canadian Trade Commissioner, was sent to Europe by the Administration, at the expense of this country. The Government, therefore, are certainly responsible, if, as a consequence of Mr. Thompson's going to the other side, prices soared to heights inaccessible to the Canadian consumer. In a despatch published in the Ottawa Citizen of May 25, Mr. Thompson makes the following interesting statements, among other things:
The prospects for Canadian bacon, he thinks are especially rosy. In a characteristically racy phrase, he says: " Canadian bacon has the chance of its life. Producers can sell all they can make for the English trade as fast as they can get it over."
Mr. Speaker, the prospects for 'Canadian bacon are rosy, I admit that. Canadian bacon has, indeed, the chance of its life, but what about the prospects of the Canadian people? The prospects of the father of a large family are not so rosy when starvation is facing him every day. Notice, Mr. Speaker, the paternal solicitude of the Government for the hog. " Canadian bacon has the chance of its life "-but the Canadian people have no chance at all, except those
people who, like the bacon, are closely related to the hog, the profiteers.
Of course, there are certain of our products which are not rotting in the warehouses, but these are sold to bankrupt countries like Roumania and Greece. The producers of these foodstuffs are not paid by these countries-oh, no; that would involve too much risk for the friends of the Government. The moneys are advanced by the Government of Canada with no sound guarantee of repayment; the profiteers are paid and the Government will have to do the best they can to recover these amounts from countries like Roumania, which is already disobeying the order of the Allies by marching on Budapest.
These accumulations of foodstuffs exist not only in European warehouses, but also here in Canada. The cold storage warehouses of this country are overflowing with goods. Not later than Friday last, Mr. O'Connor, of the Board of Commerce, made the following statement to the press: " All the cold storage houses are bursting with goods." The Montreal Gazette of Thursday last stated also that it was understood that a large quantity of cheese and other products were accumulating in Montreal, awaiting a favourable opportunity for export.
On the first of May last there were in cold storage in Canada 2,381,151 dozen of eggs, 35 per cent more than the previous year; 35,995,954 pounds of beef, 80 per cent more than the previous year; 2,619,097 pounds of mutton, 86 per cent more than the previous year. Now, what afoout the food which is rotting in the warehouses of Canada? 1 need not recall the disclosures made last year with regard -to the antediluvian chickens which rotted in Winnipeg, the property of the William Davies Company, or the carloads of potatoes which were dumped in the fields. Let me cite more recent figures.
Between January 1 and August 22, 1919, enormous quantities of food were confiscated in Montreal as unfit for human consumption: 215,667 pounds of meat, 884 pounds of fowl, 60,076 pounds of fish, 1,147 pounds of fruit, 3,383 pounds of vegetables. In the city of Quebec 95,813 pounds of meat were confiscated during the same period and for the same reason, namely, being unfit for use.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Shame.


Joseph Archambault: I charge that the
Administration is responsible for this state of affairs. It is in possession of the information. Its Cost of Living Commissioner,


John Howard Sinclair: Which
Government?


Joseph Archambault: The English Government, of course, not this Government. Great Britain has always looked after the welfare of its people in a generous way and has always enacted laws against profiteering. May I be permitted to read a very ancient piece of legislation which, in its simplicity and fairness, is a credit to the Mother Country? I quote from a very old statute enacted in 1349 in the reign of Edward III, namely the Statute of Labourers:
Likewise let butchers, fishmongers, hostlers, brewers, bakers poulterers and all other vendors of any victuals, he bound to sell such victuals for ' a reasonable price, having regard for the price at which such victuals are sold in the adjoining places ; so that such vendors may have moderate gains, not excessive, according as the distance of the places from which such victuals are carried may seem reasonably to require; and if any one sell such victuals in another manner, and be convicted of it in the aforesaid way, he shall pay the double of that which he received to the party injured, or in default of him, to another who shall be willing to prosecute in this behalf; and the mayor and bailiffs of the cities and boroughs, merchant towns and others, and of the maritime ports and places shall have power to enquire concerning each and every one who shall in any way err against this, and to levy the aforesaid penalty for the benefit of those at whose suit such delinquents shall have been convicted; and in any case that the same mayor and bailiffs shall neglect to carry out the aforesaid, and shall be convicted of this before justices to be assigned by us, then the same mayor and bailiffs shall be compelled through the same justices, to pay to such wronged person or to another prosecuting in his place, the treble of the thing thus sold, and nevertheless, on our part too, they shall be grievously punished.
In Belgium, prices are also fixed, and, furthermore, foodstuffs come into that country free of duty. Recently, I had occasion to meet the Hon. Philippe Roy, Canadian Agent at Paris, who assured me that foodstuffs in Brussels were selling 30 per cent lower than in Paris, on account of their free entry. Besides, as I said before, prices are fixed and every infraction is punishable iby jail and fine, not an alternative punishment, but both, and the goods are seized, confiscated and sold by the State.
Let us see what has been done in the country to the south of us. The real campaign started on the 28th of July last. On August 9, the President of the United States

delivered his message ito Congress, and in that country-with which it was a crime in 1911 to have any truck or trade, but from which this administration, after being safely seated in the Government benches, has borrowed many ideas and suggestions -the campaign, effective, in earnest, without any sympathy or any back-door escape for friends, started at full speed, and is rapidly bringing to their knees the gamblers in human distress. First on the 9th of August, stringent legislation was passed, and an appropriation of $1,500,000 was voted to enforce the anti-profiteering law.
Orders were flashed from the Capitol at Washington to hundreds of special detectives of the Department of Justice all over the United States, instructing them to cooperate with Federal district attorneys in the profiteer hunt. Instructions were given to open warehouses and to put stored food on the markets in order to force down prices. Then the ball started. The five big packing companies were indicted by the Grand Jury, namely, Armour, Swift, Morris, Wilson, Cudahy. On August 14, $55,000 worth of butter was seized in Chicago. At Toledo eight houses were seized and a retailer was fined $500 for having sold a pound of sugar for thirteen cents when the price had been fixed at eleven cents. Instructions were given to prosecute nineteen large companies. On the 15th, 2,400,000 pounds of meat were seized in cold storages and prosecutions were commenced against thirty companies;
13,000,000 dozens of eggs were seized in St. Louis. The Sugar Equalization Board was formed by which all the sugar either produced in the country or imported, was bought by the Government and sold to the refiner. On the 16th, Commissioner Drennan, of New York, assigned 375 men to inspect warehouses and several other arrests were made. In Detroit on the same day, 442,762 dozens of eggs were seized. On August 20, proceedings were instituted against all the big cement companies. These companies were; Atlas Portland Cement Co., Allentown Portland Cement Co., Alpha Portland Cement Co., Bath Portland Cement Co., Coplay Cement Manufacturing Co., Dexter Portland Cement Co.. The Edison Portland Cement Co., Giant Portland Cement Co., Glens Falls Portland Cement Co., Hercules Cement Corp., Knickerbocker Portland Cement Co.. Lawrence Cement Co., Lehigh Portland Cement Co., Nazareth Portland Cement Co., Penn-Allen Cement Co., Pennsylvania Cement Co., Phoenix Portland Cement Co., Security
Cement and Lime Co., and Vulcanite Portland Cement Co. I could go on and cite many more drastic and effective measures that were taken, and if I were asked what the results were I would read from the Montreal Star of August 12, the following;
American wholesale food dealers making heavy cuts in prices.
Wholesale food dealers have begun to make big reductions in prices' of vegetables, dressed meats and fruits, Government reports showed to-day.
With the campaign to reduce the high cost of living in full swing, comparison of quotations of July 28 with those of August 11 showed a marked decline, which set in after the attack on unjustified prices began.
Potatoes have been cut from 50 cents to $3.40 a barrel since July 28, according to quotations collected by the Bureau of Markets.
Slashes in the price of dressed meats range up to five cents a pound for pork loins.
The cutting also has been extended to beef, the figures show.
Big drops are noticeable in quotations for Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. A few price increases are shown for some grades of meat. The figures indicate the downward trend is general and that increases are exceptional.
Let us see, now, what the Canadian Government has done. Although receiving reports from the High Cost of Living Commissioner, and aware of the enormous profits that were being made, the members of the Cabinet who perchance were in Canada last year went strenuously to work and did nothing until the last days of the session when, realizing, after the strike at Winnipeg, that the high cost of living iwas the primary cause of the unrest in this country, they named a Parliamentary Committee which after many sittings, in which profits as high as three hundred per cent were disclosed, presented a minority report, accepted by the supporters of the Government, stating that there were no profiteers in Canada, but advising the people to eat less and be more economical. Pressed by public opinion, however, and a threatening cloud of unrest, two. days before the end of the session the 'Government introduced a Bill creating a Board of Commerce. I may be excused if I use an expression which I have used before, and describe this Bill as mere camouflage, because sections 41 and 47 take all the sting from the other sections which 'look formidable enough in the rest of the Bill, and for which reason we protested against the Bill in committee. These two sections, 41 and 47, practically nullify the effect of .the Bill. Section 41 reads:
The Governor In Council may in his discretion, either upon petition of any person interested, lodged within one month after the

his products dearer. I read lately in a Montreal newspaper that the profiteer is ten times, nay a hundred times, more guilty than the common bandit who waits in a dark corner to kill and rob his victim; the bandit kills one man but the profiteer takes, or endeavours to take, the life of the whole population by starving them. He takes the life of the hard worked labourer who, as things are, cannot recuperate his strength, after his day's work. He takes the life of the labouring man's wife and family for whom the husband cannot procure nourishing food. The profiteer is also the worst of parasites. He has cultivated nothing, he has sown nothing-he has not taken care of the herds-but he lives and thrives on the work of the toiler. He comes between the consumer and the producer. He buys everything before it is ripe; indeed he is the worst of criminals because he allows food to rot in order to obtain a higher price and he is diverting these products from the purpose for which God created them. The profiteer is the primary cause of unrest in this country. What the Government should aim at is the common good and the comfort and the happiness of all the people in this country. Society is a contract entered into by all the people under which they consent to abandon part of their privileges and part of their rights for the benefit of all and those who fail to realize the truthfulness and put into action the principles of this definition are blind to the approach of a conflict which will completely put in the shade all the horrors 'of the last war.


Mr. MIOHAEL STEELE (Perth (South):: Mr. Speaker, for a very few minutes I shall endeavour to draw the attention of the House to some of the statements that have just been given utterance to by the previous, speaker. With one statement he made I am in hearty agreement-that the problem of the high cost of living must be tackled with courage and sincerity. I regret, however, to have to criticise the address of the hon. gentleman in that his suggestions for the solution of the problem with which he dealt, display, to my mind, neither courage nor sincerity.
The hon. member (Mr. Arohambiault) suggests as a remedy for the high cost of Irving the taking of the duties off foodstuffs, and I have no doubt that he was speaking for the Opposition in making that suggestion, because we know that on one or two occasions during the past three or four years they have hialf-heartedly put forward that policy. But in addition to and coincident with that suggestion he proposes what pMr. Arehambault.]
is also another remarkable remedy, the stopping of the exportation of foodstuffs.


Mr. ARCH AM  B AULT@: Will my hon. friend allow me a remark? I said the limiting of the exportation of foodstuffs; not the stopping.


Michael Steele: The limiting of the exportation of foodstuffs of course is a very general term. I presume the hon. gentleman would mean by that limiting their exportation to the extent of providing first for the needs of the people of Canada.
Mr. AROHAMtBAULT: Hear, hear.


Michael Steele: ducer; in fact, they are stirring up everybody against everybody else. Capital is represented by them as being against the people, as robbing and (plundering the people. Every manufacturer and merchant is represented as a conscienceless profiteer. All these representations are inaccurate. There are profiteers in this country, and they deserve no sympathy; there always have been and there always will be profiteers as long as human nature is what it is. But it has been a mighty good thing for Canada that during the four years of war, industry and agriculture have been in such a condition that people have been enabled to make reasonable profits. Had it not been so, I do not know what the condition of Canada would be to-day.
Let us face with courage and sincerity the problems which confront Canada today-not only the problem of the high cost of living, but every other problem which needs solution. Let us realize that the old conditions can never return to this country; that we must follow new paths, blaze new trails. We are living under new conditions, and the people of Canada-or, indeed, of any other country-must have courage to face the radical conditions which will prevail when the war and the effects of war are entirely over.


Mr. J. E. PREVOST (Terrebonne) (translation) :: This special session which has brought us together will go down to history under the name of a Peace Session.
We are assembled here mainly to consider and approve the terms of the Peace Treaty signed at Versailles.
Mr. Speaker, nowadays everybody is crying out and shouting for peace, but, truth telling, we are far from enjoying the blessings of peace.
Ages ago peace was promised to men of good-will. As peace does not reign in the Government we are bound to come to the conclusion that men of good-will are the few in the Cabinet. The Unionist Government is rent by intestine wars, as to which I may say a word later on.
The Unionist party, that incoherent and ephemeral amalgam, is vainly struggling against the morbid/ elements which must ultimately bring about its downfall.
Whenever, in the midst of their clashing interests, their jarring elements, their discords, these gentlemen come and talk to us about peace we have a presentiment-I was going to say that we already have a vision of the approaching end of the party, and that pretty soon we shall say: " Let it rest in peace."
[Mr. Steele!
The war is over-so they proclaim. It is true that war is at end between the Allies and Germany, but it is still raging in the ranks of the Unionists, whose ministers hasten to leave the ship, while the several groups into which they are divided are looking askance at each other.
Instead of launching out into long speeches about world peace, let the hon. gentlemen first make peace in their own household and thereby have it reign in the country.
Those politicians, those would-be statesmen, arrogate to themselves the ridiculous role of contributing to international peace adjustments, unable as they are to give peace to their own country.
A general state of unrest and agitation is now prevalent in Canada. One has but to open his eyes1 to see what is going on in all social classes and agitating the minds of a dissatisfied and restless proletariat. Unless one is unwilling to listen and pay attention to what is transpiring in the country it is easy to hear the clamour of the strikes rising on every side, the complaints of the masses protesting against the persecution of the conscripts and the actual reign of terror in our rural districts.
Does it not ill become the Government to come and talk of foreign policy at a time when in the very midst of our country such a great unrest is prevailing, brought on by the high cost of living, as to .which the Government has remained indifferent?
For many years we have insisted upon the Government controlling cold storage, prosecuting profiteers, fixing prices, limiting exports. They have turned a deaf ear to our demands and prices have kept soaring.
A few months ago the hon Minister of Labour, in a letter sent to the city council of Montreal, made this strange statement: " That the high cost of living in Canada was owing to the shortage of farm products."
How could he make such a statement, considering we have it from official statistics that during the twelve previous months Canada had exported agricultural products valued at $180,000,000? It is quite evident that the Government was unwilling to open its eyes and its ears. The United States, so to speak, had to take them by the hand and show them the way, and it is only from that moment that we hear of the organization of a board of trade that is to give us the reforms which we have been asking for years.
Up to that date the Government had accomplished nothing, notwithstanding the issuing of commission after commission, the

holding of numerous investigations and the publication of countless reports. The Government have not done a single efficient move and when they appointed a commission to inquire into the high cost of living, they were simply burying the question with all due honours.
The Government are extolling the ministers who have worked in the interest of universal peace, but they have not been able to prevent labour troubles and bp-risings amongst the returned soldiefs, to whom they .promised the moon; they have not been able to prevent the uprisings of the farmers; they could not even pacify the families* disquited by raids of the Federal police. So Mr. John Bruce had every reason to say yesterday, at the National Industrial Conference, that "it is no use for the Government to try to settle the troubles in Europe, if they cannot solve the problems that confront us in Canada."
The wrongs we are complaining of in this country are not irretrievable. A wiser and more alert Administration than the one we have at present, could greatly improve the situation. A much more difficult task will be to find a remedy to the political acts of the Government that pledged the future, that modify the constitutional status of the country, and bind future generations. Allow me. Sir. to dwell a few moments on this phase of the question. In the first place, our ministers, are ingenious enough to believe that war is a thing of the past, because they have signed a Treaty of Peace.
Let us take a broader view of the situation ; let us put aside, for one moment, the petty doings of the narrow-minded statesmen of the Union Government. The Peace Treaty of Versailles deals with peace, but does not secure it. It is a self-delusion-a delusion that will soon fade away-to believe in a permanent peace.
So long as the people of most countries will continue to be guided by the same ideals-and these ideals are not likely to change, before a very long time, if they ever do change-the countries of Europe will have to be satisfied with more or less ephemeral periods of peace.
And, beware, the wars of the future will be much more ruinous and bloody than the wars of the past.
It has been said of the Peace Treaty, that, owing to its hardness, it will soon become obsolete and will not attain the purpose it had in view. I do not agree with that statement. The Treaty is stern, but not over harsh.
1.	Because the Central Powers-Germany and Austria-Hungary-are responsible for the war that has shed such disasters and ruins.
2.	Because that treaty is far more lenient than the terms that would have been exacted by a victorious Germany.
If there could be any doubts about it, they would be dispelled by the following statement from Count Bernstoff, German Ambassador in- the United States:
He was proceeding from the principle that France must be crushed, and reduced to the rank of Portugal, even if five million Frenchmen had to be killed. Going into the details, he undertook the dismemberment of that country in tearing away fifteen million inhabitants outside of a line from 'Saint-Valery to Lyons; that territory was to be given to Belgium which would become, of course, an appendage of Germany. An indemnity of ten billions was to be exacted from France; her fortifications were to be dismantled and her armament ceded to Germany. France would have to terminate her alliance with England and Russia and make a new alliance of twenty-five years with Germany. Finally, William II was to buy Russia and crush England.
tn a confidential memorandum to the Imperial Chancellor of Germany, on the peace terms, signed by all the large industrial and agricultural associations, the dis-iderato of the German people are clearly set forth:
Belgium must be economically subjected to Germany. The coasts portion of France, next to Belgium, as far as the Somme River, must be included in the German Empire. Germany will take possession of all the fortifications on the east boundary, particularly Verdun and Belfort. The coal districts of the Nord and Pas-de-Calais shall belong to Germany. The proprietors in the said districts shall be ejected and the iand shall be occupied by German subjects. As regards Russia, we shall take whole of Poland and of the Baltic provinces.
One may easily gather from the above how Germany intended treating her enemies, had she won the war.
In the third place, the Treaty of Versailles is not too severe, because, had it been less rigorous, it would not have proved a sure guarantee against future wars; and it would not have annihilated the factors which will ever make Germany redoubtable.
The character of a nation cannot be destroyed by a peace treaty.
Borrowing from a well known psychologist, Dr. Gustave LeBon, the following considerations which I make mine, I may say that:
A superficial Inquiry into the causes of the European War, which sees in the armies and the instruments called into play scientific and clever combinations, might have led one to be-

lieve that it was governed toy an infallible rational logic.
But a more careful introspection, a more searching analysis would have revealed that superior forces directed the thoughts, the feelings and actions of the combatants.
The real leaders of those armies were psychological forces.
Immaterial forces are the actual leading and guiding influences in battles.
So that a peace treaty, even though it rested on good grounds, cannot help it.
Rational logic reigns exclusively in the laboratory of the scientist, but it exerts but a slight influence over the conduct of individuals and nations. It is mostly by effective, mystical and collective elements that their existence is conditioned.
Were it not that we are cognizant of the real springs and motive powers, the life of nations would prove a baffling enigma. Their thoughts and actions but seldom take their bearings from reason.
It is exactly by affective and intellectual forces that the character of a nation is shaped and moulded.
Character is the great force by whose impulses we are guided through life. The intellect shapes all our thoughts and conceptions; character guides to right action. The intellect is the power of operative thought; character prompts us to action.
Therefore, character is of the utmost import in the existence of individuals and nations.
Affective influences figure conspicuously among the factors in history. While imparting their strength to ideal concepts, they bring us on to view things in variable ways, according to our sensibility.
So that a treaty of peace, even though it were grounded:, as I said, on reason, is powerless .against the effective and collective forces which sway nations.
The mentality of men collectively manifests itself as quite dissimilar to their mental aotivity, in an isolated state. A multitude of men differs as much from the individuals who compose it as a living being differs from the cells which help to form it.
The collective soul is but slightly actuated by reason. As the feelings of human masses are at once intense and mobile, they rapidly pass from adoration to hatred.
Collective opinion represents a considerable force, but it is seldom spontaneous.
A multitude, in fact, is an amorphous being, unable to exert itself without a leader.
A multitude is swayed and influenced to action by a leader through .persuasive methods pertaining to affective logic, such as affirmation, repetition, prestige or moral influence and contagion stirring up emotions in the masses.
Leaders are always needed in order to create or orient opinion, even in the case of national conflicts.
But the actual starting point of opinions is a leader or an epochal event, as a substitute for the former.
So, in spite of any treaty we may sign, Mr. Speaker, we are at the mercy of an agitator or an event-.

One of the forces of the German Government in the last conflict was to have shown itself able to orient, long beforehand, in its own way, the opinion, of the nation. Journalists, professors, writers compliantly did the bidding of the government and yielded implicit obedience to it. It was thus enabled to transform a European conflict into a national war. It was neither a sovereign nor a military caste which were battling, but the whole German nation.
What can a treaty do, even though it were grounded on -reason, against the mystical forces which sway public opinion in a nation?
Mysticism and reason belong to two spheres which do not interpenetrate each other.
Mystical convictions are born of suggestion or mental contagion, but never through reasoning. No more can reason generate them than it can destroy them.
Mystical impulsions take no account of material needs nor of rational arguments.
Through mental contagion, mysticism easily becomes collective and then exerts a potent impulsion on believers. It ever proved beneficial to nations, such as the Jews of old, the Arabs in the Middle-Ages, the Germans of to-day, to believe themselves predestined by God to regenerate mankind.
Among the various prime movers and springs of conduct in human actions those of mystical origin have eVer proved the most potent. Of them are born those illusions, which are history makers. Under their influence empires were destroyed and others built up. It. is on the very same motives that civilizations are still resting.
The modern world believes that it is no longer under the sway of mystical forces. Yet never wa-s mankind more enthralled by them and brought under their overmastering influence than it is to-day. Whether political, religious or social, those forces belong to the same family, exert an identical action and obey the same laws. They are not governed nor controlled by reason.
If I were ask-ed why a bloody war was let loose on the world, why so many youths fell and yielded up their lives in those battles which have turned the world into a slaughter-house, why so many families have sunk into despair, the reason is that a nation which believed it was called upon to regenerate the world, strove to impose on nations its mystical -chimera of world domination.
Therefore I am right in stating that a peace treaty, be it even that of Versailles, along with the Covenant of the League of Nations, cannot ensure a permanent peace. The causes of military conflicts will always exist, throughout the world.
Whether we 'base the new conditions on the old dogma of the 'balance of -power or on the principle of nationalities, we may he able to delay future outbreaks, but they shall never be suppressed.

Thai peace, even after the Treaty of Versailles, is really a "generous illusion" is evidenced by the fact that in order to prevent retaliatory attempts on the part of 70 millions of people a formidable standing army has to be indefinitely maintained, which, however, will not prevent such attempts or other conflicts which may spring up everywhere.
Such is the explanation of Clause X of the Treaty which embroils even Canada in future wars.
We are required to sign a momentous document in which it is explicitly stated that:
The members of the League undertake to-respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or dianger of such aggression the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
They want to belittle the importance of that obligation by quoting other clauses of the Covenant in which it is provided that the differences between the members of the League shall, be submitted to arbitration or to the Council of the League. But should a nation outside the League declare war, the arbitration machinery stops; should even a single member of the League ignore *the Covenant and wage war without arbitration, such as it is provided in Clause 16, what will happen? The clause says that in such case, it shall be' the duty of the Council "to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the Covenants of the League." We are well caught in the gear. Everybody is aware that the issue is a most serious one and everybody admits 'that it is useless for us to approve or disapprove the Treaty. However it is our duty to ask of those who bound Canada in the Treaty of Versailles on what authority they did so.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues, who in 1911 were such obstinate advocates of a referendum and who were opposing with all their strength the least little change in our national status without consulting the people, were the same men who, without consulting not only the people but even Parliament, sent delegates to a congress where they bound this country to all future wars.
Of course we want peace. In order to secure it we have increased our national debt by more than a billion, we have overburdened our budget for half a century to come with such heavy liabilities as will necessitate heavy taxation, and then 60,000 of our fellow citizens gave their life for that same purpose. But we will not have peace at the cost of our liberty and autonomy.
Therefore it may be properly stated again, , as it was stated before in this House, that "we do not accept any restriction of the present autonomous authority of our Dominion and that the question of determining what -part Canada may take in any war, must be always settled by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament."
I think that such a correction is necessary, for I see in Clause X a clever and < cunning move on the part of military imperialism, which is the most dreadful form of all.
The imperialists unanimously exclaim: "Canada is a nation. Laurier said so, and we treat you as a nation." But, beware! When Laurier said that. Canada was a nation he was looking for our wider autonomy as well as for the greatest prosperity and highest reputation for our country, which were assured by his policy, whereas the imperialists, now as ever before, disguised under several names, will impose on us solely the obligations and responsibilities of a nation. When we demand onr autonomy and liberty, they hurl at us the word "colonials."
The title of nation which is conferred upon Canada at. a time when our country is driven into the whirlpool of future wars is but a fallacious one. Canada is verily that "unfortunate guest," mourned by the poet, and it will act wisely in exercising fear and caution while sitting at the banquet of nations.
Let us make clear the meaning of the expression: Canada is a nation. During the fifteen years- of the Laurier Administration, Canada progressed in .accordance with the natural law governing the evolution of nations, while the general tenor of its constitution remained unchanged.
In other words, the country has kept abreast of the times. During that memorable period; the conditions in trade, commerce,_ agriculture, means of transportation have liept evolving; the needs and aspirations of each class in particular and of all classes in general, have been modified, but the armature of the Canadian constitution has not varied.
Our legislation hi every sphere, social, fiscal and administrative has followed a rapid drift towards progress and has trans-

Such are 'the principles which should prevail in this country and such are the underlying principles' of the Liberal programme.	[DOT]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but a few observations made by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) have led me to reconsider my decision. I desire to deal briefly with one portion of his address, and I hope he will soon be in his seat in the House. The hon. member stated:	;
The President of the Council, who is more prone to defend profiteers than to defend himself personally, has shown more grit in defending a profiteering company than he did last year when the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) made precise accusations against him.
The hon. member (Mr. Archambault) must think that there is only one passage of Scripture with which I am familiar, and that I am determined to practice it under all circumstances and conditions, that is: " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." I would remind my hon. friend that there is another passage which I think he should not overlook: "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is another passage which my learned friend should quote- " Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness."


Newton Wesley Rowell: wide increase in prices, growing inevitably out of the war, is attributable to the Government of the day. Statements of that kind only tend to inflame popular feeling, to create unrest and distrust of all forms of Government, and to feed the Bolshevik sentiment in the country. Hon. members should appreciate the importance of a sense of responsibility in dealing with matters of this kind. As I pointed out last session, we had the Canada Food Board und'er the administration of the ex-Minister of Agriculture. I desire to repeat that I have the highest respect for the ability, the earnestness and the sincerity of the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) in the performance of his public duties; and I believe that in that important and responsible post he did everything which he considered could properly be done in the interests of the country to meet the situation in regard to food distribution and food prices in Canada. In addition -to that, there wajs the work of the Cost of Living Commissioner in the Department of Labour. Last session we had a committee appointed on the cost of living with my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) as chairman, 'and we can still almost hear the echoes of the debate in this House on their report. Yet, with a knowledge of that report, and /with the sound of that debate still ringing in our ears, the member for Ohambly and Vercheres censures this Government for not having taken more vigorous action. When -the report was brought in recommending the creation of -a board with full jurisdiction to deal with the situation, what was Hie attitude on the other side? They moved that it be referred hack for further consideration. The Minister of the Interior pointed out that it would mean delay and the killing of the report for the session, and it was because of the strong stand of the Government and its supporters on this side, that the report went through, that the necessary legislation was introduced -and passed and the board duly constituted which is now in active operation. Judge not by professions but by deeds. Who were the friends of the profiteers last session when the question was under discussion in the House, those who urged action or those who urged delay?
Now, any hon. friend referred to Mr. W.
F. O'Connor, a member of the board, and said that he had been appointed after having been dismissed from his former position because he had made a report on the packing business, and after having
Cllr. Rowell.]
been-I am not sure whether he used the expression, but he conveyed the idea- thoroughly spanked for his public service; and that he would therefore be careful in his present position. I want to say to my hon. friend that Mr. O'Connor did not resign by reason of any report he had made. My -hon. friends on -the other side must know that his resignatiofi occurred a year or more -after he had made the report to which the 'hon. member referred. One cannot but express surprise, and- profound surprise, that Mr. O'Oonnor, so long -as he was making reports which my hon. friends thought they could use to advantage in an endeavour to discredit the Government, was an angel of light and a veritable Daniel come to judgment, but when he takes a public position and is administering the law -and seeking to keep the profileers within bounds, hon, gentlemen opposite have not words of condemnation strong enough for him. I appeal to the members on both sides; I appeal to their sense of justice and of fair play. Is it fair to Mr. O'Connor; is it fair to the Board of Commerce; is it fair to the public interests of the country, for hon. members to take such a position on the floor of Parliament? The Government has been criticised and blamed for its delay in the appointment of the commissioners. As a member of the Government I cheerfully take my full share of responsibility for that delay. The Government sincerely desired to secure the appointment on that board of the very best men in Canada, not only because of their ability, but because of the confidence which the public would have in them. The very first time the matter came up for consideration the Government concluded that Judge Kobson of Winnipeg, if he could be secured as Chairman, would be the best man in Canada for the position, and accordingly we took means to secure him. It took over a month to do so, but the Board is not a thing of a day or a week, even of a month or a year; and I think that the Government could not have done better than to secure a man of such great ability, such high integrity, such splendid capacity for public service as Judge Robson. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not make friends with the public-spirited people of the country, particularly with the people of Western Canada where Judge Robson is so well known, by suggesting that the Board is mere camouflage and is- not sincerely prosecuting its work. It -is not a breach of confidence to say that Judge Robson, for the opportunity of rendering to the people

of Canada the great public service which he believed he could render on this Board surrendered a lucrative position in which his salary was many thousands of dollars more than the remuneration he now receives from the people. In these two men, Judge Robson and Mr. O'Oonnor, devoted to the public interest and sincerely anxious to meet the situation, the Government has the nucleus of a Board which I am confident will go down in history as one of the best bodies any Government has constituted, one which in the end will render a great public service. 1 am sure that when the permanent appointment of the third member of the Board is made it will meet with the same public approval as those already made. Why, Canada is ahead of both Great Britain and the United States in the practical steps it has taken in providing machinery to reach the best possible solution of the problem of high prices so far as the prevention of profiteering is concerned. I need not dwell on that matter any longer, because it shows the position of the Government in regard to this very important question.
Now I desire to come to the second question. I think I have sufficiently answered the first. I have never defended a profiteer, and if it were possible I should like to see a situation in which all profits made'by men during the war-the amounts by which they increased their wealth over the wealth they possessed before the war

were turned into the public treasury, as a contribution on their part, not commensurate with but bearing a relation to, the contribution made by the men who offered their lives for their country.
I never defended a profiteer and I am not going to discuss the question of the bacon business. I have discussed in this House the position of Sir Joseph Flavelle as Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board. I have not one word to withdraw in the statement I made in reference to Sir Joseph Flavelle. I believe that the people of Canada will some day recognize the wonderful service he rendered to the country during the war as Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board. It may be unpopular for a public man to recognize the distinguished services of a fellow-citizen. But the public man who is afraid because of some cheap criticism of doing justice to a man who has rendered such great service to the country would be unworthy to occupy a seat in this House. 1 stand here prepared to say that I will not withdraw one word from what I have said with regard to the magnificent service he rendered to Canada at that time.
The statement was that I was more concerned with defending profiteers than with defending myself from the specific charges of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy). That hon. member is not in his place in the House. If it had not been that my hon. friend from Chambly and Yercheres 'brought this matter up this afternoon I would not have discussed it without sending notice to the hon. member for Russell in order that he might be in his place when I came to deal with the matter.
It has been said in the press that I was in the House or at least in this building on the night in March, 1917, when the member for Russell made his attack. I think Le Devoir and some of the other papers reported that T was around the House that night but kept out of the Chamber. I regret to say I was at home in bed that night under the doctor's orders. There is a custom which has become an honourable tradition of this House, that when one member desires to rise in his place and make an attack upon the position or character of another, he gives that hon. member due notice.
I received no notice. I was in the House in the afternoon, and notwithstanding my indisposition, if I had received any notice. I would have come back that night. I would have been in my place in the House and I should have promptly answered the false statements of the hon. member for Russell.
I got no notice. The debate closed that night. Next day I spoke to the Speaker and asked him,: "Is there any way by which I can make a reply to the statements of the hon. member for Russell?" The Speaker replied: "The rules of the House are clear; the debate having been closed, it would not be possible for you, during this session to deal with the subject matter of the debate in any other debate or discussion." The hon. Speaker told me that I could not deal with the matter during that session of the House. Of course, I could have risen to a question of privilege and made certain specific denials, but I could not have discussed the statements made by the hon. member for Russell on that occasion. If my colleagues in the House had not permitted the debate to close that night I could have replied. The reason they gave for not adjourning the debate, a 'reason which seemed to them good, and probably was good, was that in view of the inflammatory character of the speech of the hon. member for Russell, if the debate had been adjourned and the House had entered

upon the discussion of such inflammable matters as had been presented to the House by the hon. member for Russell, we should have had perhaps a week or more of heated debate and discussion involving .religious and racial matters at, a time when the Government was putting forth every effort to compose the feeling in the province of Quebec in order that the military service law might be enforced and that men should be secured to reinforce the battalions at the front. In view of the necessity of securing men to support our battalions at the front, I accepted that view of the situation and for over a year and a half these false accusations were carried from one end of this country to the other without my dealing with them. My only reason was a concern for the public interest and the desire to do the right thing and not stir up the racial and religious controversies which might have resulted from my answering the statements of the hon. member for Russell.
So soon as hostilities ceased I did take the opportunity in^my own riding, where these same stories were being circulated, of making an answer to the statements made by the hon. member for Russell, and other members of the House. I delivered an address in my riding at Bowmanville in which I dealt with these matters. I had hoped that the matter might end there, that in the public life of this country men would have a sufficient sense of decency and fair play, when they had received the generous treatment that had been accorded to them by not characterizing these false accusations as they deserved to be characterized, to let the matter drop. But that is not the case. These matters have been brought up again to-day and therefore I feel called upon to deal with them.
I shall not attempt this afternoon to go through in detail the lengthy address of the hon. member for Russell but I shall take up the salient features of it and deal with them. Let me quote, Hansard 1918, nave 40:	6
Now, Sir, what happened when the hon. gentleman entered the provincial field of politics'? With his usual .presence of mind he arranged with his friends to form a committee for the purpose of raising a fund to guarantee him against any loss while engaged in his work as provincial leader. Mr. A. E. Ames, of Toronto, was Chairman of the committee, and in addition to Sir Joseph Flavelie, the contributors included several other Toronto gentlemen. The fund itself was called the " Secretarial Fund " and I am informed that it varied in amount from $9,000 to $11,000 a year.
I ask any hon. .member of this House: What inference, what impression, did the hon. member for Russell desire to convey [Mr. Rowell. 1
by that statement? There could only be one impression, the impression that hon. members of this House did draw-for many of them spoke to me afterwards about it- namely that if I was to be leader of the Liberal party I stipulated that a fund should be raised out of which I should be compensated for my loss of time in serving the country as leader. The impression conveyed was that I was receiving possibly as much as $9,000 or $10,000 per year. Let me give you the facts. There was no salary paid out of the public treasury to the leader of the Opposition in Ontario at that time as there is a salary paid to the leader of the Opposition, I am glad to say, in this House and as:	there is a salary
paid to the leader of the Opposition now in the province of Ontario. There was no salary at that time. I believe that my immediate predecessors in the-Liberal leadership in Ontario had received as salary a modest sum subscribed by party friends. I make absolutely no criticism of that. I think a salary should be paid, but I think it is much wiser that it should be' paid by the country. I think the position of leader of the Opposition is so important that there should be a salary attached to it.
I am glad that the leader of the Opposition in this House draws a salary, and that it is now provided in Ontario that the leader of the Opposition shall draw salary. A delegation of Liberal members waited upon me and asked me to accept the position of leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. I am sorry that I have to go into these matters of domestic political history in Ontario. I should riot have done so if they had not been spread upon Hansard by the hon. member for Russell and brought up again to-day by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres. Mr. Bowman, the then Liberal whip, was at the head of the delegation, and he said to me: " Mr. Rowell, we present to you the unanimous request of the Liberals in the legislature and of the Liberal convention "-which had been held-" that you consent to 'become leader of the provincial Liberal party. I am authorized to guarantee you a salary of $5,000 per year, because we know the acceptance of the leadership will mean a substantial loss in income from the practice of your profession." What was my reply to Mr. Bowman? I mention this, not to reflect credit upon myself, but simply to give the facts and to show how grossly unfair and untrue were the statements made by the member for Russell. I said: " Mr. Bowman, no; if I accept the leadership it must

be without any salary attached "-because I was determined that I would be independent even of the contributors of the Liberal party to such a fund.
I refused the offer of $5,000 per year. I held the position of leader of the Liberal party in Ontario from the 31st of October, 1911, till the 11th October, 1917. During that whole period not one cent of compensation was paid me, by the Liberal party or by any person whomsoever, in respect of my services as leader of that party. A man engaged in the practice of his profession, with good practice as I had-and members will pardon me for referring again to these personal matters-could not give the time required for the discharge of the duties of leader without serious financial loss. When I resigned the position of leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, in October, 1917, I had served the party and the country at a loss of many thousands of dollars per annum during the whole period.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps I should not
say it but it simply shows how false the statements were. The fact is that I did not feel that my firm should suffer loss because of the time I withdrew from its service to devote to public life. I therefore turned over to them not only my sessional indemnity but for the first two years $5,000 a year because of the time I had so withdrawn in order to serve my country. During the remainder of the period that I acted as leader of the Liberal party in Ontario I took a substantial reduction in my percentage of profits in the firm, so that I could serve my country free from any contribution or support from any body, and having in view no other object than the good of the people of my native province.
Now the hon. gentleman said a secretarial fund was raised, and Mr. A. E. Ames was chairman. That is perfectly true. He says further that Sir Joseph Flavelle was a contributor. That is absolutely untrue. Sir Joseph Flavelle was a Conservative and the fund was a Liberal fund: he never contributed a dollar to that fund from fir't to last, from beginning to end. Why was the fund formed, what was the object of it? Here again I am sorry to go into inner political history but we may as well have this thing out, now that we have started.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the Liberal party
in the province of Ontario adopted the policy of " Abolish the Bar " and also an
advanced social programme, there was a minority in the party opposed to that policy, and we decided, after carefully considering the situation, that if the policy was to have the best possible chance of success, if it was to prevail throughout the country, if the progressive policies for which we stood were to be carried out, we must build up some kind of an organization which would be devoted to promoting the success of these policies. It is no harm to say that the federal Liberal members from Ontario, or some of them at least, were not anxious to be identified with that policy. If my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) were in the House, he would tell you that before I put an organizer out in the province of Ontario I consulted him about it, and had his full consent and approval as representing the federal Liberal party. Further, when the organizer went out, he acted under the direction of Mr. Bowman, Chief Liberal Whip, an opponent of this Government, a supporter of the Opposition, but a man who rendered splendid and loyal service to me during the whole period I was leader of the party in Ontario. Now that is the story of this alleged fund and the object for which it was raised. Let me say this in passing: If the hon. member for Russell was as conversant with the inside history of the provincial Liberal party as one would think he was from a perusal of his address, or as he professes to be, he should have known that the statements he made in the House were untrue.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did know.


Newton Wesley Rowell: An hon. gentleman says he did know-I cannot say as to that; but this I do know that he had scarcely made his statement in the House before he was told by letters of protest from Liberals in Ontario that they were untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Did he then rise in his place as an hon. gentleman and withdraw the statements? You sat through the session and you know that there was no withdrawal; and despite his knowledge that they were untrue, either he, or those associated with him, or the Liberal information bureau-I do not know which-had his speech printed and distributed throughout Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, containing those statements that he knew to be false. Is that what a public man has a right to expect from even his bitterest opponents on the other side of

the House? Surely public life in this country has come to a sorry pass when men for the sake of impairing or destroying the influence of their political opponents will print and distribute broadcast through the country statements which they know to be untrue reflecting upon the character of an opponent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with another point. The hon. gentleman said this was a fund raised for the purpose of supplanting Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have stated the object for which it was raised. One might say with some sense of truth, that it was raised to prevent embarrassment to Sir Wilfrid. The provincial Liberal party had no desire to embarrass the federal Liberal party if the latter did not wish to identify themselves with the policy to which I have alluded; they would work through their own organization, we through ours, acting in co-operation as much as possible. The hon. gentleman then goes on to add, and let me quote his own words:
The hon. gentleman engaged for several years in a conspiracy to supplant Sir Wilfrid Laurier as leader of the Liberal party.
Well, if it is possible to have one statement falser than another, this is such a one. It is even more false than the statement that I stipulated a fund should be raised to pay me as leader of the Liberal party when I accepted the position. Here again, if the hon. member for West Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee) were in his seat, he would say to this House-there are hon. members opposite who know what I state to be true -that throughout the whole course of the negotiations for Union Government, from the time they started until they closed, I kept in close touch with him as Chief Whip of the Liberal party, and he had knowledge of the proceedings from beginning to end. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his place at present to tell the House so. Some day the story will be told, some day the record will be produced, some day the correspondence will be brought down, and I think I can perhaps leave any further consideration of the matter until that time comes. Having shown you the falsity of some of the statements, you will appreciate how false the others are.
I have only this one thing to add: no one can regret more than I that the old and honoured leader of the Liberal party, the late Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, is not in his place in this House, so that he too could give his denial to the statement in question. Some day, I repeat, the correspondence will be brought down, but I

might quote one sentence from a letter which Sir Wilfrid wrote me shortly after I joined the Union Government:
I may frankly add that I have too much respect for your convictions to allow an action which I cannot approve to interfere with our old personal relations.
We honestly differed on a great matter of public policy, but Sir Wilfrid recognized my right, just as he recognized the right of the hon. member for West Lambton and other Liberals in the country, to take a different view. I never questioned his sincerity in the course he took, and I am perfectly sure he never questioned mine. What was the situation, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party faced at that time? They faced just the situation that was faced in the year 1864 at the time the coalition government was formed to carry out Confederation.
At that time, it will be recalled, Hon. George Brown was an ardent advocate of Confederation. His illustrious colleague in the province of Quebec, Mr. Dorion, did not believe in Confederation under the conditions which -George Brown supported. An offer came from Sir John Macdonald to form a coalition government in order to carry out Confederation. The Liberal party in Ontario in those days [DOT] faced exactly the situation which ithe Liberal party faced in 1917. George Brown was asked to join with Sir John Macdonald to make Confederation possible, but to do so he had to separate himself from his old associates in the province of Quebec who wtere opposed to the policy of Confederation. If the course suggested by my hon. friend be the right one, that we should stand by our party through thick and thin, George Brown, for the sake of preserving party unity and continued harmony with his colleagues in the province of Quebec, would have said to Sir John Macdonald: "No, I will not join you in order to promote Confederation. We are going to put party unity before national interest." Was that the position of George Brown, of Oliver Mowat, and of the other Liberals of that day? No. They said: " National interests first. Canadian Confederation is vastly more important than maintaining the unity of the Liberal party." And there is no brighter page in the history of Liberalism than the magnificent stand of George Brown and his colleagues in associating themselves with their old bitter personal opponent, Sir John Macdonald-a bitterness so intense that Brown and he did not speak to each other-in order that the provinces might be brought together in a

confederation which would make possible the development of a great new nation on this half of the North American continent. But for the courage and patriotism of George Brown and his colleagues Confederation would have been impossible at that time.
What was the situation in 1917? Our gallant troops were facing the foe at the front and urgently in need of reinforcements. Every man conversant with the situation knew that the voluntary system could not continue to supply the men needed. The position I took was not a new one, for I had for months urged the Government to adopt compulsory military service. In fact, I urged that in an address which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) listened to at North Bay, before the Prime Minister brought down any proposal to that effect And I still want to thank my hon. friend for the eulogy he pronounced on me at the banquet that evening even after he heard that statement of mine. In that address I urged th? national necessity of a Union or War Government and of compulsory military service to back up our troops at the front.
I am sorry to have to refer so much to myself, but to prevent misapprehension let me quote the statement I then made in an address delivered at the Canadian, Club in North Bay during the holding of the Northern Ontario Liberal Convention, .at which my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) was present and delivered a very eloquent and able address. I spoke on the war situation and Canada's duty, and in the course of my address I made a statement from which I quote the following sentences:
Let us frankly admit that we cannot reinforce our men at the front by the existing voluntary measures. We must either use the Militia Act or adopt other measures no less effective to meet the situation. Surely after nearly three years of war the time has come . for us to realize that this issue is vastly bigger than any party or all parties combined. What matters it if parties fall so long as Canada and liberty live, and the great democracies triumph in their struggle against autocracy? Do you see any prospect of our being able to do in Canada what none of the Dominions or our Allies have so far been able to do, namely, to adequately meet the situation with a purely party government, and to administer the grave affairs of the war on a party basis? Do you see any hope of our moving forward as a united nation, exerting our utmost efforts to win the war and grappling courageously with our own domestic problems, unless we also create a war Government? Is not this Canada's present and most urgent need?


Samuel Hughes: : What was the date of that address, may I ask?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Early in May, 1917,
I think at the time that address was delivered my hon. friend had a resolution on the Order Paper to put the Militia Act into force.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I recall that fact. In that important respect we saw alike.


Samuel Hughes: Only I advocated it six months ahead.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not going to say how far back I had been advocating this policy; but whether earlier or later, we were both agreed, anyway.
The issue the country faced was that of reinforcing our men at 'the front. The Prime Minister stated that we could not secure the necessary men by the voluntary method. My knowledge of the need of men at the front and of the recruiting situation convinced me that that statement was absolutely right. I know my hon. friends may criticise the manner in which recruiting was carried on; I did so myself .in the different provinces; but criticism of recruiting methods in the past would not get the necessary men for the future, anti however much I might differ from the policy the Government had pursued in the matter of recruiting, I recognized, as every other Canadian citizen must have recognized, that vastly more important than party differences was the question of adequate reinforcements.
There was an acute difference of opinion in the Liberal party on this issue. The great majority of the English-speaking Liberals in the House-in fact, all the English-speaking Liberals west of the Ottawa river with a few exceptions-were in favour of the policy of compulsory military service. The Liberals from the province of Quebec took the other view-and they were absolutely entitled to take it; I am not here at this time offering criticism of their action in that respect. That was the issue, cutting as deep into our national life and as important for Canada's future-in fact, more important-than the issue of Confederation. It went to the very basis of Canada's continued war effort, and Canada's continued war effort was of great importance to the success of the Allies in the fateful struggle which then hung in the balance. The Liberal party had to face this issue.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to ask the hon. President of the Privy Council a question. Is it not a fact that during the last twelve months of voluntary recruiting

an average of 6,000 men per month volunteered for service; and is it not also a fact that after the Military Service Act came into force less than fifty per cent of that number were enrolled for service?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it will tend to improve the situation if we embark on a discussion of recruiting, comparing province with province or one section of the country with another, nor to discuss


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have not done that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But an answer to your question would involve that.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Not necessarily so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Nor to discuss the operation of the Military Service law and the results secured under it. I prefer not to do it, although I am quite prepared to do so, but I think no interest can now he . served by entering into such a discussion. We have had our differences; we have been divided; let us try to get together for the sake of national unity and national progress in Canada.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That has nothing whatever to do with my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, I am tempted
to go on and answer my hon, friend, but I will not yield to the temptation at this moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on; it will do him good.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That was the issue
facing the people, and the Liberal party had to decide what the first consideration should be, the supreme national issue of the reinforcement of our troops at the front and Canada's continued and whole-hearted participation in the war, or the question of continued party unity.
I	had an opportunity of visiting the front in 1916; the member for Russell makes reference to that occasion. I am son*y that he did not have the opportunity of visiting the front; I am sure that had he been there he would have been more active in recruiting throughout Canada than he was. But I had the opportunity of visiting the front and of talking with many soldiers there; and I shall never forget the inspiration that came to me from talking to these gallant men. They did not think of themselves, their own lives, or their own future. I asked man after man, " What can I do for you when I return to Canada?" Did they

say, " Get me home?" Not a man. They said, "Send us reinforcements." Almost all our regiments were then under strength, reinforcements were urgently needed. They wanted men to back them up so that when they fell carrying the flag in the face of the enemy, other gallant Canadians would be there to pick up that flag and carry it on to Victory. The last man who said that to me was the man who drove me down to Boulogne to take the train to Paris-a French Canadian from the county of Essex.


Mr. COPP:: No cheers from the Government side now.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Why didn't you cheer
on the other side?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There were no finer
troops in the Canadian forces than the French Canadians who went from the province of Quebec; there were no finer troops in the Canadian forces than the French Canadians who went from Ontario. I had the opportunity of seeing them in 1916 and in 1918. I had the opportunity Of going into the line of the Twenty-second battalion on the 30th of June, 1918, when they were holding the section of the front before Arras, and the one thing heard from all quarters was a magnificent tribute to the courage and patriotism of these men, their brilliant fighting qualities as soldiers and their great achievements. Those with whom I came in contact in 1916 said, " Send us reinforcements " and " Take good care of our wounded comrades who have gone home." I can imagine nothing finer than that spirit and attitude on the part of our soldiers. One promise I made was that to the limit of my ability I would help to secure reinforcements to back them up. And when the issue was raised in Canada, the Liberal party had to face it. The question was whether a man should stand by the men overseas and the cause for which they were fighting, or for the unity of his party. Others could do as they saw fit, for me there was only one course open; I determined to -stand by the men at the front. So long as I advocated national government and -compulsory military -service and the then Administration, the Borden Government, did not advocate them, there was very little criticism of my course; it was embarrassing [DOT] the Government for me to advocate a national Government and compulsory military service. There was absolutely no public criticism, although one or two expressed the view privately that I

was going a little too far. Generally speaking, however, there was no criticism. But when the test came whether I should stand by my convictions and by the policies which I had advocated and the Government now proposed, and whether I should help the. Government put those policies into effect, I had to choose between being true to what I believed to be right and in the country's interest, and forsaking principle and the country's interest by standing for party unity. I made my choice, and by that choice I stand; I have no regrets for what I did. Attacks may be strong and vene-mous, but any sacrifice a public man might be called upon to make is simply as dust in the balance compared with the services rendered and sacrifices made by the men who went overseas. Therefore I count as nothing the service I was able to render when it is compared with the service our soldiers rendered in this struggle.
The members of the Liberal party faced the issue; should they accept the views of their confreres in Quebec and oppose compulsory [DOT]military service, or should they do what they believed to be right and in the national interest to help win the war, join with Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues, just as George Brown joined Sir John A. Macdonald, and form a coalition or national Government to carry out a law of compulsory military service? Certain members of the party chose as George Brown did. To-day Quebec rejoices in the decision that George Brown made; to-day Quebec recognizes that George Brown was right and that Dorion and their own leaders were wrong; to-day Quebfec realizes that the right and patriotic thing was done by George Brown in bringing about Confederation. And inside of fifty years Quebec will recognize that the Liberals who helped to form Union Government and to put compulsory military service into force did the right thing; they took the course that served the highest national interest. George Brown and his colleagues, by their courage and patriotism, made Confederation possible; the Liberals from one end of Canada to the other who, for the sake of the national interest in time of war, forgot party feeling and party prejudice and joined in helping to form and support a Union Government, saved Confederation and made possible the glorious and triumphant achievements of our troops in 1918.
Now, let me come to the last of the important matters mentioned by the member for Russell. It has been proclaimed from one end of Canada to the other, by the press
and from the platform, that in an address which I delivered at North Bay I publicly slandered the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I recognize that one cannot discuss such a question without subjecting himself to the danger of being misunderstood, of having his motives misinterpreted, and partisan feeling and prejudice raised against him. I shall, however, attempt to discuss the question this afternoon as free from any feeling as possible; I discuss it only because of the attacks which have been made and continued throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that every man's religion is entitled to respect. A man is doing no service to himself, to his country or to' his party who seeks to belittle the religious_ convictions of any other class in the community, no matter how much he may differ from them in that respect. So that in whatever I said-and I shall come to that-nothing would be further from my thought than to. belittle the religious views or convictions of any class of the community.
Far be it from me to do that, for I had no better friends in the world than my Roman Catholic friends in my province, men who. had been not only my friends but my strong supporters.
Let me briefly review the situation in reference to this now famous North Bay address which has received much more prominence than the first one, although I think the first one was more important in its statement of policies than the. second. Unfortunately, I have no stenographic report of the address delivered at North Bay and I, therefore, read from the Globe report on that occasion. I cannot profess to say whether it is an exactly accurate report or not, but I take it as setting forth substantially the general views I presented at that meeting. It was delivered at North Bay on December 6, 1917:
" When I last visited North Bay, in the early part of the month of May, I spoke to you on the issues of the war, and urged, in view of the critical situation which faced us, that the time had come for compulsory military service, and the formation of a Union or National Government, and that without these Canada could not throw her whole energies into the war. At that time Sir Robert Borden had not proposed either. My presence here as a member of the Government is an evidence that I believed ,u the policies I was advocating. But there are further and other reasons why I am a member of the Union Government.
The vote on the Military Service Bill disclosed what Mr. Bourassa had continuously asserted, that Quebec's attitude towards the war was different from that of the other provinces, for while the members from the other

provinces by an overwhelming majority were in favour of the Military Service Act, members from the province of Quebec were almost a unit against it.
May I say here that it has been charged that I not only slandered the Roman Catholic church but the French Canadian race. No man can point, I challenge any man to point, to any address of mine or any statement that I have made that belittles the position of the French Canadian people of this country. I have too gret t a respect for them, for their history and traditions, and their place in Canadian Confederation to utter any such words. But that does not prevent me from differing from them, if I find myself compelled to differ on conscientious grounds, nor of stating my views on an important national issue.
The attitude of the province of Quebec is not due to any lack of courage or any other fine soldierly qualities on the part of her citizens, for no Canadian troops have fought more brilliantly or successfully than the gallant 22nd Battalion from the province of Quebec.
That is what I said in this North Bay speech which has been so denounced as an attack on the province of Quebec.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Is that all?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, there is more.
What those soldiers have accomplished overseas shows what might have been done had Quebec joined with the other provinces in whole-hearted support of Canada's effort in th-. war. The fine manner in which the French-Canadians of this district-
That is the North Bay district. I was speaking to an audience composed of both English and French Canadians.
-responded to the call to the colours is the best evidence of their willingness to share the burdefis and responsibilities of this war, if the facts are fairly put before them. '
I then believed, as I believe to-day, that if the facts had been fairly and squarely put	before our	fellow	citizens ofthe	province of	Quebec, and had
they realized the magnitude of the issues in this war, they would have just as promptly and cheerfully responded by the thousand as did the English-speaking Canadians. That is my firm conviction.
The present attitude of the province of Quebec may be due to several causes. Undoubtedly the persistent agitation carried on by Mr. Bou-rassa and his Nationalist associates against Great Britain and France and Canada's participation in the war has most powerfully influenced the feeling and attitude of the province of Quebec.
Does any hon. member opposite challenge that statement? I have never seen it chal-

lenged; I believe it to be absolutely true, and I believe it will not be challenged by any responsible person, either English or French Canadian.
And apparently the majority of the cures throughout the province shared his Nationalist, clerical and reactionary attitude.
I have never seen that statement publicly challenged, and I do not think it can be successfully challenged. Do any of my hon. friends opposite challenge it? My hon. friends know that Mr. Bourassa's paper circulates widely .amongst the cures and clergy of the province of Quebec and that the cures and clergy throughout that province are largely supporters of Mr. Bourassa. As regards this statement, the only criticism I have heard is that I did not make it broad enough; that I would have been nearer the exact truth if I had stated "almost all the cures and lesser clergy". Now I come to the point particularly emphasized by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) :
In this attitude they were undoubtedly encouraged and abetted by the members of the religious orders from France, who found an asylum in Canada and used that asylum to undermine Canada's strength in the struggle. It is a misfortune that they did not follow the example of the priests of the Catholic church in France-
I am accused of belittling the work of the priests; I am magnifying the work of the priests.
-who threw themselves into the' struggle of their people to preserve their national existence, and by their courage and sacrifice, won for themselves a new place in the hearts and affections of the French people.
That tribute I paid to the priests of the Roman Catholic church in France, I desire to repeat. Every man who knows the conditions in France, knows that the part the priests of France took in this struggle in France has greatly increased the power and influence of the church in France, because the French people have realized that the church stood with them in the hour of their country's need. The cures and priests went into the trenches with them, fought with them side by side, shared their perils and their triumphs on the field of battle. No one can speak disparagingly of the work of those men at- that time.


Edmond Proulx: Will the minister cite the figures which were given by the hon. member for Russell as to the number of members of each religious order who crossed over and fought?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend simply anticipates the point I am coining to. At

the time I spoke at North Bay I was not aware that the French law of compulsory military service covered members of the French-speaking clergy of military age who had come to Canada, and who remained citizens of France; that they were obligated by this law to return to France for military service; and that those who were physically fit, and were not exempted temporarily or otherwise, did return to France when called by their Government to do so. As I did not know this, I could not specially refer to their service, but my attitude to all who went forth to fight was clearly shown by my reference to the clergy of France. if I had known of the position of these members of the French clergy, I should have paid a tribute to them, but I also should have pointed out how privileged were the clergy under our law of compulsory military service, as compared with that of France, and that this imposed an additional obligation npon them to respond to the call of Canada, and to oppose, and not to support Mr. Bourassa in his attitude toward Canada's participation in the war, an obligation to do all in their power to aid in the prosecution of the war for human freedom, and to support, and not to oppose, our military service law, as the great majority of them were doing. Again I repeat, my references at North Bay were not to the men who had gone forth to fight, but to the men who stayed >at home, men who were in the province of Quebec during the [DOT]war supporting Mr. Bourassa. Had I known that the law of military service had applied to those men and that they had gone forth to fight, I should have paid a tribute to them with greater cheerfulness than I paid the tribute to the French clergy in France.
I regret that the magnificent service of those gallant men who left Canada and went overseas to fight for the cause of liberty in which we were all interested was not emulated by others. I do not question * the figures set out by the hon. gentleman in his speech, as illustrating the part which those men took in the struggle, and I say I regret that their splendid example was not used by him and more of his associates to appeal to others of their own religion, to inspire them to similar service. I have no hesitation in saying that if the general expression I used hurt the feelings of any in that I did not recognize the fine service of the men of whom I did not know, I would be the first to withdraw any such suggestion. I recognize the service they rendered. But when my friends say that I
have attacked the Roman Catholic Church, I say there is no foundation whatever for that statement. Taking the preaching and teaching clergy together, every one knows that the great majority of them were opposed to the law of compulsory military service in the province of Quebec. I do not question their right to be opposed to it, any more than I question the right of the Protestant clergy in Ontario or the Roman Catholic clergy in that province to support it. Indeed, there was no finer supporter of compulsory military service in Ontario than the Roman Catholic Bishop of London, and I did not hesitate upon the platform through the campaign to pay tribute to the splendid service he was rendering Canada. As I say, I do not question the right of the Catholic clergy. I differed from their view on the issue and I set out the issue on that Oocasion fairly, as I believed it to be. May I read to the House my statement as reported in the Globe. Some of my friends on the Government side may not like this statement, but I will repeat it as I said it on that occasion:
As Liberals we have claimed that the surrender in the year 1911 of the Conservative Party in the province of Quebec to this Nationalist-Clerical influence was a grave national blunder, from which we have suffered through the whole period of the war. But the surrender of the Liberal party to-day in the province of Quebec to this same influence, when Canada is at war struggling for her existence is a national calamity, from the baneful consequences of which Canada may suffer for generations and the only hope of averting the .full measure of the calamity is to decisively defeat the effort now being put forth by these influences to dominate the political life of Canada and take Canada out of the war.	*
If Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been twenty years younger I believe he would have fought this sinister influence in the province of Quebec, just as lie did in 1896, and would have triumphed over it.
I was opposed to the Nationalist propaganda in 1911 when Canada was at peace. I am doubly opposed to it to-day, when Canada is at war. The Liberals of Ontario were united in opposition to this Nationalist propaganda in 1911; they should be doubly united in opposing it to-day.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier announced his policy of a referendum Bourassa endorsed it, and gave as a reason for endorsation that it was his policy which he had already advocated. A Nationalist policy is no more palatable to us, even if covered with a Liberal veneer, but it is vastly more dangerous, because, thus disguised, it may secure the support of thousands of honest, sincere, public-spirited Liberals throughout Canada who would repudiate it and fight it to the end if it were naked and undisguised nationalism.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House to read the rest of my North Bay address, but I shall read the closing paragraph:


Robert Lorne Richardson: They are proud of it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They feel that they rendered Canada a service in the most critical period in. the country's history, and I venture one more prediction, Mr. Speaker. When the history of this period comes to be written, the noblest chapter in the annals of the Liberal party throughout this time will be the fact that in the face of a grave national crisis they put the country's interests before those of their party; they stood for Canada, they stood for the cause for which Canada was fighting, for the gallant men overseas who were pouring out their life's blood to preserve our homes and liberties and the liberties of all mankind. They helped to save Confederation and they made their contribution to the limit of their ability to help *win ,this war for Canada and democracy.


James Alexander Robb: In the few moments that remain before six o'clock I desire to make a short review of the speech of the hon. minister, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). Whatever may be thought of the acrobatic feats of our hon. friend, no person will contend that he is a man who rushes quickly to conclusions. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), at the first session of this Parliament, made certain charges and statements against the President of the Privy Council.
Since that - time both hon. gentlemen have faced each other in this House day after day. No reference was made by the. President of the Privy Council to the charges of the hon. member for Russell, while that hon. gentleman was in his seat, and no attempt was made to reply to them. Eighteen months afterwards, when the hon. member for Russell is out of the country, sick, the President of the Privy Council takes advantage of the opportunity, in the closing hours of this debate, to make an attempt to reply to the charges of the hon. member for Russell. I shall leave it to the President of the Privy Council and the member for Russell to settle their own personal quarrel.

What I rose more particularly for was to congratulate the President of the Privy Council upon his change of heart as regards the people of the province of Quebec. Like the hon. gentleman I desire unity throughout this country, and I only wish that he had had at heart, at the time of the election in 1917, the same thoughts that he has expressed to-day. No person took a larger share in organizing the forces of the Union Government party in Ontario during the election of 1917 than did the President of the Privy Council. Indeed, we are told that he had charge of the campaign in Ontario, that he had charge of the advertising. .


Newton Wesley Rowell: In order that my hon.
friend may not be under a misapprehension, I may say that his information is quite inaccurate. I was speaking throughout the country. I had charge neither of the organization nor of the advertising.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will not
deny participation in the organization of those who took charge of the advertising for the Union Government party in Ontario, in the election of 1917? I am sure my hon. friend will not go that far.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; as a matter of information, I did not have anything to do with the organization of those who arranged for the advertising. I was spending my time throughout the campaign speaking on platforms from one end of Ontario to the [DOT]other.


James Alexander Robb: While my hon. friend was speaking for the Union Government party throughout the province of Ontario and in different parts of the country the Union party also had an organization centred in Toronto which was putting out advertising, preparing set speeches for speakers, and sending out circular letters to the clergy. My hon. friend must not forget when he attacks the Roman Catholic priests of the province of Quebec, that there was another set of clericals which was equally active in the campaign of 1917. I hold in my hand a copy of the Presbyterian and Westminster issued on December 13, 1917. At page 569 of that journal there is a paid advertisement of the Union Government party. I will not read all of the advertisement, but having in mind the statement just made by the President of the Privy Council as regards his desire to promote unity throughout this country and his admiration for the French Canadians and the part they took in the war, I wish to read a 26
couple of paragraphs from this advertisement:	*
There is only one issue-shall we continue to fight, or slink from the field-saying, as the French-Canadians are saying, " We have done
enough."	If Laurier wins there will be
no necessity for a Referendum. This election is the Referendum	Support Union Government.
Then at page 573-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


James Alexander Robb: I have only a few minutes and I want to get through before six.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would just like to ask the hon. gentleman a question now.


James Alexander Robb: At page 573 of the same Journal we find this advertisement:
The man is a slanderer who says that the farmers of Ontario will vote with Bourassas, pro-Germans, suppressors of free speech and slackers.
At the same time that they were putting out this advertisement to the farmers of On-ario there was another organization in Toronto sending out telegrams by the thousand, a sample of which I hold in my hand, telling them that their boys would be exempted from military service because they were required for agricultural work. At page 575 of the same journal we have another advertisement reading as follows:
Is a united Quebec to rule all Canada?
Germany benefits by division among her enemies. Upon whom would she look in Canada as furthering her designs? Not Sir Robert Borden, Mr. Rowell and their colleagues in the Union Government.
We, therefore, call upon all English-speaking men and women to realize that-Canada, divided 'by political factions and old-time party questions, is at the mercy of a united Quebec. Union Government alone can save Canada from the menace of French-Canadian domination.
That is the sort of stuff that the President of the Privy Council was putting out in 1917. That is the way he was attempting to bring unity throughout all the provinces of Canada. He was putting out telegrams to the farmers of his own province telling them that their sons would be exempted and appealing to them to vote to compel the French people of Quebec to go to war. That was the kind of campaign that was carried on in 1917.
In the closing days of this debate, and after the signing of the Peace Treaty, I regret exceedingly to open up these old sores, but I hope that when the campaign comes-and I can see from the speech of the President of the Privy Council
NOLLiaa (33SIA3H

that he is preparing for another campaign-he will get down to the' facts presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), leave out sectionalism, devote his energies to the great problems of the day and try to reduce the high cost of living. You will never reduce the high cost of living by sending out a paid profiteer who, before the war, had a very small salary and who, to-day, we are told, is doing very well under this Union Government-sending out a gentleman like Mr. O'Connor who makes the statement to the farmers of this country that if they put up the price of their milk to what it is worth in the United States he will fine them $1,000 and put them in jail for a year. That is not the way to increase production in this country. That is not the way to reduce the high cost of living. If the President of the Privy Council and his associates will look about them they will find that milch cows are going out of this country by the car load. Why? Because there is an agitation to keep down the price of dairy products in this country. These products are worth more in the United States, and if the farmers cannot sell their products at a reasonable price in their own country the milch cow is going. The people in the cities who are carrying on this campaign through the newspapers are going to pay more for their product than they have been paying. They are the people who are responsible, because of the campaign they are carrying on, for discouraging production throughout the agricultural districts of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	*
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty it was ordered that the Address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.
At six o'clock the House adjourned
Thursday, September 18, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for Motions:
Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hearts of all the members of this House have gone out in sincere sympathy to our 
friend and colleague Sir George Foster, on learning of the very sad and irreparable bereavement that has come to him. I know that this House will feel that it is fitting that it should give some expression of its sympathy. We all realize how utterly inadequate any expression of sympathy must be if looked at as consolation for such a loss as that which our colleague has sustained. But at the same time I feel that the House will agree with me when I say that, in so far as any expression on our part may serve, if not to console, at least to bring to our colleague, in his sorrow the assurance that it is our profound desire, if it were in our power, to offer him consolation, it is fitting that we should tender him that expression.
T't would perhaps not be proper that I should allow myself to say any word in regard to the lady who during so many years has been the helpmeet of our distinguished colleague. Those of us who have
known her

and no doubt all of us havehave learned to admire the estimable lady who went about quietly doing good, interesting herself in so many things that contribute to the uplift of our people and who did not spare herself in the direction of giving aid in the course of the recent war, doing everything within her power to assist those who were engaged in various activities and those who suffered as a result of the war.
Of our colleague himself I do not purpose to say anything. He is the father of this House in years of service here. We have-all come to look upon him with respect, to appreciate his personal qualities and to regard him as in very truth a father to us, the members of this House.
I beg to move, as a tribute of respect to our colleague and of sympathy with him in his great loss, that when this House adjourns this evening it do stand adjourned' until four o'clock to-morrow afternoon, inorder that we, the members of this House, may be permitted to pay the last tribute of respect to the spouse of our colleague and thereby express our sympathy with him, in his irreparable bereavement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I concur at once in everything that has been so fittingly said by the hon. the acting leader of the Government (Mr. Doherty) with respect to our esteemed colleague, the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and I also agree fully with

what 'he has so appropriately said about Lady Foster who has passed away. The acting leader of the Government has so well expressed our sympathy with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and our respect for the departed, that all I can add, Sir, is to express my entire concurrence in what he has said and in the motion which he has made, which motion I beg to second. I know that in doing so I act in accordance with the wish of every hon. member on this side of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: With the consent of the House it has been moved by Hon. Mr. Doherty, seconded by Mr. McKenzie:
That as a tribute of respect and an expression of our sympathy with the Right Honourable Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, when this House adjourns to-day, it stand adjourned until four o'clock to-morrow afternoon, in order to enable the members of the House to attend the funeral of the late Lady Foster.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government, during the present session, to introduce a general amendment to The Military Service Act, 1917, in favour of defaulters throughout Canada?
2.	Does the Government intend ordering a cessation of the hunt for defaulters, and thereby put an end to heavy expenditures and to a shameful excess of zeal in connection with the enforcement of the said Military Service Act in regard to those who failed to report for obligatory service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: :
1.	Announcement of any policy decided on will be made in due course.
2.	Answered by number 1.


Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been directed to a resolution which has recently been passed by the Municipal Council of the City of Montreal, and which in effect is as follows:
"Whereas the war has ended, and enlistments of men in Canada have stopped;
"Whereas certain countries, more particularly that of France, have shown themselves rather lenient towards those who frustrated the Act relating to military service;
'Whereas Canada, in its status of a (British colony, has nobly done its duty towards the Mother Country ;
'Whereas His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will do us the honour of visiting our city for a few days in the month of October;
'iBe it resolved:
26 i
"That His Royal Highness be respectfully approached upon the occasion of his visit to the metropolis of Canada, and entreated with a view to obtaining an amnesty in favour of those who, by failing to enlist, did not conform to the provisions of the Act respecting military service; also that the penalty which the tribunals imposed as to fines, be revoked and that the said fines be remitted."
2.	If so, will the said resolution receive the approbation of the Government?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by number 1.


ST. IMALO SHOPS.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Have the St. Malo shops, in the city ol Quebec, been opened? If so, since when?
2.	How many employees are at present working in said shops?
3.	What are the names, addresses and respective calling of each?
4.	What are the names, calling and previous address of the superintendent and foremen employed In said shops?
5.	How many members of the executive and office staff have been transferred to St. Malo shops from Moncton and elsewhere?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The passenger ear shop has, the locomotive shop has not yet opened but is being prepared. Passenger car repairs started June 1.
2.	On September 2nd there were about 220 men. 100 of these on permanent work and the balance preparing shops for occupation.
3 and 4. Name, H. Byford, position, passenger car shop assistant foreman, profession, assistant foreman painter; name, G. Fred Knight, position, shops' superintendent, profession, mechanical engineer, former address, Moncton, N.B.; name, J. S. Jackson, position, passenger car shop foreman, profession, passenger car shop foreman, former address, Limoilou; name, J. Sutton, position, passenger car shop assistant foreman, profession, leading carpenter, former address, Limoilou; name, C. Blackshaw, position, passenger car shop foreman, profession, leading pipe fitter, former address, Limoilou; name, P. Nolan, position, forge shop assistant foreman, profession, forge shop foreman, former address, Toronto; name, F. S. Mackasey, position, equipment assistant foreman, profession, machinist, former address, Moncton. In addition to the above the following foremen are here temporarily on construction and not under shops superintendent:	G. P. Thomas,
regular electrical foreman on construction work, C.N.R. Eastern lines, Toronto; G. Legard, regular B. & B. district foreman, Quebec; A. St. Laurent, special B. & B. foreman, Quebec.

5. The only permanent Canadian National Railway employees on executive or office staff transferred from Moncton or elsewhere to these shops are as follows:
1,	Shops superintendent, Moncton; 2, chief clerk, Joffre; 1, clerk, River du Loup; 1, stenographer, Moncton; 1, temporary draughtsman, Halifax; 1, temporary draughtsman, Amherst; 1, draughtsman, Chester; 1, assistant foreman, Moncton; 1, assistant foreman, Toronto; 1, foreman (from Limoilou shop), Quebec; 3, assistant foremen (from Limoilou shop), Quebec.


REPAIRS ON CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Has a contract been entered into for the repairs on Canadian National railway line between Cap Rouge and Portneuf?
2.	If so, when was said contract signed and by whom?
3.	Have many tenders been received for said work? If so, how many, what are the names of the various tenderers and the amount of each tender?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer and what was the price of the tender?
5.	In what length of time must the completion of the works take place?


John Dowsley Reid: 
ENEMY ALIENS INTERNED.
Mr. EULER:: 1.	How many enemy aliens are still interned in Canada?
2.	How many enemy aliens were interned after the signing of the armistice?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to make early disposition of the interned enemy aliens in Canada?
4.	When may their release or repatriation be expected?
fMr. J. D. Reid.]
5.	May a British subject, being a naturalized citizen of New Zealand, of German origin, be interned in Canada?
6.	May he be deported to Germany?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	847.	'
2.	91.
3.	Yes. 1,414 have already been repatriated.
4.	Sundry releases are now under consideration. The next repatriation will probably be in October if a ship be available.
5 and 6. The answers must depend upon facts of the particular case.


RAILWAY PROVIDENT FUND.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Has the Honourable the Minister of Railways communicated with the officers in charge of the Railway Employees Provident Fund with a view of reaching a final conclusion towards the granting of an increase of pension so far as the superannuated employees of the Canadian National Railways are concerned?
2.	If so, what action has been decided upon?
3.	If not, when does the Government propose to take action respecting those superannuated employees whose present pension allowance is inadequate, if one takes into account the present high cost of living?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole question of pensions on Government owned and controlled railways, is now under consideration, but in view of negotiations towards the acquisition of additional lines, a final decision cannot be reached for some time.


WAR SERVICE GRATUITY.
Charles Gavan Power: Is it the custom in granting war service gratuity to former staff officers, to allot moneys to them at the rate of their staff pay?
Major-General MEWBURN:	Yes, all
staff or regimental officers are paid war service gratuity at the rate of pay of which they were in receipt at the time of retirement and as shown on last pay certificate.


EAST TRACADIE LOBSTER HATCHERY.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Were tenders asked for supplying coal to the lobster hatchery at East Tracadie, N.S., in 1917 and 1918?
2.	If so, what were the names and addresses of the various tenderers and the amount of each
tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and at what price?
4.	How many tons were purchased?
5.	How many tons were on hand when the hatchery ceased operations?
6.	Has the coal on hand been sold? If so, to whom and at what price?

Major-General MEWBURN:
1. Tenders were obtained locally by the officer in charge for the supply required in 1917; no supply was required in 1918.
2	and 3. Edward Haley, Antigonish, N.S.. was the only tenderer and was awarded the contract at $7.95 per ton for the coal delivered in the hatchery.
4.	Forty tons.
5.	Thirty-five tons.
6.	Every endeavour was made to dispose of this coal to the best possible advantage. The Nova Scotia Provincial Fuel Controller was approached, as were also three coal dealers in Antigonish, N.S., and also other departments of the Government. Owing to the difficulty of removal, the best quotation for its disposal was received from Edward Haley, Antigonish, N.S., at $2 per ton in the hatchery.


BAMFIELD LIFE-SAVING STATION.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is the following statement contained In the Vancouver Daily Province of 3rd September, 1919, true, in so far as it relates to the closing of the Bamfield life-saving station?
"To Cease Life-Saving."
"When the steamer Valencia was sunk off the west coast of Vancouver Island in January, 1906, the distressing event drew attention to dangers lying in wait on that jagged rocky coast for mariners. Officials and Governments got busy, and large amounts were spent on the west coast road and on the Bamfield life-saving station. It is now understood from provincial and Dominion authorities that this highly necessary life-saving station is to he closed. The power boat which has hitherto been kept in readiness at Bamfield is lto he removed. The purpose now is to have only one life boat on the entire west coast of Vancouver Island, which will be 'Stationed at Tofino.
2.	If this station is to be closed has the Government given due consideration to the possible serious consequence in loss of life?
3.	Is the Government fully aware of the exceedingly dangerous character of the west coast of Vancouver Island, also of the distances and difficulties of serving that coast from only one point?
4.	Is the Government aware of the constantly increasing number of fishing and coastal vessels plying on the west coast and the consequent increasing necessity for lifesaving stations?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	It is not the intention of the Government to close the Bamfield life-saving station.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3	and 4. The Government is aware of the conditions existing in this regard on the west coast of Vancouver Island.


FINES PAID BY M. S. A. DEFAULTERS.
Edmund William Tobin: *	1	*	* ,
1.	Are the fines imposed throughout Canada upon defaulters under the Military Service Act paid into the treasury of Canada or that of the provinces in which they are imposed?
2.	How much anoney has been received from this source to date?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The fines are generally paid into the Receiver General of Canada. In certain cases, however, payment has been withheld and in such cases steps are being taken to compel payment to the Receiver General.
2.	Up to September 15, 1919, the sum of $238,893.77.


MILITARY PENALTIES.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that in the districts of Bedford and St. Francis, the terms of the Order in 'Council concerning the punishment of military defaulters are strictly adhered to by the local magistrates, the minimum fines imposed being $250 with an alternative of three months' imprisonment?
2.	Is the Government aware that in the District of Montreal and elsewhere, the terms of the Order in 'Council are disregarded and defaulters are being condemned to the payment of fines of $25 and even less in some cases?
3.	If so, what steps are being taken to secure even justice for all defaulters under the Military Service Act?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	When was the Steamer Hazen, a Government owned icebreaker, disposed of to Russia?
2.	If so, upon what terms or stipulations was the said icebreaker disposed of?
3.	Will the said icebreaker be returned to the Canadian Government? If so, when?
4.	If not, does the 'Government intend to build another icebreaker, as promised, in order to facilitate winter navigation in the lower St. Lawrence?
[DOT]5. Have the Canadian delegates at the Peace [DOT]Conference insisted upon having the . said icebreaker, the Hazen, returned to Canada?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	His Majesty's Government were advised on February 26, 1916, that the Canadian Government would agree to transfer the vessel to the Russian Government.
2.	The icebreaker, in its then unfinished condition was, on the request of His

Majesty's Government, transferred to the Russian Government, the consideration being that the total amount expended by the Canadian Government on the construction of the vessel should be refunded.
3.	In so far as the Government is aware the further disposition of the vessel rests with the Russian authorities.
4.	Under consideration.
5.	The Government having received payment in full for the vessel the delegates to * the Peace Conference did not insist on the .return of the vessel.


DAY OF CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has an increase of pay been granted to the men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force by an Order in Council of April 12, 1919?
-	2. If so, has this increase been made applicable to the OJM.IF.C.?
3.	If not, why?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1. As far as N. 0. O's. and men are concerned, P. 0. 809 merely equalizes for Canada the rates of pay paid overseas, and makes these rates of pay applicable to Medical and Dental Services.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
canteen funds.


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Has the Canadian Government claimed any share of the proceeds from' the British Expeditionary Force canteen funds in France?
2.	If so, how have these funds been disposed of?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2. This information is not available in Canada, but a cable h'as been sent to the Overseas Ministry asking for the same.


AUDITING OF REGIMENTAL FUNDS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Have the regimental funds of the battalions in Canadian Expeditionary Forces ever been audited?
2.	Are there any moneys remaining?
3.	If so, what is the amount due to each battalion?
4.	What are the intentions of the Government with regard to the disposition thereof?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes, both in Canada and overseas.
2,	3 and 4. All moneys thus received have been placed by each unit concerned in the hands of a regimental board of trustees to be administered by them for the benefit of the men belonging to such units.
All other funds of other units or institutions for which trustees have not been appointed are being deposited to the credit of the Receiver General to a special account.

Any claims submitted against such funds will be dealt with by Order in Council in each case and charged to the special account.
It is impossible to state, at this date, what will be the amount involved.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
* Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:
1.	What was the total number of men who joined the Expeditionary Force for service in Siberia?
2.	How many of such number voluntarily enlisted for service in Siberia?
3.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not a considerable number of members of such Expeditionary Force were made to embark at Victoria, B.C., by compulsion and with the point of the bayonet directed at them?
4.	Is the Government aware as to whether c
not certain members of such Expeditionary-Force who had not voluntarily enlisted for service in Siberia were courtmartialed and sentenced to hard labour? If so, who are such members and what was the nature of the sentence?	-
5.	What is the cost to the Government of the Expeditionary Force for service in Siberia?

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Joseph Doherty: I now have the information for which the leader of the Opposition asked the other day with regard to the purchases made by the Roumanian Government and the credit extended to it:
Under an agreement entered into on the 12th day of April, 1919, between Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, acting in behalf of His .Majesty the King for the Government of the Dominion of Canada and I. I. c. Brattano, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs representing the Government of the Kingdom of Roumania, it was agreed that the Government of the Dominion of Canada should extend a credit to the Government of the Kingdom of Roumania for a sum not exceeding twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000).

This agreement was confirmed by Order in [DOT]Council P.C. 834, April 17, 1919.
To date the Dominion Government has made advances totalling $6,353,600.
Bonds of the Government of Roumania for full amount of credit have been deposited with the Bank of Montreal, London, England, on behalf of the Dominion Government.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL


Charles Joseph Doherty: With the consent [DOT]of the House, in view of the urgency of the Bill which is on the Order Paper under Government Orders, dealing with the question of soldiers' civil re-establishment, I beg leave to move that the House do now proceed to take up Government Orders, with a view to considering that Bill, subject to our reverting afterwards to the regular order and affording opportunity to deal with the measures there mentioned.


Georges Henri Boivin: This motion can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House.
The House gave unanimous consent.
On the Order for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act.'-Hon. Mr. Rowell.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to speak against the principle of the Bill, but I think the House ought to have some enlightenment with respect to the amendments which are now being proposed by the President of the Privy Council. The Bill provides, in section 5 (e), that the minister shall have the management and control of all matters relating to the re-establishment in civil life of all persons who have served in the naval and military forces of His Majesty, etc., and there is a long list of Orders in Council, following the practice adopted during the war, and which we had a right to expect had been discontinued, giving the Governor in Council power to do almost everything. The House is also entitled to receive some specific information from the minister why powers have been granted to the officers who, under the Act, may be appointed either in tne Senate or in the House of Commons, to' represent the department besides the President of the Privy Council himself.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House, the second reading of
which I have the honour to move, is by way of amendment to the existing Act creating the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment. In the session of 1918 legislation was passed creating this department and giving the minister charge of all matters relating to the re-establishment of our soldiers in civil life. The definition of. the classes of men to whom the Act applies has been made under an Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act.
The allowances which are paid to these men if they were, undergoing treatment. in the hospitals operated toy the Commission are also defined by these Orders, in Council. If the ex-soldiers are taking vocational training in the institutions established by the Commission, or in which wcrk is carried on under the authority of the Commission, the pay and allowances of such ex-soldi erS' during the period of training are fixed by these Orders in Council.
Then as hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are in Canada a very substantial number of men who were residents here when the war broke out, but were either reservists in the Imperial Army, or enlisted in some branch of the Imperial service and went overseas to serve in the army of Great Britain. Many of them have now returned to this country and are [DOT] back in civil life again. On the other hand^. a number of our men, Canadians either by birth or by residence, who sewed in our expeditionary force,' remained overseas and took their discharge in England.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the
minister to say they have taken or have not taken their discharge?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 

OUMMUJNS

[Stage Direction]
reciprocal arrangements are feeing worked out whereby the Government of Canada, through the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, will act for the Imperial Government in giving the necessary training or medical treatment to soldiers who formed a part of the British army; and, on the other hand, the British Government through its proper administrative branch, will give corresponding care to soldiers who served in our army and took their discharge in Great Britain.
The same situation exists as between Canada and the United States. A very substantial number of Canadians, residents of the United States, responded to the call and enlisted in the Canadian forces and fought side by side with our men. There are also in Canada a number of Americans by birth who were called up or enlisted in the American army and fought with that army in France and have now returned to settle in the Dominion. Here, again, a reciprocal arrangement has been worked out between the Government of the United States and the Canadian Government whereby Canadians wha fought in our Expeditionary Force, but who are residing in the United States, will be looked after by me proper department of the American Government, we in turn looking after, through the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, American soldiers who are residing in Canada.
Jacques Bureau: That includes residents -before enrolment?
Mr. ROWEiLL: Residents at the time of enrolment, I believe, although under the reciprocal arrangement it would not make much difference, because the expense is to be borne by the country which is responsible for its own soldiers'. In other words, we will be recouped all expenses we are put to in looking after American soldiers in Canada, and the American Government will be recouped all expenses they are put to in looking after Canadian soldiers in the United States; and the same arrangement will apply as between Canada and Great Britain. Negotiations are now under way for a similar reciprocal arrangement between Canada and France, Australia and New Zealand, and it is anticipated that an understanding will be arrived at with those countries. I mention these matters because in this particular it is absolutely necessary that there should be legislative authority to enable the department to enter into and carry out these reciprocal arrangements and to make the necessary expenditures; our existing legislation is not adequate for the purpose.

Before proceeding to review more in detail the general provisions of the Bill and to give the reasons why the legislation is necessary, may I be permitted for a few minutes to draw the attention of the House to the important character of the work that is being carried on by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment? I am sure hon. members will realize that no more important or responsible task can face the Government than that of endeavouring to bring back into civil life at the earliest practical date and with the minimum of industrial or economic disturbance the men who have fought so gallantly in our forces
men drawn from civilian life and who now desire to return to civilian life-and to bring them back under conditions as advantageous to them as possible. I am sure we all agree that it is not only in the interests of the soldiers themselves, but in the interests of Canada as a whole that they should get back into civilian life without delay. It is the desire of an overwhelming mass of the men themselves that they should get back into civilian life at the earliest practical date and form part of the producing forces of the country, because during the period through which we are passing one of the most vital factors in our ability to bear the burdens which the war has imposed upon us is the productive power of the nation.
The work of the department may be divided into four branches. So far as the care of the widows and dependents of the fallen are concerned, they are looked after by the pension law which was passed last session, and which is administered by the Board of Pension Commissioners. While that board is attached to the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, it exercises its own authority and jurisdiction under the legislation passed by this House last session, and the Government has no control over its decisions. But not only must the widows and dependents of our fallen soldiers be cared for, but also those who are wholly or partially disabled by reason of war service, and those who are suffering from wounds or disease likely to involve protracted illillness, or from disease which is incurable. All such are discharged from the army as soon as possible and pass under the care of the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment. The department, therefore, has to provide the necessary hospitals and appropriate treatment to care for men of this class. One of the most important

branches of the work of the department is the vocational training.
In the case of those who come back from the front either wholly or partially disabled through wounds or disease due to or aggravated by service and are prevented from pursuing their pre-war occupations, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment undertakes- to give vocational training to lit them for some other useful occupation.
Another branch of the work relates to securing employment for the soldier who is physically lit. A man who has been discharged from the army desires to secure employment in some useful occupation, but having been away at the front, and there being no opportunity immediately available, he requires the cooperation and assistance of some branch or department of the Government. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment co-operates with the Dominion Labour Bureaux and with such organizations as tne various provincial governments have established in an effort to secure suitable employment for discharged soldiers. In every one of the Dominion Employment Bureaux throughout Canada the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment has an officer whose special duty it is to meet, give information to, and assist all returned soldiers who may go to that office to secure employment for which they are qualified and which they desire to undertake.
In general terms I have now outlined the character of the work carried on by this department. May I indicate a little more in detail what has been accomplished in connection with the different branches of the work?
Take, first, medical treatment. I have referred to the incurable cases or the cases of protracted illness. In all such cases the pay and allowances which the men had been enjoying in the army are continued during the whole period of his illness until his recovery. If he is totally incapacitated from any disease-in the case of insanity there is some special provision as to pay-[DOT] from which he cannot recover and if he is quite incapable of looking after himself, as an insane person would be, he becomes the ward of the nation; the State takes charge of him until his dying day. Provision is made for him and for his dependents. If is is a tubercular case requiring more or less protracted treatment, the State accepts the responsibility of caring for him until he recovers, if possible, or
until he dies, if he is beyond recovery. The pay and allowances continue not only for the man but for his dependents also during the whole period that he is under treatment by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment.
I am sure that the House will be'interested in learning something of the extent, of this medical work. The number of patients receiving treatment in September 1918 was approximately 1,150. The number of patients treated during the week ending September 6, 1919, was 12,230. This shows the great expansion of this branch of the work. The hospitals operated by the Department for general treatment is 19, and the number of general treatment hospitals with which the department has made arrangements for treating patients is 16. The number of tuberculosis sanitoria operated by the department is 11 and the number of tuberculosis sanitoria with which the department has made arrangements for treatment is 12. This makes a total of 58 hospitals or institutions either directly operated by the department or with which the department has made arrangements- for the medical care and treatment of patients under their charge.


Peter McGibbon: In the case of insane patients who need special treatment-that is, special nurses to look after them on account of the violent nature of their trouble-does the Government bear all the expense?


Newton Wesley Rowell: To answer that question I should have to refer to the Order in Council covering the matter. I shall come to that later.
In addition to the provision for the totally incapacitated and for those whose illness is likely to be protracted, the department accepts responsibility for the medical treatment of all those whose illness is due to or aggravated by service; and that obligation continues during the whole life of the ex-soldier. He may undergo treatment and may be cured, so far as cure is possible, and be discharged from the hospital. But if illness occurs one year, five years or ten years thereafter, due to or aggravated by his service in the field, he becomes entitled to be re-admitted to an institution under the charge of the department, and so long as he continues to undergo treatment he is entitled to the pay and allowances which he enjoyed in the army, as well as to free medical care and treatment. Let me make the position clear. The Government has undertaken to provide that every man who has served in the

Canadian forces and who suffers at any period of his life from disease or disability contracted or aggravated by service in the field shall have free medical treatment, and that during the period of his illness, no matter when it occurs, he shall receive the same pay and allowances to provide for himself and family as he would have received had he continued in the army.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Suppose a man is drawing a pension, and that in connection with the injury for which he draws pension some complication arises and he comes back under the care of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment and draws the pay and allowances which pertained to his rank when he left the service, do I understand that he drops his pension during that period ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In effect, yes, depending on the conditions. Probably the pay and allowances would be in excess of the pension, in which case the pension would be credited on the pay and allowances, and the man would be paid simply the surplus over and above the amount of the pension.


William Antrobus Griesbach: He receives the larger amount in any case?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes,'if the pension is in excess of the pay and allowances, then he receives the pension.
The department has also accepted responsibility for the medical care and treatment of every soldier Who served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, for one year after his discharge, no matter from what cause the illness may ensue. In other words, it is recognized that the men who served overseas and who came back not suffering from any disease or from any physical injury, have in many cases been compelled to undergo such a strain and subject themselves to such hardship that their resisting power to disease is more or less weakened for some period after their return.
So the department accepts full responsibility for medical care and treatment for one year after the discharge of the soldier, but in that case the soldier does not receive pay and allowance; he receives simply free medical treatment.


Donald Sutherland: Will that be made retroactive in cases of those who have not received it in the past?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not remember the date when the Order in Council came into operation or the terms of it, but that is the general law governing the matter at the [-Mr. Rowell.]
present time. I think it came into operation the first of the present year. Whether. it would be retroactive or not would depend upon the terms of the Order in Council. I find the Order in Council was passed on the 24th February, 1919, and it would apply from that date.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: W7ould the minister mind reciting the terms of the Order in Council covering that point which he has just explained?


Newton Wesley Rowell: (Reading):
The question of providing re-treatment for former members of the forces in cases where the disability is not clearly due to service, has. been considered by the department, and the following ruling has been made:-
When any ex-soldier applies for re-treatment, and it is questionable whether his disability is due to, or aggravated by service, the Unit Medical Director should give the ex-soldier the . benefit of the doubt, if in his opinion, the general resistive power of the ex-soldier against disease has been lowered by war service to such a degree that it has induced the disability from which he suffers when he presents himself for re-treatment.
That was the ruling made under the prior Order in Council. Then this Order in Council recites:
That on the return of the member of the forces from overseas, it has been found in many cases that there is a lowered physical resistance, which sometimes results in a disability not directly attributable to war service, but which undoubtedly is indirectly caused thereby. It is considered that this lowered resistance will prevail for some time after the retirement or discharge of the former member of the forces and that the department should be empowered to grant treatment and medicines only, to all former members of the forces who fall i'll during the twelve months following the date of their retirement or discharge, when such treatment or medicine is not caused by a war disability.
The actual clause in the Order in Council concerning the matter is revised, clause (b) of paragraph 1:
Any former member of the forces resident in Canada who, within twelve months after retirement or discharge from the forces or if he has been transferred to the department by the Department of Militia and Defence, or the Department of the Naval Service, for further continuance of treatment, within twelve months of the completion of such treatment requires medical or surgical treatment for a disability which is not due to or aggravated by service, shall be entitled to such medical or surgical treatment, provided that such disability is not due to vice or misconduct on the part of such former member of the forces, and that it shall be competent for a medical officer of the department to decide whether such disability is or is not due to such vice or misconduct; and provided also that the granting of such treatment shall not entitle such former member of the forces to receive pay and allowances from the department, nor shall it be deemed in any way

to entitle him to pension in respect of any disability not due to or aggravated by service.
That answers the question of my hon. friend. In addition to the foregoing, provision has been made for medical treatment by means of outdoor clinics in those centres where there are a sufficient number of discharged soldiers who may require treatment to justify the establishment of those outdoor clinics, and any soldier coming within the provisions of the Order in Council, who is entitled to treatment, may receive treatment readily at those places. If a soldier is too far away so that he cannot attend to receive medical treatment without loss of time, provision is made to pay his expenses and an allowance is given for the time he must spend in attending to receive treatment. The desire of the Government in the matter is that every facility should be provided in order to ensure that every returned soldier shall have the medical attention which he requires, even if his illness be not due to war service, for one year after discharge, if due to or 'aggravated by war service, through the whole period of his life.
The House will appreciate the magnitude of the work which has been carried on. When I point out that the amount paid for the month ending the 31st July in pay and allowances ito ex-soldiers receiving treatment under the conditions I have mentioned, was no less a sum than $413,261. In other words, the Government is paying out, in pay and allowances to ex-soldiers and their dependents who are undergoing treatment in the hospitals under the charge of this department, a sum of approximately $5,000,000 a year. Of course, in the earlier months of the present year the amount was not so large; but owing to rapid demobilization and the bringing over from England of those who -are in the hospitals there, the amounts may be increased during the latter months of the year.


William Antrobus Griesbach: With respect to points that are some three hundred miles away from an established centre-I have in mind Peace River in Alberta, 300 miles away from Edmonton-is there any proposal in the mind of the minister for provision for medical men to render assistance to soldiers so as to prevent a man from having to come in that distance for medical treatment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I must admit that I am not aide at 'the present time to answer my hon. friend's question, but I shall be glad to get the information for him. I do not know just what the provision is in such a oase.


Jacques Bureau: From what the minister states, it seems to me that it is going to be a merging between civil re-establishment and pensions. Last year we passed an Act pioviding for the support of disabled men and dependents. I understand now the same men are going to get under this civil re-establishment or the Orders in Council or the regulations which are being made, some more money and their dependents also are to be taken care of by the State. Where does the parting come in between the two Acts?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The point of severance is this. If a man is undergoing treatment for an illness which is likely to be protracted but which is of such a character that he could receive treatment at home as well as in a hospital under the charge of the department, and if it is probable that his illness will not be cured within a reasonable time, he may be discharged from the hospital and in that case awarded his pension, and he would then be dependent upon his pension for the support of himself and his family. If, however, his condition became such that he required to return to the hospital for treatment, he would then become entitled to be restored to the position of receiving pay and allowances. If his pension were less than- the pay and allowances, it would be credited on account of the pay and allowance, and he would receive simply the additional amount over the pension to make up the amount which he would have received if still in the army.
If his pension is more than the pay and allowances, he would continue to draw his pension and receive treatment in the hospital. That is a case where the work of the Pensions Board and of the department compliment each other.
Mr. BUREAU.: They touch pretty close. The line of severance is not very clear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is pretty close. It has to be worked out in a practical way as best it can be done, in dealing with a more or less difficult situation.
The Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment provides vocational training for any member of the forces, who is so disabled through war service that he cannot carry on his pre-war occupation, so as to fit him for some other useful occupation. During the time he is taking re-training he becomes entitled to the pay and allowances set forth in the Order in Council, which does not differ very materially from the pay and allowances he received while a soldier in the army. Hon. members will

recall that during last session, the question was raised in the House whether special provision should not be made for the young men under eighteen years of age who enlisted and served in our army overseas. They were not liable to be called up under our Militia Act or under our Military Service Act. They were under military age, but they were accepted and served overseas. The Government decided that these boys were entitled to exceptional treatment, and therefore all who enlisted under the age of eighteen years become entitled to the benefits of re-training, or other training in some useful occupation on the same basis as a disabled soldier, with this one qualification, that while the schedule of allowances is the same, if the department on investigation finds that the young man does not need this allowance, if his parents are in a good position and well able to give him the necessary training, the department is empowered not to grant pay and allowances That is the only respect in which the pay and allowances granted to the boys under eighteen differs from the pay and allowances granted to the disabled soldier.


Peter McGibbon: Did the Government consider extending the advantages of the vocational training to a still wider field?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The matter has been considered by the Government, but up to date the Government has not seen its way clear to extend it further, but that is a proper question for the committee which I intend asking the House to appoint to consider. There are the two classes: vocational training for the men wholly or partially disabled from pursuing their pre-war occupation, and for the boys who enlisted under eighteen years of age.
In many cases this vocational training is started before the man leaves the hospital. When a man comes back from England and is in the hospital for treatment, if he is physically fit to commence his retraining, it is commenced in the hospital to the extent of his capacity to undertake it. It has been part of the policy of the Department,-and in that respect- the policy is in entire agreement with the views of the Great War Veterans' Association,-to g'-v? these young men the privilege of taking their retraining as an apprentice in an actual factory or shop, so far as practicable, so that they will learn how to do the work by actually doing it. A substantial number are receiving their training in this way.
The number of men receiving re-lraming on August 31 of the present year was 11,134. 
The total number who had completed their course of training at that time was 5,955. The House will be interested in knowing how far the men who have received their re-training have taken advantage o: it- by engaging in seme useful occupation for which they have been trained. Of the total number who had been trained up to 'list August last 67.94 per cent were employed in the occupations for which they had been trained; 22.26 per cent had sought employment in some other occupation. The total number who have taken their places as civilian wage-earners after re-4 p.m. eeiving restraining was 90.20 per cent. Of the remainder 3.23 per cent were sick, .83 per cent had died, and 5.74 per cent were unemployed, making up the total of 100 per cent of those who had graduated from the institutions under the department up to 31st August. Each graduate is followed up monthly until hh permanent re-establishment in civil life is beyond question. The follow-up is of a double character. The Social Service Branch of the department, to which trained nurses are attached, follows up the man in his home with a view to rendering assistance, so far as it may be required in re-establishing his home. The inspectors oE Industrial Survey also follow -up the man in the factory to see that he ds properly placed and is able to do the work committed to his care.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister tell us the number of college students whose courses were interrupted by enlisting? I think we should have that information, as an application has been made by the principals of various colleges for assistance to these young men so that they could complete their courses.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I know some statistics have been compiled, but I am sorry I have not the figures here. The number would run into some thousands. The question of the students is a most important one and is receiving the consideration of the Government. The hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie) presented a strong argument in favour of that proposal, and the hon, member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) presented strong considerations against it. It is a debatable question. We each may have our own views on it, and I think it is a perfectly proper question for the committee to consider and report upon.


Mr. MAROIL:: Has the minister the figures by provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think they would be available, but I am sorry I have not got them here. Personally, I feel, a very deep interest in the position of the student whose education was interrupted, and very strong reasons may be urged in the national interest why he should have the opportunity to complete his course.
The House will be interested in knowing the pay and allowances for the soldiers who are undergoing retraining. While undergoing training the allowances payable to a former member of the forces who is without dependents is $G0 a month. If he has partial dependents such additional allowance may be made as in the opinion of the department may be deemed necessary, provided that the additional allowance paid to or on account.of such partial dependent person or persons shall not exceed $25 per month. If he is a married man he gets $85 per month For one child he gets $10 a month additional, for two children $18, for three children $25; if more than three children, $25 per month, plus $6 a month for each child in excess of three. If he is living at a point where he cannot take this retraining and remain at home, he receives an additional allowance of $8 per month and his wife receives an additional allowance of the same amount. I believe the members of the House will say that the provisions for re-training are an evidence of Canada's determination to do justice to her partially disabled soldiers.
In order that the soldier may not be placed at any disadvantage as compared with the position he occupied in the army, a flat rate allowance is given to take the place of the grant from the Patriotic Fund. The soldier therefore receives practically the same pay and allowances under this department wdiile he is undergoing training as he received when he was serving in the army.
Mr. SfLEARD: I did not quite understand how long the Government pays during that training. For what period is the payment made?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is supposed to be for the period necessary to enable a man to fit himself for some other occupation. It is estimated that that should be done in a period of six months. In some cases it goes beyond that time and in other cases it is less.


Mr. SHEARD:: Is there a limit of time beyond which it cannot be paid?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it is in the discretion of the department. If a case appears to
be one in which there should be an extension, the department has power to extend the time. To indicate the magnitude of the operations being carried on by this branch, I would point out that the pay and allowances on account of vocational training for the month ended July 31, amounted to $940,725.


Charles Marcil: For how many men?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the exact number. This is not the whole amount the Government is spending in order to fit men, wholly or partially disabled, for resuming their places in the civil life of the country. This amount only covers the payand allowances to the men and their dependents while undergoing training. There is the expense of carrying on the operations in addition.


William Antrobus Griesbach: It would be only fair to point out that there would be a decrease in the payment of pensions to the same extent and that that must be credited against the amount mentioned by the bon. the President of the Privy Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, if a man is receiving a pension, it is applied on account or suspended as the case may be during retraining. He gets whichever is the larger.


James Hamilton Ross: Does that include the expense of carrying on all these operations, paying the officials and so on? And if so, can the minister give us some idea approximately of how much that is per month?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not that information here.


James Hamilton Ross: I understand that it is
exceptionally large.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The amount is large- there is no doubt about that. For all branches we have voted this year approximately $30,000,000. For pay and allowances to men undertaking this retraining, for pay and allowances to men receiving treatment in the hospitals, and for all other expenditures in connection with the work.


James Hamilton Ross: On the basis of the minister's statement that would only amount to $5,000,000 a year if the expenditure is $400,000 a month.


Newton Wesley Rowell: $940,000 a month would be about $10,000,000 a year.


James Hamilton Ross: And the other $5,000,000 would make $15,000,000. Surely it does not cost $15,000,000 a year for official and other ex-

penditures to provide for this branch of the service?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; my hon. friend is not correct in his statement, but all this information will be put before the committee when it meets. My recollection is that I gave a good deal of this information at the. last session of the House when the Estimates for this department were under consideration. Had I known that the information would have been asked for to-day I would have been very glad to have secured it.
Another important branch of the work which is being carried on by the department is the assisting to secure employment for soldiers physically fit who have been discharged from the army.. As I explained in opening, the department works in cooperation with the Federal Department of Labour. There are ninety-five free Government employment offices throughout Canada extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and carried on under the Department of Labour in co-operation with the provinces. In every one of these the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment has its representative. The total number discharged from the army since the armistice up to August 31, 1919-that is between the 11th November, 1918, and the 31st August, 1919 -was 316,589. -Of these, 22 peT cent, or 68,673, sought the assistance of the department to put them in touch with employment opportunities, or applied for assistance to secure positions. Of the number who applied for assistance, namely 68,673, 61,278 were placed in positions of a more or less permanent character. In that 61,278 the department has not included those who only remained a few days or changed several times. In addition, before the armistice, some 50,000 men had been placed in positions through the department in co-operation with the labour bureaux and provincial agencies, making a total of 111,278 men assisted by the department in securing employment in useful occupations. The 50,000 forms no part of the 316,000. The remainder of the 316,000 have not sought the assistance of the department to re-establish them in civil life, and it would be fair to assume that they have, largely or almost entirely through their own efforts, secured useful employment and have been absorbed back into the civil life of the country. Hon. members 'will therefore see that, either due to the efforts of the soldiers themselves or due to the co-operation of the labour bureaux and the Department of Soldiers'
fMr. Ross.]
Civil Re-Establishment, the overwhelming majority of the soldiers who have been discharged from the army have secured some useful employment and have been absorbed into civil life.
The House will be interested in hearing how many returned soldiers have secured employment in the Civil Service. According to the figures furnished me by the commission, for the six months ending August 31, 1919, 7,823 submitted themselves for examination for temporary employment; 1,970 submitted themselves for examination for permanent employment, or a total of 9,793. Of those who submitted themselves for examination, 6,277 passed for temporary employment and 758 for permanent employment. Seventy-two per cent were successful.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Successful in passing or in securing appointments?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In passing. During that period the Civil Service Commission appointed to positions in the Civil Service
5.320	returned soldiers. During the same period the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment gave temporary employment, in carrying on the work of the department, to 3,000 soldiers, making a total of 8,320 who secured employment, temporary or permanent, 5,320 in the other branches of the Civil Service, and 3,000 in the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department.


Peter McGibbon: What percentage would that be of the total number?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The total number of civilian males employed during that period was 867, most of whom were labourers. The House will see, that of 9,187 men appointed to various branches of the public service for the six months ending August 31, 1919,
8.320	were returned soldiers and only 861 civilians, most of whom were appointed as labourers. In addition to the foregoing, large numbers of men who had been in the Civil Service enlisted for service overseas. I understand that approximately 5,000 civil servants enlisted; 477 or thereabouts fell in action or died of disease. Of the remainder every man who was permanently employed and who was capable of resuming his position in the public service has been restored to his position if he cared to have it. So far as my information goes, practically the entire number have been restored to their posts in the service. If you add this number to the new appointments of soldiers to the public service for the period I have mentioned you will see how large a factor the

Government itself has been in restoring to civil life and to positions in the public service the men who served overseas.
Just a word or two with reference to another branch of the service, the Government provides ex-members of the forces who require them on account of disabilities due or aggravated by active service, with new limbs, splints, trusses, artificial eyes, elastic bandages and other orthopaedic or surgical appliances free of charge, and keeps these appliances renewed during the life of the ex-soldier. These are supplied at the expense of the Government, and during the period of fitting or adjustment-that is in the case of a soldier who requires to have an artificial limb or any other artificial appliance fitted-he is taken on the strength and receives the same pay and allowances as if he were undergoing medical treatment, so that every precaution is taken to see that the soldier is properly cared for.
I have already referred to the reciprooal arrangements which have been worked out, or are being worked out, between Canada and the Mother Country and between Canada and the United States. In the case of Canada and the Mother Country, the matter is now before the Government and full details will be announced in the very near future. But I think it will be found, as was announced by the Minister of Pensions in 'the Imperial House of Commons, that the Imperial Government will, as a result of the efforts of the Canadian Department of Soldiers'Civil Re-Establishment, supplement the allowance to the. British soldiers living in Canada by an amount sufficient to bring the pay and allowance granted to them up to the pay and allowances given to our Canadian soldiers who are taking vocational training or are undergoing treatment in our hospitals. I said a moment ago that we bad a reciprocal arrangement with the United States. That is, we look after American soldiers in Canada, provide them with medical treatment and give them vocational training, the American Government paying the expense. On the other band, they agree to do the same for us. But when it comes to the re-education or the vocational training, what is Ithe situation? The Department of the United States Government which looks 'after that branch of their own service and of ours is the Federal Board for Vocational Training. This board examines the ease, and if it 'approves sends it forward for the approval of the department, and if the department is satisfied that it is a proper case for retraining, the man is asked to come to Canada for training. Why? Because thfe provision made in Canada is so much in advance of the provision so far made in the United States that the re-training can be given much more effectively and satisfactorily in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: How is the cost determined as between the two countries?


Newton Wesley Rowell: who have devoted themselves to the service of their country and we must see that they are never able to justly reproach the nation for the treatment it has meted out to them.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is necessary in order that the department of the Government concerned may have power when peace comes and the War Measures Act is no longer in operation, to make the necessary regulations to carry on the work which is now being carried on. All we ask to-day is approval of the principle of the Bill, and I am quite sure that all hon. gentlemen are in hearty sympathy with it. When the Bill goes to the committee they will [DOT]consider its provisions and what changes they think should be made, and report back 'to the House their considered judgment on the matter.
The Bill deals with the whole work of the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life, and the committee will be authorized to consider everything relating to this great subject, which is of such vital moment to the ex-soldiers and people of Canada,


James Hamilton Ross: The hon minister has stated that reciprocal arrangements are being entered into with Great Britain with regard to the treatment of soldiers. He will remember that last session the Pensions Committee recommended that the pensions of Canadians, who fought in the Imperial army should be augmented by Canada, but we did not deal with the question of gratuities. The fact is that Britishers in this country who went back to Britain and entered the Imperial forces as privates received very small gratuities from the British Government, and I would like to ask the hon. minister if the negotiations he has referred to deal with the question of supplementing those gratuities?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is a question upon which I am not able to give my hon. friend [DOT]any information to-day, but I shall be glad to look into it and furnish him with the required information. The House will be interested to know that while last session in our Pension Act we provided for supplementing the Imperial pensions out of the Canadian Exchequer, I believe, when the negotiations are completed and the documents are brought down, we will find that, thanks to the efforts of the Government and tlft Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment, the British Government will itself assume that responsibility.


James Hamilton Ross: Will it be a proper subject
to come before this committee?
rMr. Rowell.]


Newton Wesley Rowell: If it relates to the reestablishment of the soldier in civil life it will. It is for the committee to decide. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that the committee would act as the Pension Committee did last year-hear whatever representations might be made to it in reference to any matter relating to the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life.
iMr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka): The hon. minister will remember that he asked me to remind him of a question I put to him.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The pay and allowances to the insane are provided for by an Order in Council dated September 28, 1918. I will read the provisions so that hon. members will have the information on Hansard, starting with the fourth paragraph:
4. Former members of the forces who are insane may he divided into three classes as follows :
A.	Retired or discharged owing to insanity entirely caused hy service;
B.	Retired or discharged, owing to insanity only partially caused by service; ajid
C.	Retired or discharged owing to insanity not in any way caused by service.
Each of the these classes may be sub-divided as follows:
(1)	With dependents.
(2)	Without dependents.
Class A. Former members of the forces retired or discharged owing to insanity entirely caused 'by service.
(1)	with dependents: (a) The former member of the forces shall he maintained by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, (b) His dependents shall he paid by the Department of Soliders' Civil Re-Establishment a sum equal to the amount of pension which would he payable to them if he had died on active service, (c) Should he recover he may, in the discretion of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, be paid, either in one sum or spread over a period, a sum not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100) per year for the period he has been under the care of that department.
(2)	Without dependents:	(a) The former
member of the forces shall be maintained by the Department of Soldiers* Civil Re-Establishment. (to) Should he recover he may, in the discretion of the Department of the Soldiers' Civil Re-Estatolishment, he paid, either in one sum or spread over a period, a sum not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.) per year for the period he has been under the care of that department.
Class B. Former members of the forces retired or discharged owing to insanity only partially caused by service, (in this class the word " dependents " shall mean only those proving actually need and dependency).
(1) With dependents:	(a) The former
member of the forces shall be maintained by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment : (to) His dependents shall be paid by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Estatolishment a sum equal to the amount of pension which would be payable to them if he had died on

active service, (c) If his insanity is certified by a Board of Medical Officers of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment as being more than 80 per cent caused toy service he may, in the discretion of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, toe paid, should he recover, either in one sum or spread over a period, an amount not exceeding Twenty-five Dollars ($25) per year for each full 5 per cent of his certified disability over 80 per cent for the period he has been under the care of that Department.
(2) Without dependents:	(a) The former
member of the forces shall be maintained by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. (b) If his insanity is certified by a Board of Medical Qfficers of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, as being more than 80 per cent caused by service he may, in the discretion of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Bstablishment, be paid, should he recover, either in one sum or spread over a period, an amount not exceeding Twenty-five Dollars ($25) per year for each full 5 per cent of his certified disability over 80 per cent for the period he has been under the care of that department.
Class C. Former members of the forces retired or discharged owing to insanity not in any way caused by service.
The former member of the forces shall be maintained by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. No allowances shall toe paid to his dependents, if any, and no amount shall be paid to him should he recover.
That is, if his insanity is not in any way due to service the State undertakes to maintain him, .but does not in that case make provision for his dependents.


Mr. OHABOT:: Do the provisions apply to, or what other provisions have been made for, soldiers who unfortunately contracted the drug habit during prolonged treatment in hospital on the other side for very painful conditions, and who when they came back to their families here are not only useless but a burden to them? Those men are practically unsound in mind-mentally deranged.


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as I am aware no provision has been made for such cases.


John Léo Chabot: Those are very sad cases, and they ought to be provided for.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That will be a proper matter for consideration by the committee when the Bill comes before it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we have received a great deal of information from the hon. minister upon the subject matter of soldiers' civil re-establishment, but it is rather 'to be regretted that we are not dealing with the minister in charge of that
department. We have on several occasions taken up the question that departments of such a character as that with which the hon. minister has just been- dealing should be under the control of a member of the popular branch of this Parliament. It is all very well to get matters second-hand, as we have been getting them this afternoon but I think it is only right and proper that this Chamber should insist that the heads of these departments should be in the popular branch and directly responsible to the people.
It is an extraordinary condition of things if it be true that so much is being done for the returned soldier as has been told us by the President of the Council this afternoon, that every returned soldiers' association from the Atlantic to the Pacific is continually petitioning hon. members, and expressing in every newspaper its dissatisfaction with what is being done by the Government, and protesting 'against the way in which the Government is dealing with the returned soldier.
There is a conflict of opinion somewhere. The speech of the President of the Council this afternoon would appear to leave nothing to be desired so far as the treatment of the returned soldier is concerned. The Great War Veterans' Association and other organizations of a like character all over the country are petitioning this House and petitioning their friends, and expressing in the press and publicly in other ways on frequent occasions, their entire dissatisfaction. If we are to accept the facts and conditions as set forth by the President of the Council there is nothing to be desired, but if we are to accept the testimony of the returned soldier himself as expressed through the agencies which he is enabled to employ, we must come to the conclusion that he is entirely dissatisfied. As a private member of this House I am not in a position to decide between the Government on the one hand and the returned soliders on the other.
On the night of the 7th of July, 1918, just at the close of the last session, some interesting information was communicated to the House by a former officer of high standing in the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment. I have reference to the speech that was made in this House and the correspondence which was put on record by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy), who was at one time Parliamentary Secretary of this department. According to him, he was too conscientious to remain in the department and to draw



a salary where he could get nothing to do and where nothing was being done. That is the testimony of a member of this House who is responsible to a constituency and who was responsible to this House as an official of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. That information, to say the least, did not reflect any credit upon that department; it rather showed that no energy was exercised in dealing with the returned soldier; it demonstrated that the department bad really not shown any anxiety with regard to the question of what was to become of the returned soldier. So far I have heard no answer to the statements made and the explanation given by the member for Colchester, who felt it incumbent upon himself to retire from the office which he held because he was simply receiving money under false pretences and doing nothing along the lines for which he was appointed.
I give this as a supplement to the very eloquent speech of our good friend the President of the Council. I am getting so used to those eloquent speeches and to his practice of painting rosy conditions that I must measure them and ask our members to measure them according to the evidence of such officials as the member for Colchester. That hon. gentleman had first-hand information; he had the experience of being in the department, but our good friend the President of the Council simply has what is handed out to him by the department. If I were hearing evidence as a court-and we are more or less of a court here-I would be obliged to take the first-hand testimony of the member for Colchester in preference to the second-hand case made out by the department on its own behalf and passed over to the able advocate who presents it to this House.
That, then, is the situation-entire dissatisfaction so far as the soldiers are concerned; entire dissatisfaction on the part of an official of the department, a member of this House, who presented his explanations to Parliament. On the other had, we have the glowing account which has been given to us by the President of the Council.
The Bill which we have before us is an amendment to chapter 42 of the Acts of 1918. On the 24th day of May, 1918, the Act creating the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment received the assent of the Governor General and became the law of the land. Since that time the officials of the department have had experience with this

law. They know the powers that were given to them; they know their requirements; they know what they have to deal with. I submit, therefore, that such legislation should be introduced to this House as will embody these requirements. Surely the department should know by this time what powers ought to be vested in them by statute to enable them to conduct properly the affairs of the department. But instead of coming to us to-day with a Bill embodying those requirements and those powers which are necessary to the department in order to enable it properly to carry on its business, which powers and requirements we would be in a position to scrutinize and to approve if we thought them proper, the President of the Council comes to us asking that power be vested in the department to legislate for itself. The people of Canada and this Parliament are tired of that second-hand way of enacting laws. What are we here for if not to draft such legislation as may be necessary to carry on the affairs of the country? There was a reason for very wide latitude in the matter of making law by Order in Council while the war was on. Matters of emergency would suddenly arise for which a statute could not make provision, and it was desirable and proper in the interests of the country that the Governor General should at once provide for such contingencies by Order in Council. But these things are past. The war is over, we are back to ordinary conditions. I repeat that the department should know by this time what powers they require, and that those powers should be incorporated in a statute.
The Act provides simply that the Governor in Council may make recommendations for the control and management of hospitals, workshops, and so on; for the marking and stamping of artificial limbs; to forbid any false statement, suggestion or representation with respect to artificial limbs; for the disposal of any money payable by the Crown to the estates of deceased officers; for prescribing the pay and allowances to persons undergoing medical treatment or vocational training. It provides also that the Governor in Council may make regulations:
" (f) with respect to reciprocal or other arrangements with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Government of any British Dominion or the Government of any of His Majesty's Allies in the late war, or the Government of the United States of America, for the treatment and training and the issue of pay and allowances to ex-members of the forces of any such

Government when undergoing treatment or training, or to their dependents; and,
"(g) with respect to any matter placed under the control and management of the minister:
Those are all very simple matters which could be dealt with by this House and the legislation passed. I understand the department has those powers now in the form of Orders in Council, and if it has, all that the minister would have to do would be to transform his Orders in Council into the shape of a Bill, submit it to the House and have it passed, and we would know once and for all what the powers of the department were. Is it not extraordinary for the minister, in time of peace, to ask us to vest in the Governor in Council, particularly, I may say, in the head of this department, powers to make laws in respect to anything that the Government, in its wisdom or otherwise, may submit to that department, because we are asked to give that department power to make laws with respect to any matter placed under the control and management of the minister? That seems to me an extraordinary latitude that is asked for, and taking it all in all, I am appealing to this House to see to it that our rights are restored, and I trust that hon. gentlemen will realize their responsibility to their constituencies, our duties as a Parliament, and will insist that this House shall deal with any laws that are to be passed in Canada in connection with the protection of our seamen and soldiers on the one hand and the moneys that come out of the pockets of the people on the other, the money too much of which has been extracted out of the pockets of the people of this country and which has been expended to such an extent that the Government tell us that they are at the end of their tether and that if our soldiers require further aid they must look elsewhere for it. That is the position at which we have arrived. Nevertheless, we find this Bill asking us to give further power to this department lavishly to expend money wherever they may get it without submitting the expenditure and the reason for it to this House for approval. It is well known to hon. gentlemen before me on the Government side of the House that it is not in our power on this side to enforce these things; all we can do is to appeal to hon. members to exercise the proper functions of Parliament and to deal with those matters. If they choose to give up those functions and to say: We will simply delegate all our powers to one or two ministers and let them legislate as they see proper; that responsibility rests upon the shoulders of hon. gentlemen supporting the Government, and it is only for us to bring the matter to their notice. Sometimes I see newspapers supporting the Government finding fault with the Opposition for being too easy, and saying that we do not raise enough trouble in the House; that we do not storm the Government sufficiently. Why, Sir, if they are dissatisfied on that point, perhaps it is not too late to level our batteries on the Government now. Of course, it is true that a broadside on the Government would not kill very many, because there are so many vacant seats.


Jacques Bureau: We would lose our shot.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And we would be sorry to annihilate them altogether. But the time has arrived, now that the war is over and the troops which we used to maintain have been demobilized, when it is possibly quite in order for myself and other hon. gentlemen on this side to satisfy the Unionist and the Tory press that we shall not spare in any way whatsoever the backs of the Government, but shall give them every inch that is coming to them.


John Wesley Edwards: Lay on, MacDuff.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That will keep us busy.


Jacques Bureau: It's a big order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have to-day pointed out some of the things which possibly some people may find fault with us for not having found fault with. Now that we are back to the days of peace, there being no particular rush or hurry about putting legislation through this House, except so as to give it due thought and attention, the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) should be called upon to lay upon the Table for the discussion of hon. gentlemen and in a proper way to bring before the House such legislation along these lines as he may require and to do away with Orders in Council. Those are things regarding which we on this side of the House discharge our responsibility by bringing them to the notice of the Government. The burden is then shifted to the shoulders of hon. gentlemen who are, as a Government and as supporters of a Government, responsible for legislation that may pass in this House.
I should like to say [DOT]something to the minister in charge of this Bill regarding the enormous expense that he has been disclosing to us. Of course we must be and we are sympathetic with the soldiers and we want to do everything we can for them.

As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in whose remarks in that regard I f'.dly concur, the man who is crippled, or the woman whose bread-winner is taken away, or any person who is in any way dependent upon the public by reason of the war, should receive our full sympathy and support. But there is a vast quantity of loose machinery kept agoing by the Government in connection with the war, and involving an enormous expenditure of money of which the soldiers get very little. We have in the Dominion of Canada splendid hospitals; we have in my little province of Nova Scotia the Victoria General at Halifax; we have a splendid hospital at New Glasgow in the county of Pictou; we have four very excellent hospitals in my county of Cape Breton, all of which are willing and anxious to take hold of this class of work. Private or local arrangements could be made with these hospitals so that any returned soldier would receive the treatment he requires by the local doctors just as effectively as these returned men are being treated under the machinery created by this Government, and the expense would be very much less. I am mentioning Nova Scotia because I am familiar with the excellent doctors in those hospitals, but the same is true of the other provinces. Probably a little over a year ago we had in the city of Halifax the experience of the Victoria General Hospital, which is a provincial institution, offering to provide for all the returned soldiers in that city or thereabouts that might require treatment. Instead, however, of the Government making a simple arrangement with the authorities of that hospital, either one or two-I forget how many altogether -new hospitals were started and completed at an enormous expense and they will be kept going indefinitely at the expense of this country when a simple arrangement could have been made with the local hospital by which the same work could have been done equally well and very much more cheaply. I am reminding the minister of these things so that he may. not only take cognizance of them himself, but bring them to the notice of the Government. I fear that vast machinery of a military character is being kept going throughout Canada which could very well be dispensed with and the same work done by other means in a very much cheaper way. I do not know whether it applies in this case, but representations were made to me last winter that certain 
officials were keeping men in the city of Halifax in connection with the Niobe doing nothing, simply for the purpose of giving the officers an excuse for staying there and drawing large salaries. I brought that matter to the notice of the Government, and the Minister of Militia took cognizance of it and in a very short time the men were disbanded. An expense was saved to the Dominion by dispensing entirely with an institution which had no right to exist and which brought no return to the country for the money expended. I am bringing this matter up simply in order that the Government may carefully inquire whether or not we have an army of officers on the pay list of this country who could be dispensed with, so that every dollar that we can save may be saved. I remember very well in the early days of the war, when extravagance and unnecessary expenditures were brought to the notice of the Government, hearing the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) say that he would begrudge the expenditure of any ten cents that could be avoided. That was in the early days of the war, when we had something to save, but now I am afraid we have reached the stage where recklessness has gone mad and we have nothing to save. Our reputation for saving has gone to the four winds of Heaven, and the Government have evidently come to the conclusion that there is no use trying to regain it. They tell us plainly that they have no money and are at their wits' end to know where to get any. However, they must take courage, be thrifty, and save. They must cut down every possible expenditure, for that is certainly expected of them by the good people of Canada.
The real point I wanted to make in connection with this Bill was that we should insist upon putting in the Act itself whatever powers this department requires. We should not be called upon to grant any more of those loose powers to be vested in the Governor in Council or any particular department. I have read the headlines, the real substance of everything in this Bill, and I find nothing there that requires a committee. I do not know what a committee has to do with the question whether we shall grant those powers to the ministers or the head of this department. It is true that if the minister in charge of this Bill is going to submit the Orders in Council to the committee, there will be some discussion and the committee may be of some assistance To us, but if those Orders in Council are not to be submitted to the committee, if they are

not drafted and we do not know what they are, I do not think the committee will be in any way armed with the facts that will enable them to decide whether those powers should be granted or not. I submit, therefore, that I can see very little to expect from the deliberations of a committee, as far as the facts contained in this Bill are concerned.
It is possible that the committee may travel from this Bill to other subjects, although we were told the other night they would not. We had a hope at one time that the request of the Great War Veterans would be dealt with by this committee, but we were entirely disillusioned on that point by the acting leader of the Government (Mr. Doherty), who told us there was nothing to decide on that point, as the Government had already decided, and he is too good a lawyer and too old a judge to think of hearing evidence in connection with any point which has already been decided by the court and the decision filed. I am sure I sympathize with the distinguished judge the other night when he was listening for hours to evidence being poured upon his head on a question which he had already decided, and which if he had been sitting on the Bench he would have regarded as contempt of court. I hope that when this Bill comes before the Committee such points as the House may regard as important may be brought out and dealt with.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver):: I do not rise to discuss the Bill at very great length. In fact, I had intended only to ask a question. Before doing so, however, I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the leader of the Opposition. He states, and very properly, that there are good grounds for objection to government by Order in Council. I heartily agree with him in the enunciation of that principle.


Jacques Bureau: In theory, but not in practice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In theory and in practice. But we must be fair and recognize that there are some steps which it is absolutely necessary to take by Order in Council, for if we were to deluge this House with Bills covering every move of a Government and of its departments, not only would we not have sufficient, time within the compass of a year to legislate, but it would be utterly impossible for this House to deal with the details of administration.
The Bill before the House provides for
certain things, and I think my hon. friend should have applied his criticism directly to the actual facts before us. What are those facts? We are simply empowering the Governor in Council to deal by regulation with certain things; (a) the control and management of any hospital, workshop, institution, and so forth connected with the Department of Sol-
5 p.m. diers' Civil Re-establishment. I submit that it would not be reasonable to bring down to this House a Bill covering all the details of the management of a hospital or an institution of that kind, and I would invite hon. gentlemen to consider that point. For instance, suppose we provide for the bringing into existence of a large hospital in a city or province. We appoint a Board of Governors and the legislation provides for certain main powers. That Board of Governors in turn, draws up the regulations for controlling the hospital in all its details. That is exactly what we are doing here. By the original Bill we brought into existence an institution, and we are now empowering the authorities administering that institution to deal with the administrative details.


Jacques Bureau: That is not in this Bill. That was covered in the Bill last year relating to pensions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By the original Bill we brought into existence the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Under this Bill we are providing for details in the management of the hospital, the workshop and other institutions established 'and arranged by Order in Council and I do not think we are violating the principles of parliamentary government in that regard. Paragraph (b) provides for the marking or stamping of artificial limbs. Such things as artificial limbs, which, unfortunately, must be provided for in very large numbers, have been, in connection with this department, brought into a veiy efficient state. We are simply providing for regulating the marking of artificial limbs. Surely it does not need an Act of Parliament to provide for a matter of that kind?
(c)	To forbid any false statement, suggestion or representation with respeat to any artificial limbs.
Again, I submit, this is a fit subject for regulation by Order in Council or by the minister at the head of the department.
(d)	For the disposal of any moneys payable by the Crown to the estates of deceased or insane officers, soldiers or other persons.

There is already in existence legislation dealing with that matter. This simply provides for detailed regulations.


Jacques Bureau: This is legislation to amend Chapter 42 of the statutes of 1918 whereas the law that deals with pensions and payments is chapter 43 of 'the statutes of 1919'


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that the point raised by my bon. friend makes no difference because we are dealing with details. I't does not matter how many statutes you put through you will have certain details that must be dealt with by Order in Council and I submit that this is the proper method.
Without going any farther into this, I wish to call attention to the point raised by the leader of the Opposition with reference to the expense in connection with ithe hospital arrangements. To the extent jjhat there has been a duplication of hospital arrangements in connection with our -military affairs-those under -the Militia Department and those under the Re-establishment Department-steps have -already been taken by the Government to solidify or consolidate these -and bring them into one institution. As rapidly as possible 'that is being done and in many oases that has -already been accomplished. The criticism which my hon. friend has directed against the Government in that regard has been anticipated by the Government and the condition of which he complains is being rectified as fast as it is practicable to do so.
I do not agree with my hon. friend when he states that no committee is required. Unquestionably, we require a committee on this Bill not only to study the provisions of the Bill but also to hear any representations which may be made by those interested in the re-establishment in civil life of our returned men. They have already been assured by the leader of the Government and by the minister in charge of this Bill that an opportunity will he given to their various associations, or to individuals, to be heard by the committee. I think that is not only wise but absolutely essential; otherwise, without any question, this House would be in duty bound to provide for some tribunal to hear what the soldiers or their representatives have to say on this subject. I think the Government should be commended and I differ entirely from my hon. friend in that regard.
Before taking my seat I would ask the minister if under clause 7 it will be competent for the committee which is to survey and deal with this Bill, to hear and consider the claim of Canadians who enlisted in the

Imperial forces that their gratuity should be brought up to the level of the Canadian veterans' gratuity. I would ask if the committee can consider that request under that clause. If not I would like to ask the minister to consider an amendment which would make it possible. My own opinion is that the committee should do so and that assurance from the minister would be quite satisfactory to me.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I hardly think that the gratuity which my hon. friend mentions is a matter contemplated by the terms of the Bill. It is for the committee to settle its own procedure and to decide who shall be heard. I know that in the case of the Pensions -Committee last year, they heard representations from anybody, and particularly from the bodies of returned soldiers, who came to present any matter connected with the subject to them. It will be for the committee to determine whether they care to consider a representation on the matter mentioned by my hon. friend or not. I am sure that they will deal with the utmost liberality with the question as to who shall or shall not be heard in connection with the matter.
Hon. HUGH M. CLARK (Parliamentary Undersecretary tor the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose -to discuss the Bill at any great length for the reason- that it is to go before a committee. I just wish to make a reference to the remark made by the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) with respect to the deluge of criticism that has been coming towards this department largely from the Great War Veterans. I may say that in so far as I can recall, nearly all the criticism coming from the Great War Veterans has been based upon the view of the Great War Veterans -that the department has not gone far enough. Representations were made to the effect that vocational training should be given to nearly everybody who had returned from overseas. Representations were made that assistance should be given to returned men should they desire to go into any other occupation than farming. Then, their education- being interrupted by reason of the war, a good many men made representations that they should be given -assistance for the completion of their university studies. All of these things of course would have meant a great increase in the expenditure of this department. The leader of the Opposition himself appreciates that the expenditure is very high as it is. I agree

with him in the statement that the expenditure is high. It is high largely because Canada is doing more in this way than any other country in the world. We have increased our pay and allowances for vocational training beyond the point that any other country has reached and we have been giving medical treatment in a way that no other country does. All this costs money but I think it is safe to say that we shall have reached the peak of the load probably in February next and that from that time onward there should be a very sharp decline in the expenditure for these purposes, particularly in reference to vocational training.
In connection with the criticism to which I have referred, I think it is a very good thing that the whole matter is to go to a committee so*that all these subjects may be threshed out before that committee. It will be well to have a committee if for nothing else than to make known just exactly what is being done in each branch of this department because a good deal of the criticism has been uninformed criticism and ilt would be a great advantage for the members of the committee to know the limitations of the department, just how the work is being carried on and also to know that -a great deal of the criticism has been caused by reason of the fact that the department is not authorized to go as far as a great many think it should go. Then the committee, too, can pass upon the question as to whether or not the criticism was right that the department should go beyond that point; as to whether or not we should extend our educational courses beyond the point to which they have been limited and as to whether or not the returned soldiers should have the facilities if they want to go into business, such as are now accorded under the Land Settlement Act and many other matters that might very easily be suggested to the committee.
It is not necessary that I should go into details now, because they will all be laid before the Committee and afterwards presented to the House. I merely wish to make that observation-that our expenditures were large because we were doing more for the returned soldier than any other country and, furthermore, we were attempting to educate men in a great many occupations in our vocational training schools. I think in Great Britain they give training in forty-six trades, whereas we train in over three hundred trades. We train in that large number of trades because we do not wish
to glut the market in any particular trade; but it will be obvious to hon. gentlemen that to train in so large a variety of trades is a good deal more costly than confining the training to a smaller number. I say again that I think the minister of the department who, as hon. gentlemen will admit, is exceedingly capable and effcient, will be very glad indeed that some committee of the House should be placed in a position to go fully into the work of this department and to recommend such other steps in the direction of the rehabilitation of the soldier as they make think wise and proper.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it is unfortunate that the Government has not introduced a Bill which would admit of soldiers placing their case before a committee. There are a great number of matters that are omitted in this Bill, and the questions that are dealt with in it are of comparative unimportance. For example, the first clause in the Bill relates to the management of hospitals and workshops, and the next clause to artificial limbs.


Jacques Bureau: The marking of artificial limbs.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, the marking of artificial limbs. The third clause forbids any false statement regarding artificial limbs. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is important to make regulations to prevent people from saying things about artificial limbs. But my criticism is that there are important questions relating to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment that this Bill does not admit of being considered. For example, take the advances that are made to returned soldiers engaged in farming. I do not object to that policy. It is right and proper, but I have never been able to understand why advances should be confined to men who desire to embark in that industry. Why not consider the great fishing industry of the country? I represent a constituency in which hundreds of men identified with that industry, who enlisted in the forces and have returned, would like very well to have an advance of a few hundred dollars to enable them to buy a motor boat, or fleet of nets. The amount of money required to equip a fisherman to carry on his business would be comparatively small compared with the sum the Government is advancing to farmers. I submit that the security in the case of the fishermen would be

just as good. There is no worse security you can find than an old farm that has been abandoned because the man who worked it cannot make it pay. Taxes have to be paid on it, whether it produces anything or not, and in its worn-out state it is of no value to any body, and will be a very poor security indeed for the Government. To my mind the security of a fishing boat and a fleet of nets which would be properly insured and cared for by the owner, would be much better and the loan would be just as likely to be returned to the Government. I might also refer to the lumber industry. I have in mind the case of a young man in my constituency who returned from the war. His father had died during his absence at the front and the only occupation that the young man knew anything about was the lumber business. His father had left a few hundred acres of timber land and the young man wanted to purchase a portable mill in order to help maintain his mother and sisters, and keep the family together. He did not need very much, ten or eleven hundred dollars would have sufficed, and he could have given the security of the mill and the lumber; but when he applied to the proper officials in the province of Nova Scotia, he could get no help because he was not a farmer. I say that is an unreasonable position to take and that the Government would have avoided a great deal of the discontent that has arisen among the returned soldiers if it had opened up a little and been a little more liberal in connection with the administration of this department.
The question of students whose course in college was interrupted by enlisting in the forces has also been pressed upon the Government, but I understand the Government has refused to do anything in the way of advancing money in the form of loans to students who are anxious to complete their college course. This matter has been brought to the notice of the Government and urged upon its attention by the leading educationists of Canada, and I submit it is one of very great importance. The Imperial Government, according to my information, has adopted measures to help the students who wish to complete their college course. It is also pointed out in a statement submitted to the Government by the educational authorities referred to that the Australian Government has taken a very liberal step in the same direction and in order to remind ministers of what has been done in Australia, I will read an extract from the statement in question which is

signed by W. A. E. Kerr, of the University of Alberta; Dr. J. J. Tompkins, of the University of St. Francois Xavier; Joseph Sirois, of Laval University; and K. F. Euttan, of McGill University, and was submitted to the department on behalf of these colleges by Sir Eobert A. Falconer, Principal of the University of Toronto:
So generous is Britain that she is educating at public cost young Canadians who have been in the British service. We know of several who, returning home, and finding no financial help here, have gone back to Britain to be educated at the expense of the British taxpayer. That this should have happened is not creditable to Canada.
In Australia also, the Government has taken the following action: (1) Where an applicant for assistance produces evidence to the satisfaction of the State Board that he had, prior to enlistment, entered or intended to enter upon a university course or other course of professional training, the State Board grant to the applicant assistance.
Provided that an applicant who had not before enlistment entered upon such a course shall only be granted assistance if (a) He is not more than thirty years of age at the date of his application, and (b) He applies for the assistance within six months after discharge.
(2)	Where the State Board is satisfied that assistance should be granted, the State Board may, if it approves of the course selected:
(a)	Pay by way of gift from time to time the fees payable in connection with the course.
(b)	Grant to the applicant, by way of loan, such sum as is necessary to purchase the books, instruments, and other articles required by him in connection with his course.
(c)	Pay to the applicant by way of gift such allowance as will insure him a weekly income inclusive of his own pension of 42s. for one academic year, including the period ordinarily required to enable him to attend the qualifying examination for that year.
(d)	Pay to the applicant by way of loan such allowance as will insure to him a weekly income (inclusive of pension) of 42s. for each subsequent academic year of his course, including the period ordinarily required to enable him to attend the qualifying examination for that year.
Provided that no allowance shall be paid under this regulation during the period between the termination of one academic year and the commencement of the next, except for such periods as the attendance of'the applicant at the university or other institution is compulsory.
(3)	The applicant shall give personal security for the re-payment of the amounts granted under paragraphs (-b) and (d) of the last preceding sub-regulation.
(d) The continuance of the granting of the assistance provided by sub-regulation (2) shall be subject to the receipt from time to time by the state board from the university or other institution of a report that the applicant is making satisfactory progress with his studies.
That is what the Government of Australia is doing for its students whose college courses were interrupted through enlistment, and I submit that the Government

of Canada should not do less than Australia has done.
A well-known educationist in the province of Nova Scotia has written to me on this question, and I would like to be permitted to quote 'an extract from his letter:
I do not see why the Government could not loan money to bona fide students as they do to farmers. What we want in Canada to-day is trained brains. If we have not that how shall we bear our burdens? We must have brains to make two blades grow where one grew before. We can only do this by training our young men scientifically and otherwise. Think of the enormous educational progress of the United States of America. Even England is up and doing beyond all expectation considering her financial burden.
Now, Sir, I submit that it would be only proper to include in this Bill clauses providing that consideration should be given to the case of fishermen, lumbermen, students, and also to the case of every returned soldier in any station in life, who requires assistance to complete their college course, or to become settled in civil life.
A question that seems to me of urgent importance at the present moment is the care of those returned soldiers who, with winter approaching, are still without employment. That condition of affairs is admitted but, so far as I know, no provision has been made by the Government to meet it. The very least we must do as a temporary measure, and with as little delay as possible, in view of these facts, is to provide unemployment insurance for our returned men. If we are unable to find them immediate employment so that they cam settle down in civil life, then I say it is the duty of the Government to provide at once for that state of affairs, otherwise those men will be in want during the coming winter, and it will be generally admitted that the best way to meet that situation is by providing for unemployment insurance. The Government cannot and should not refuse our soldiers any reasonable request they may make, and certainly the matters that I h'ave brought forward are very modest. I am disappointed that the Bill has not a wider scope, and that it is not such a Bill as would enable the returned soldier to come before the committee and ask a cash bounty or anything that he thinks that he has a right to. The committee could then report on the requests, and this House could afterwards decide whether they should be granted or not.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: One word-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the
hon. minister proceeds, it is my duty to inform the House that he is exercising his right to close the debate, and, therefore, if any other hon. member desires to be heard he should speak now.
Mr. DUNCAN C. ROSS' (Middlesex West):
I wish to say a word or two before the debate is closed, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection to this Government spending all the money that may be necessary for the re-establishment of what the President of the Council always calls "our gallant men." He rather over-works that phrase sometimes; but overlooking that fault, I can join with him and every other hon. member in saying that I am always favourable to doing anything that is in the interests of the returned soldier. But at the present time, Sir, there is a great deal of unrest among the returned men, and recently I have had occasion to see a good many of them in regard to it-not of my own motion, but theirs-and I find that one cause of this excessive unrest is the fact that the soldiers argue this wise: That the Government refuses to grant the returned soldier an additional gratuity-and I am not stating whether that refusal in my opinion is right or is wrong-giving as their reason that the ' country cannot afford it.


Peter McGibbon: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What is his opinion on that matter?


James Hamilton Ross: That matter has apparently been closed by this Government. I may say frankly that so far as granting a gratuity of $2,000 to each soldier, irrespective of his service and of his necessities, is concerned,
I am not in favour of it. If my hon. friend wants any plainer answer I can give it to him.
- Mr. BUREAU: No, no; that is enough.
* Mr. ROSS: However, that is not the point. We have had ministers of the Crown in this House and out of it saying that this Government cannot spend any more money to assist the returned soldier in the way of additional gratuity because the country cannot afford it. Last session the hon. Minister of Public Works-who has since taken a place of safe refuge on the Railway Commission -told us of the dire necessities of the country and that we were in a dangerous condition financially. The ex-Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, told us the same thing. I think there is a great deal of truth in what they said and that their warnings are worthy of serious consideration. But

what the returned soldiers say is this: That the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment and the Department of Militia and Defence are at the present time wastefully spending sufficient of the peoples' money to provide more liberal treatment for the soldiers, and that if the Government would only make the necessary changes in the public services they would have suffi-'cient funds in hand to meet the just demands of the soldiers. They further say that in connection with the manning of these two departments, not merely hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved per year, but actually millions of dollars- that there are thousands of absolutely unnecessary officials employed in these departments who are drawing excessive salaries although they have nothing to do, and, in short, that their retention is simply a waste of public money. I noticed the other day in the press that two hundred women had been dismissed from the Separation Allowances and Assigned Pay Branch, and in the same item the statement was made that these women had been absorbed by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment. If that is so it confirms what these returned soldiers say to me. I noticed, also, in the remarks made by the President of the Council this afternoon several things mat lead me to believe that these statements of the returned soldiers are true to a great extent. He pointed out in regard to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment that the Government had actually manned thirty hospitals, nineteen in one branch and eleven in another, and were using another twenty-eight throughout the country. That seems to me a great many hospitals to be used in that way, but, (of course, it may not be more than is necessary. He pointed out, moreover, in connection with the allowances paid to the soldiers who were sick in these hospitals and to their dependents, that a sum of $420,000 per month was disbursed, or in round figures $5,000,000 a year. He also pointed out that in connection with vocational training $940,000 a month was being disbursed, or about $10,000,000 a year. In other words, the whole amount being spent on returned soldiers' pay and allowances seemed to be about *ro,000,000; yet we know that in the estimates last year $30,000,000 was appropriated for this department.
When this Bill goes into Committee, I would like some information from the minister with regard to how the other $15,000,000 that was appropriated last year for this department has been spent. I should like

the full details; it seems to me that there is a very large hiatus there which needs explanation. If we are to go at this thing properly; if we are to see to it that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment is administered honestly and efficiently, we should have these details. I ask the minister to furnish also a statement of the number of employees in, say, District No. 1 -or in all the districts, for that matter. I would like him to give their names, if possible, though I will not insist upon that. I would like to have them classified in some way in order that their salaries-or wages, if you cannot dignify their remuneration by the name of salary-may be shown. I refer to all employees and officials of the department; I would like to know the details of expenditure in this connection all down the line.
I am told that in small towns where only two or three men are taking vocational training, four or five officials go there weekly in order to see that this vocational training is being properly administered. I am informed that in London, Ontario, at least half a dozen medical boards are operating and that their work is overlapping; that there are three doctors on each board, receiving large salaries; that half of them are not necessary, and that, as a matter of fact, although there are so many doctors on these boards they -are not attending to their duties as they should and are not giving the soldier the prompt examination and treatment that he should get.
As I said at the outset, I have no fault to find with the expenditure of any money that is honestly and properly spent to help re-establish the soldier in civil life. But I think it is very unwise for this Government to allow a situation to prevail with which, it is quite apparent, the soldiers are dissatisfied, and which leads them to believe that the Government is squandering money in a most wasteful manner that might better be given to them and to their dependents.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa):: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: them in language which actually characterizes their services. I am rather surprised to hear my hon. friend talking exception to the word "gallant" when applied to our soldiers.


Samuel William Jacobs: He objects to the minister's monopoly of the word.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the least oh- , jection to my hon. friend's adopting it. The word is good enough, strong enough, and apt enough to permit my hon. friend's using it occasionally if he desires to do so.


Jacques Bureau: The over-working of it
is the bad part.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. frjend may feel that it is over-worked.


Jacques Bureau: By you.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite sure that the people of this country do not feel that that expression in reference to our soldiers is over-worked.	They deserve recognition
when we speak of what they have done.
Mr. (BUREAU:	They do, but it all depends on the time and place.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member for
Middlesex West (Mr. Ross) referred to the information I gave as to the expenditure in connection with the work of this department. My hon. friend takes the sum I mentioned as being disbursed by the department in paying the allowances to soldiers, and then says that the balance is expense. But the pay and allowances to the soldiers, while a most important item of expenditure-


James Hamilton Ross: I do not object to that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But that does not cover all the work, all the medical treatment, all the instructors for vocational work, all the public institutions that have to be provided, their care and maintenance-all that must come under the heading of expenditure for carrying on the work of the department, and my hon. friend or any other hon. member will be able to get the fullest possible information in reference to all such items of expenditure.
Just a word with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) who has pointed out that he thinks the questions of granting assistance to men engaged in fishing, and to students in the way of education, should come within the scope of the work of the committee. It certainly does come within the scope of the work of the committee, because the

Bill, together with all Orders in Council dealing with the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, is to be referred to that committee. One of the objects of having the committee consider the matter is in order that they may give attention to the question whether the present provisions are adequate or not, or whether provision should be made for other classes of cases. One of the important matters which will be dealt with by that committee is undoubtedly the question of assisting our students. I intimated that at an earlier stage of the debate. The other question is a proper matter for consideration, but it is subject to the observations made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) with reference to such a class of expenditure. It is perfectly clear that the financial resources of Canada would not admit of loans being made to all our soldiers, or a large number of soldiers, on anything like the scale on which loans are being made to those who are going on the land. There are special considerations that apply to land settlement, and it will cost this country an enormous sum by way of loan under this Act; indeed, I understand the present estimate is $130,000,000, and in the case of land settlement we have the security of the land, the buildings and the improvements. The financial resources of Canada are not adequate, to lend similar amounts to the other soldiers if such a policy should be suggested. We are limited by the country's resources and the needs of the situation.
As regards the observations of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), this Bill with all the Orders in Council, goes to the committee, and they consider the whole situation, so I do not understand the reason for my hon. friend's objections. If the committee think that the Bill should be amended in any respect, it is quite within their power so to amend it. If they think that some of the matters that are covered by Orders in Council should be covered by statutory provisions, it is quite within their power to recommend that such provisions to be included in, the Bill. I am quite sure no hon. member would suggest that we should put upon, the statute-book all the provisions of all these Orders in Council. As the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, a large number of the matters are matters for regulation. In practically every Bill creating a branch of the .public service, the Governor in Council is given power to make

regulations to carry out the objects of the Act.


Jacques Bureau: Does the President of the Council not think that under section 5 of chapter 42 he has sufficient power, for instance, to make the artificial limbs .and to do all these things that in the Bill he is asking us to. do. Section 5 reads:
The minister shall have the management and control of all matters relating to the establishment in civil life and activities of all persons who have served in the naval or military forces of His Majesty or any of His Majesty's Allies during the present war, and the dependents of such persons, and the administration of any statutes or of any regulations or orders enacted or made by the Governor in Council for such purpose.


Newton Wesley Rowell: With all respect to imy hon. friend, I do not think there is the power, because it is of the essence of the situation, in order Ithat the regulations may be enforced, that there should he penalties imposed. I do not think that statute would give the minister power to make regulations or enforce penalties in case the marks were defaced or the regulations violated. In order that penalties may be imposed, there must be statutory authority clearly given.


Jacques Bureau: That is why I object to the statute. I do not think the Governor in Council should have the right to impose penalties because that is a matter for regulation toy Parliament as in. imposing penalties we are interfering with the rights of citizens.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In that case it would be possible for the committee to embody suitable provisions in the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: What committee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The committee to which this Bill is to be referred.


Jacques Bureau: That means a new motion. Do I understand the present motion is for the second reading?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, and then a new motion will be made to refer the Bill to a committee, and in order tlhat the matter may be disposed of before six o'clock, I will defer .any further answer to my bon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move:
That Bill No. 10, An Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act, and the Orders in Council relating to the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment, laid on the table of the House
on Tuesday, 16th day of September, be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Calder, Arthurs, Beland, Bolton, Brien, Chisholm, Clark (iBruce), Cooper, Copp, Edwards, Kennedy, Lang, McLean (Royal), Nesbitt, Pardee, Power, Tremain, Tweedie, White (Victoria), for consideration thereof, and of all matters pertaining thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time, and that Rule 11 be suspended.
Rule 11 is suspended because it limits the number of members on a special committee to fifteen.


Jacques Bureau: Before that motion is adopted I should like to know why we are not following the ordinary procedure in this case. In 1918 we passed the Bill which my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council is now seeking to amend, because he claims that under that Bill he has not the power to impose penalties for violations of the Orders in Council which it may be necessary to pass to give effect to the Act. We are now asked that this Bill should be referred to a special committee with power to send for persons, administer oaths, and make an investigation. Why? I say that the whole subject ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole. On, the second reading questions have already been raised by different members of the House. There seems to be a conflict. between two Acts. We are seeking to amend the Act passed in 1918, giving the Governor in Council power to dispose of moneys which might be due to estates of deceased soldiers, or of deceased dependents. Then we had the Pensions Act last session. I do not think this Bill ought to be sent to a special committee. We all know what is done to a Bill when it goes to a committee. The members of that committee hear evidence and make a report to the House, and when the report is presented to the House we take it for granted that the members who were picked for that committee were the best ones for that work and that they will make a proper report, and nobody outside the committee takes much interest in the subject. Of course, it may be said: " Why don't you go to the committee?" Now, these committees generally sit during the sittings of the House, and we cannot be present at both. We have had experience of these committees in the past. We had a special committee on the Railway Act, and afterwards we had to thrash the whole matter out in. the House. If the Government are not satisfied with the administration of the Act, or if they think people outside are not satisfied with it, let a committee be named to consolidate the different Acts, or

let these Orders in Council be enlarged or emasculated or re-arranged in some such way that they shall be acknowledged as being the regulations necessary for giving effect to these Acts. I do not think it is fair that five or ten members of this House should consider this matter in a special committee and make a report-, while the rest of us are attending the sittings of this House. My hon. friend might answer that the evidence will all be printed and that I shall be able to read it, but he knows very well that half the members of this House do not read the evidence taken before these committees to whom matters like this are referred. They have not time to read the evidence. If there is any particular reason why this course should have been adopted I would be disposed to acquiesce in it, but I say that the President of the Privy Council has given absolutely no reason why the various clauses for amending Chapter 42 of the Statutes of 1918 should not come before the Committee of the Whole House, where we would have the privilege of putting questions, reading the Orders in Council, and having them explained by those responsible for them, and of going into all these matters. As it is, I cannot see my way clear to vote for the second reading.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is, of course, in addition to the other considerations, this important one: It is the intention to permit the Great War Veterans and returned soldiers to come before this committee to make representations with reference to the reestablishment of the soldier in civil life. That, of course, could not be done if the Bill was considered in Committee of the Whole. When the Bill is reported from the special committee there will be ample opportunity for the fullest discussion of the provisions of the Bill and the fullest information will be given to hon. members.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I had intended to say a few words about this motion sending this Bill to a committee. The minister assures us that the different phases of the management of the military system in Canada will be dealt with by that committee. When the Soldiers' Land Settlement (Bill came before the House, I pointed out to the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) that the policy of the Government in connection

with the assistance to be given to the soldiers should be put on all at once; that every phase, whether it was by grants of money, grants of land, or whatever it was going to be, should be placed before the public and before the soldiers so that they would have an opportunity of selecting for themselves whichever branch of. that assistance they would care to avail themselves of. The land settlement policy was placed before the country and a great many have taken advantage of it. There is talk about other assistance that has not yet been disclosed. I would suggest to the Government that when this Bill is dealt with, whatever policy the Government is going to put forward in regard to other branches should be announced so that we will have it all, and so that -soldiers, sailors, or whoever are entitled to assistance by the Government by reason of their services to the country, should have an opportunity of selecting for themselves whichever branch or phase of that assistance they are going to adopt.
I was pointing out when the Bill was up for the second reading that I thought the hospital treatment that soldiers are now receiving is rather too expensive and could be carried on much more cheaply. I wish to remind the Government again that from Halifax eastward in the province of Nova Scotia we have quite a number of hospitals. I am not so very well acquainted with the hospital facilities west of that point, but I know that in Windsor, Kentville, Yarmouth and at other points they have hospitals. I think it is at Kentville that they have a hospital in which they treat tubercular cases and I think such cases would be treated in that hospital. The cheaper way would be to arrange with the province of Nova Scotia and to equip that hospital so that any tubercular cases could be received there. In Halifax we have the Victoria General Hospital, which is a large well conducted institution. In New Glasgow, Antigonish, Sydney, North Sydney, and Glace iBay there are well equipped hospitals while in Sydney there are one or two hospitals at least, one of which is a firsts class hospital. I venture to suggest that in all these hospitals- patients who require treatment either at the present or some future time, as pointed out by the minister, can be dealt with and treated very much more cheaply than by maintaining hospitals and- staffs particularly for these cases. These hospitals that I have mentioned have private staffs and- they must maintain them. If we -are going to have separate hospitals for soldiers -we must maintain staffs when perhaps there will be

very little to do. The minister tells us that for at least a year they are going to receive any cases of this kind and to give them sufficient treatment, and that if, at any time in the future, a soldier becomes ill, or has any trouble which may be traced in any way to his service in the field, he shall be entitled to free hospital treatment *and such allowances as he received when he was in the service. I am sure that it would be a bad policy, and a very ex-ipensive one, for the Government to maintain hospitals in different parts of Canada so as to be ready to receive men of that kind. However desirable it is that they should be received, I think it is better that a private arrangement should be made with the hospitals in different parts of the country in which they would receive patients and be paid specially for any services that they would render.
I trust that the general policy of the Government in the different lines in which they expect to assist the soldiers will be announced and also that 'the question of hospitals, and the treatment of cases, not only in the province of Nova Scotia but elsewhere, may be arranged for on the basis that I have mentioned. I only mention the province of Nova Scotia because I am familiar with the hospitals there, but I am quite sure that all the other provinces are equally well equipped to look after cases of this kind. I trust that the committee under the direction of the minister who has charge of this Bill, and of the Government generally, will see to it that the fullest possible information is obtained in connection with the matter and that officials, no matter how capable they may be, will be dispensed with if it is found that the country can get along and that the service which they render can be obtained as well and with less trouble and expense to the country. These are the only observations I wish to make in connection with this Bill before it goes to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker, with the
consent of the House, I beg to move:
That the name of Mr. Morphy be added to the names already composing the committee to which Bill No. 10 has been referred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House returned to the consideration of Public Bills and Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ISAAC E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew), moved the second reading of Bill No. 2 respecting Thanksgiving Day. He said:
As the House is well aware this is a Bill which has been before Parliament for a great length of time. The subject was introduced by me by way of resolution on the 11th of March last. On the ensuing 4th of April I brought in a Bill and it received its first reading, but owing to the pressure of business last session the measure made no further progress and was held over until now. Since I gave notice of my resolution last March, and doubtless owing to the publicity which it was accorded in the press of the country, I have received many communications from citizens and associations and organizations of various kinds, endorsing the principle of the Bill. So that hon. gentlemen will thoroughly understand its provisions I will read the measure which is very brief. It is entitled "An Act respecting Thanksgiving Day," and reads as follows:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
The annual thanksgiving day, heretofore held on a day fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, shall hereafter be held on the second Monday of November in each year, as a perpetual memorial of the victorious conclusion of the recent war, in addition to such other reasons as may be prescribed by proclamation of the Governor in Council for that purpose published.
Then the Bill proceeds to enumerate the various alterations to the law that would be rendered necessary by the enactment of its provisions.
Now, Sir, it may be wise on my part to make a reference to the Thanksgiving Days that have been observed in this country for some time past. As a matter of fact I intend to go back to the early history of Canada, draw attention to some of the dates observed as Thanksgiving Days, and give the reasons therefor.
The earliest date i,n Canadian history recognized as a day of special thanksgiving was observed in Lower Canada. This was proclaimed on December 22nd, 1798, and observed on Thursday, 10th January, 1799. It may be of special interest, perhaps, to those present here at this time, to know that the reason for this day of thanksgiving was because of "The signal victory over our enemy";-our enemy at that time
[Stage Direction]
being France. The Thanksgiving proclamation also stated that the day was observed for "the manifold and inestimable blessings -which our kingdoms and provinces have received, 'and daily continue to receive." The next date which was observed as a day of thanksgiving in Lower Canada was on Thursday, August 12, 1802, and the reason then announced by proclamation was "for Hi® mercies." No doubt that had reference to a bountiful 'harvest, and peace and prosperity in the land. The next thanksgiving day was observed in Lower Canada on Thursday, April 21, 1814, "for glorious victory over our enemies- "France." Another day of thanksgiving was observed on Tuesday, 13th September, in the same year, 1814, for "the end of the sanguinary contest in Europe and to give the Dominions the blessings of peace." Then on Thursday, April 6, 1815, wiais observed as a thanksgiving day by Lower Canada, "as the end of the war with United States of America arid the restoration of the blessings of peace." Tuesday, May 21, 1816, was observed by Lower Canada a® a day of thanksgiving, "for the end of the war between Great Britain and France," -the Napoleonic Wars. Wednesday, February 6, 1833, was the next date observed as thanksgiving day by Lower Canada and the reason was "for the cessation of cholera." Wednesday, November 1, 1834, was observed as thanksgiving day because of the inauguration of quarantine of ships at Grosse Isle, and Monday, February 26, 1838, was observed as thanksgiving day by Lower Canada for the termination of the Rebellion. This was the last thanksgiving day observed by Lower Canada separate from the province of Canada.
In Upper Canada, the first thanksgiving day of which there was any record was observed on Tuesday, June 18, 1816, "because of the end of the war between Great Britain and France." This was about a month later than the date on Which the same event was celebrated in Lower Canada. Thursday, 14th February, 1833, was the next thanksgiving day date in Upper Canada, observed "to continue His mercies." Thursday, 30th October, 1834, was the next thanksgiving day date, and it was observed for the same reason as in 1833. On Tuesday, 6th February, 1838, the last Thanksgiving Day was observed in Upper Oanada. The formation of the province of Oanada followed. This thanksgiving was for the same reason as in 1833, namely, "to continue His mercies." No notice, apparently, was taken in the pro-tMr. Pedlow.]
ciamation in Upper Canada, 'as was done in Lower Canada, of the termination of the Rebellion, so as to whether Upper Canada was thankful or not for the termination of that stirring event, the Rebellion of 1837-38, the citizens of the Dominion at the present time 'are left in doubt. After the formation of the province of Canada, which comprised Upper and Lower Canada, the 3rd of January 1850 was the first thanksgiving day date observed in the province, the reason assigned being "for His mercies and cessation of grievous disease, Asiatic Cholera." Wednesday, 4th June, 1856, was (the next Thanksgiving Day date which the province of Canada observed, "for the restoration of peace with Russia," this being at the termination of the Crimean War. The three subsequent dates on which Thanksgiving Day was observed in the province of Oanada were Thursday, 3rd November, 1859, Thursday, 6th December, 1860, Wednesday, llt'h November, 1863, all observed for the same reason, namely, abundant harvest and continuation of peace." Wednesday, 18th October, 1865, was the last Thanksgiving Day date in the province of Oanada before Confederation, and it was observed "for His mercies." This came after the termination of the American Civil War. No attention was paid to the many important events in Canadian history that took place between 1865 and 1867.	-
After Confederation in 1867 Monday the 15th of April, 1872, was the first thanksgiving day observed, and that was " for the restoration to health of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales,'' afterwards King Edward the Seventh just eleven years after his visit to Canada. Since Confederation thanksgiving day has been observed yearly without interruption, beginning with Thursday, the 6th of November, 1879, and continuing right up to the present time, and in every case it has been observed " for the blessings of an abundant harvest." Twenty-two of these thanksgiving days were observed in the month of November on dates running from the 3rd to the 28th; eighteen were observed in the month of October as early as the 8th and as late as the 31st, one on Wednesday- in 1880-and afterwards always on Thursday up to the year 1908, when Monday was decided on because of special representations made by business representatives and the commercial travellers associations of Canada. Since Confederation special days of thanksgiving have been observed, in addition to the one I have already referred to in 1872, on the following dates: Tuesday,

the 17th of November, 1887, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Queen Victoria's accession to the throne of Great Britain and Ireland; Tuesday, the 22nd of June, 1897, was observed as a special day of thanksgiving on account of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee; on Thursday, the 26th of June, 1902, the coronation of King Edward VII was to have been observed, but owing to the serious illness of His Majesty the date was changed to the 9th of August, 1902.
Now, Sir, the proposal embodied in the Bill before the House has been endorsed, as I have already stated, by many institutions and associations, the principal of these being:	The Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada (Toronto); the Dominion Commercial Travellers' Association (Montreal) ; the Ontario Commercial Travellers' Association (London); the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada; the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade-in annual convention assembled, representing delegates from fifty-seven Boards of Trade of Ontario; the Hamilton Methodist Conference-assembled at Kitchener on June 2; the president of the Great War Veterans' Association, Captain W. P. Grant, of this city, and many other citizens in every walk of life as well as hon. members on both sides of the House.
I might perhaps call the attention of the House to a few of the resolutions to which I have referred. The first is from the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, which association represents over 200,000 commercial institutions in the Dominion. I read this communication because in their discussion of the proposition they decided very sensibly on the day of the week instead of the date of the month as the most suitable to. meet their requirements. Their communication is as follows:
Moved by- seconded by-
" That it is the opinion of this meeting that in order to preserve the memorable date of November 11th as a day of Peace, we ask the Do-miniBn Government to have Thanksgiving Day of each year fall upon this date."
After considerable discussion, it was resolved that, owing to the fact that November 11th might fall on Saturday or Sunday and greatly inconvenience the general public, as well as the retail merchants, it would be inadvisable to support the resolution, but the members felt that, in tReir opinion, it would be appropriate for Canadians to celebrate a Peace day, which could very well be considered a day of Thanksgiving, and they would recommend that if it was the intention of the Government of Canada to combine a Peace day with Thanksgiving day it should be permanently fixed so as to fall on a (Monday.
I read that with much pleasure, because it endorses absolutely the position which I have taken. I might also read the resolution adopted by the Methodist Conference held at Kitchener. I take this from a copy of the Toronto Globe of June 3 last. It is in the form of a despatch from Kitchener, dated the previous day:
The delegates at this afternoon's session of the Hamilton Methodist Conference almost unanimously passed the amendment to the report of the Committee on Conference Memorials recommending that the Monday nearest November 11 be fixed by the Government as Thanksgiving Day in Canada hereafter, and supported the proposal to fix November 11 of each year as Armistice and Thanksgiving Day. This latter proposal was submitted to the Conference by the Simcoe district.
The Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada addressed me in the following terms:
Our American Allies have for years past fixed the fourth Thursday in November as Thanksgiving Day and as the Armistice was signed on Monday, November 11th, 1918, we would be fully in accord if your motion read fixing said day on the second Monday in November.
You will notice that while endorsing the principle of observing the day on which the Armistice was signed ending the great World War, they prefer the second Monday in November to the date on which the Armistice was actually signed, so that the Thanksgiving Day would always fall on the same day of the week in each year. They further state:
We have always understood that Thanksgiving Day was set aside for returning thanks to Providence for his many blessings during the year. It was understood, that people as a general thing would attend divine service, in the different churches. Until Thanksgiving Day was set on Monday, this part of it was a total failure and churches were meagrely attended and a great many of them did not open their doors, while outside the theatres, picture shows, horse racing, sham battles and everything of a secular nature was engaged in.
That was an argument in favour of Monday, so that the Thanksgiving service should be held in the churches on Sunday and horse-racing, sham battles and other amusements could be indulged in on the following day. The same idea runs through the communications of the Dominion Commercial Travellers' Association, having its head office in Montreal, so that Montreal and Toronto are a unit in that respect. I am glad to find that they agree on some things, and in particular on Thanksgiving Day. The Commercial Travellers' Association of London, Ontario, passed the following resolution :
That Parliament be requested to fix the second Monday of November of each year as a public Thanksgiving Day.
[Stage Direction]


I have also a communication from outside our own borders. It is from the editor of one of the most important trade journals published on the American Continent, if not in the world, and he says, in replying to my inquiry:
It seems to me that your suggestion that the Dominion and the United States should celebrate Thanksgiving Day on the same day each year is a very sound one.
The arguments which I adduced in its favour were that it would be a great convenience to commercial, banking and stockbroking institutions of the two countries, and would obviate the necessity of disturbing business on two different dates.
As I have already intimated, I have received many favourable notices through the press since the Bill was introduced. As a matter of fact, some newspapers were advocating it before the matter was -drawn to my attention by a commercial traveller whose name I should like to associate with the proposal, because I do not wish to claim credit for originating the idea. The idea originated with Mr. David Adair, a commercial traveller, of Ottawa, who has given a good deal of study not only to this matter but to other important questions of considerable interest to Canada. The following letter from Mr. Adair appeared in the Montreal Star of March 13th last:
As Thanksgiving Day is usually held late in October or early in November, and as there is no special date named until a few weeks previous, we would suggest that Nov. llth, the day we celebrated the triumph of right over might in the war waged by Germany and her allies against Great Britain and her allies, 19141918, and in memory of our illustrious dead soldiers and in honour of our gallant living heroes and noble nurses who have represented us so splendidly in the great conflict just ended, be permanently settled by the Government as our future day of thanksgiving, to be known as " Armistice Day." By doing so we would he able to call up some of the enthusiastic comradeship and thanksgiving which touched the heart of all Canada on this ever to he memorable day, the most glorious in all our history.
It would also give future generations a splendid opportunity of doing honour to the memory of their forefathers who suffered, bled and died for the freedom of the world. We believe the setting apart of Nov. llth as Armistice Day for all time to come is a national duty and ought to he taken up by the House now in session.
I wish to read also a short editorial from the Montreal Star with reference to this subject, and then I will not weary the House with any further extracts of that kind. This is one of many that I have clipped from various newspapers:

A National Thanksgiving Day.
The Star is glad to note that a Bill is to be introduced during this session of Parliament to make November eleventh, the anniversary of the day on which the armistice was signed, the national Thanksgiving Day of Canada. A suggestion to this effect was made-
You will note this, please.
[Stage Direction]
in this column of The Star on the day following the signing of the armistice. Hitherto Thanksgiving Day has been unfortunately a vague festival. The date of its observance has varied from year to year, and has been fixed by Order in Council annually. It has never been associated with any particular event in history and has meant too little to most of us.
I think that' the editor is somewhat in error in that, because judging from the list of events that I have read to the House tonight, a different conclusion could be reached. However, that has not much bearing upon the matter which I have under consideration. The editorial continues :
The opportunity is now presented of making this day the most significant and in many ways the most important of all our holidays, a day in which Canada can give solemn thanks for deliverance from the most terrible crisis in its history, a day of real thanksgiving, not only for our safety but for the splendid record of our sons, in a word a day which can be consecrated to patriotism in the best sense of the word. We should not let this opportunity go by of fixing once and forever upon a day for national remembrance of a great moment in the world's history.
That opinion has been endorsed by many leading newspapers in all the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, every nation has its memorial days. " What mean ye by these stones " was the question provoked in their children by the setting up by the Israelites of their crude memorial at Jordan. During the past year we have heard much oi the various kinds of memorials, but is it not exceedingly fitting that we should have memorial days and memorial services wherein sorrow sits with gratitude, enthroned in the. memory of noble deeds?
We have in mind the memory of such stirring events in the Great War -as Ypres, Passehendaele, Valenciennes, the Hinden-burg line, Mans, the Marne, Courcellette, Vimy Ridge, Amiens, Cambrai, Festubert, the Somme, Givenchy, Loos, and many other events of equal interest and importance where our Canadian boys from the farm, the shop, the college and .the office covered themselves with imperishable glory and engraved these names upon the flag of -Canada, not in flaming letters of such base metals as silver or gold, but in a pigment more precious s-till-even in the

heart's blood of the nation's noblest, best and most beloved sons. It is to the memory of these brave men that, if the Bill now before the House is approved of, this day-Armistice Day-the second Monday in November each year, is to be consecrated throughout all the ages of our history. They brought not only to their relatives and friends, but to the whole of Canada, undying glory to the fullest measure, and although the bodies of many of these noble lads lie buried in foreign soil far from the Canada they loved, their memories shall live forever in the land they died to save.
I trust, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill will receive the favourable consideration of the House and will become the law of the land during this year, so that there may be no break in the observance of this memorial.
Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the eloquent address with which the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) supported his motion for the second reading of this Bill. There are doubtless very many reasons why we should desire to bear in mind the great cause for thankfulness that we had on the eleventh of November, 1918, when Ithe great struggle einded in which our men, in common with the men of the Empire as a whole and with the men of the allied powers, took so glorious a part. The hon. member has enumerated a number of days in the course of the war when the sons of Canada covered themselves with glory and earned for themselves and for their country a name which I am satisfied will never die. Each one of these days would be worthy of commemoration. Perhaps each one of them is as worthy of commemoration as the day which marked the termination of the struggle; some of them, indeed, may be more worthy of commemoration. Because, after all, we are, I think, not disposed to forget the fact that the war ultimately terminated. But that, perhaps, is not the thing that we have most reason to be proud of. It is the achievements that brought the end, rather than the mere fact that the war ended, that we have special reason to be proud of and special reason to desire to Temember. I point out this consideration which I think it is worth our while to have in mind in dealing with this question.
There is another point of view from which they may be viewed. Thanksgiving Day has come to be with us an annual
28i
festival; it has come to be associated with the special thanks which, as the years go by, we owe to the Almighty for the blessings and mercies that have come to us during that year. It would seem to me that, if it be thought that Armistice Day required a special day to be set aside for its celebration lest we should forget it, we should consider whether we should not give it a day for itself. It does not seem to me to be desirable that we should abandon the custom, which has become time-honoured, of setting aside one day in each year for thanksgiving to the Almighty for His blessings during that year. The day after all, in its nature as we have observed it up to the present, is not a day intended to be a day of commemoration; it is one day out of the whole year that the country sets apart to thank the Almighty for the blessings that he has bestowed upon us during that particular year, and for my part I would be sorry to see that custom of setting aside a day for that particular purpose departed from.
We should also give thought to certain practical considerations. After all we desire this day, which in its nature is a day of thanksgiving, to be a day of rejoicing, of happiness, of enjoyment, for our people. When you take this country from one end to the other, I think I may safely say that past experience has shown us that selecting a day in the month of November exposes us to falling upon a day which will very probably be entirely unsuitable for anything in the nature of enjoyment of outdoor amusement of any description. That, perhaps, is the most wholesome form of amusement, and it is well to give consideration to that fact in determining the day upon which we should celebrate our day of thanksgiving. It is true that for quite a number of years our Thanksgiving Day was fixed in the month of November. I would not speak positively, but I think that, to some extent at all events, that fixing was influenced by the desire to make our Thanksgiving Day fall upon the same day as was fixed in the republic to the south of us, and no doubt there were advantages to be derived from Thanksgiving Day being celebrated on the same day in both countries. But, notwithstanding that consideration and ki response to what was the expression of a very general and widespread opinion in the country, Governments for quite a number of years past, now have found it wise, with a view to meeting the desire of the public and in view of the considerations that I have already mentioned, to fix Thanksgiving Day at an


William Foster Cockshutt: the hardships and dangers they encountered because the civilization of the world, yes, Christianity itself, appeared to be tottering in the balance, whether might should prevail over right.
In view of all these considerations and the desirability of marking for all time our thanksgiving for this great victory I have very cordial feelings towards the proposal of my hon. friend, and if he would consent to making the date the 11th of November instead of the second Monday of November I would have very great pleasure in doing all I could to help him carry his resolution.


Mr. J. A. LEDUC (Westmount-St. Henry):: I think I should not let this occasion pass without saying a word on the matter. I wish to say a few words on behalf of the retailers. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has said that he would have no objection to seeing Thanksgiving Day fixed for the 11th of November. Now the 11th of November might fall on a Saturday, and there are a great many retailers who do not observe Thanksgiving Day when it falls on a Saturday. Why not make it the second Monday of November as proposed by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow)? Then every retailer and merchant would know exactly on what date it would be. You can thank God as well on a movable day as on a fixed day, and if we decided on Monday for Thanksgiving Day we could thank God on the Sunday before, and then enjoy Monday. I am also speaking on behalf of the Montreal Live Stock Association, of which I am a member.
I have no objection to the day being fixed as Monday, but Saturday, which is the day on which the retailers do a large amount of their business, is the worst day that you could choose. If you choose Monday I think I am safe in saying that every one will be satisfied to have it on a fixed day as the hon. member for South Renfrew has suggested.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my views on this subject are very much the same as those which have been expressed by my hon. friend from Westmount-St. Henry (Mr. Leduc). I would be in favour of a fixed day for Thanksgiving. My first reason is that the calendar would mention Thanksgiving Day as any other non-judicial day is mentioned as a federal holiday. The business people would be prepared to observe that day and would know exactly how they stood. It makes a difference whether the day on which we 
are to thank our Lord is fixed by statute or by Order in Council. I think I would rather have it fixed by statute. The Government might fix a day by Order in Council that would perhaps not suit the business community. The peeople would be taken by surprise. It is not everybody who knows what an Order in Council is. A day that the calendar would mention would be a day that would be known to everybody. I second this motion with pleasure, and I think in doing so I represent the views of the people of Montreal who would like to know exactly how they stand in reference to Thanksgiving Day. The Government has decided that Thanksgiving Day shall be in October. It varies by two or three weeks sometimes. Some people are expecting it to be fixed for November, but it has been set for October this year. That is not a good thing for the country and we would be very pleased if the Government would see fit to accept this Bill. I understand that the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) does not make it a party question. When it is stated that Montreal and Toronto agree it seems to me that this Parliament should not interfere but should allow it to go by common consent.


Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (St. Denis):: If I correctly understand the suggestion which is before the House it is that Thanksgiving Day shall be fixed for the second Monday in November. I agree that the day should be set for Monday. We are accustomed to celebrating some of our holidays on Monday. Labour Day is the first Monday in September. As far as the workingmen are concerned if a day in the middle of the week is fixed it interferes with the week's work. If a holiday happens to fall on Tuesday or any other day of the week, except Monday, it puts the men in such a position that they suffer a great loss of time and it is a loss to the community commercially as well as economically speaking. There is a Saturday half holiday in a great many of the cities in Canada. Any body who wants to visit friends can start on Saturday and he has the benefit Of Sunday and also of Monday, if Monday is the day fixed for Thanksgiving. Every one knows that the workingmen have very few opportunities to visit their friends, and they can thank God as well in a country town as they can in the city. I would strongly support the proposal to have a fixed day and, in order that it might be beneficial to the labouring classes, I would urge that Monday be decided upon so as to ensure

that the people would have two days of rest instead of one and a half. I feel that the change would be of great advantage to all classes of people.
Mr. HERBERT M. MOWAT (Parkdale): As representing a constituency which contains, probably, the homes of the greatest number of commercial travellers, I desire to throw any weight I may possess in this discussion on behalf of a fixed day, and that day Monday. Commercial travellers would not then need to start out on Sunday night, .as is usual, to be at their work on Monday. They would have a much longer time to spend with their families, and if it is to be a day of thanksgiving, how better can a man give thanks than when he is at home with his family? For that reason I hope that the Bill as drafted by my bon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) will pass.
There is another reason that should be given for the acceptance of this Bill, namely, that it is a new Bill for Canada and it gives recognition to Canada's effort in the war. Our ancestors, and those of us whose ancestors came from the British Isles, had no special thanksgiving day. They gave thanks for a bountiful harvest every day after the harvest was gathered in. We are no more pious than they were and yet we -think we ought to observe a particular day on which to give thanks. We adopted a thanksgiving day from another country and not our own. Therefore it is a matter of rejoicing to me to see that we are starting out, as we will by this Bill, with a thanksgiving day to give thanks not only for a bountiful harvest but for the greatest event in the history of our country that probably any of us will ever experience.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) .moved -the second reading of Bill No. 9 to amend the House of Commons Act, .and to provide that polling days at elections shall be public holidays.
Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain the Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: This measure, Mr. Speaker, is designed to correct certain abuses which have arisen under the House of Commons Act with respect -to electoral matters. It provides for automatic bye-elections. As is well known, under the present system there
is no provision for elections to be held at a certain stated period when- a seat has been declared vacant and -the result is -that v-acant seats have been made political footballs by the party in power ever since the House of Commons Act was placed upon the statute-books. I submit that the law as it now stands is undemocratic, -that it is not according to British precedent, and that it is high time that some change be made whereby constituencies which have become vacant shall not be kept disfranchised for periods ranging from six months to three years.
I might say that under the Liberal rule vacancies were filled much more expeditiously than they are at present, but I am free to admit that very much was left to be desired, even under that Administration, with respect to this matter. I have only to mention the case of the disfranchised county of Glengarry; no representative from that county has sat in this Parliament, although we are now well on into our second year. We also have the ridings of North Ontario, Quebec East, Assiniboia, and other divisions, which have been disfranchised for many months. I submit this should be put an end to- and this measure seeks to accomplish that result.
The second section of the Bill makes provision against two seats being held by the same member. It is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that the present system should continue. One would imagine that the importunities of the electors of a single constituency would be quite sufficient to satisfy any one member; but to be obliged to submit to the demands of the electors of two divisions seems to my mind to be a cruelty from which the member ought to be protected. Now, this system of electing one member to occupy two seats is mannestly something which should no longer continue in Canada. The voting strength of tne parliamentary party to which the member belongs is lessened and weakened by the present system, often a first-class man is kept out of the House, and it is certainly time that we should make some change whereby a member can sit for only one seat.
The third section of the measure is one which I almost hesitate to refer to at this moment, and it is this: That election day shall be declared to be a general holiday throughout Canada. In view of the fact that we are abo-ut to add an additional holidav. it seems to be-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, not an additional holiday.


Samuel William Jacobs: At any rate we are fixing Tnanksgiving Day for a particular time. Prom the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in the Thanksgiving Day debate, one would be led to believe that we ought to have a Thanksgiving Day and also an Armistice Day, that both of them are so important that they afford particular occasion for thankfulness by the people of tins country. However, tfie rule which is incorporated in the Bill, whereby a holiday is to be declared on voting day, is one which, I think, will make for actual benefit-actual tangible benefit-to>
the people of this country. The reason for incorporating it in the Bill is that every voter "should be given an opportunity of going to the poll free from restriction and untrammelled so far as action by his employer,, or some person who has some supervision over him, is concerned. We know it to be quite often the case that in elections, particularly by-elections, where it is almost vital that the Government should carry the seat, pressure is sometimes brought to bear by employers to see that the voter goes to the poll and votes according to the wish not of the voter but of the employer, or the superintendent, or the manager of the department where he works. This should be done away with. The voter should go to the poll untrammelled and unafraid, and I think a measure of this kind will make for general benefit. The whole measure, I submit, is one in line with legislation throughout the world. In England, as is well known, elections take place automatically -within, I believe, three weeks after the seat is declared vacant. We pride ourselves on being fashioned on the English system. Why not adopt this rule? I submit, the Bill ought to receive the support of members on tooth sides of the House.
I may say before closing that this was the view of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) when on January 16, 1908, he introduced a measure and spoke as follows:
The Bill has the same purpose as a BUI introduced last session or the session before. It is to provide that, in case the seat of any member of this House is vacated for any cause and the writ for the election of a new member is not issued within a prescribed time, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to issue the writ for a new election.
It is rather curious that measures of this kind, fixing elections automatically, are usually introduced by the Opposition. When the Opposition succeeds to office, interest seems to toe lost in the measure, probably on the principle that "When the devil was sick the devil a monk would
['Mr. Jacobs.]
be. When the devil was well, the devil a monk he'd be." However, I intend to hold the Prime Minister and his cohorts down to the view he expressed on January 16, 1908, and I trust the Bill will receive the approbation of the members to your right, Mr. Speaker, who are following the Prime Minister.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have one objection to the hon. gentleman's Bill and that is that it proposes to make election day a public holiday. I must confess I may hold extreme views with respect to this question of holidays, but I am absolutely opposed to a multiplication of public holidays. It is a serious interference with business and, speaking of my own profession, a handicap in the publication of a daily newspaper. I very much dislike the prospect of election day being proclaimed a holiday. In the city from which I come the polls are usually located in the schools and an election results in a school holiday. Children have a holiday on polling day, but there would seem to be no good reason why the general business of the country should be suspended because an election is being held.
Perhaps I might be pardoned for introducing the matter, but I felt more like supporting the views of the sponsor of the previous Bill because the 11th of November would occasionally fall on the Sabbath, and I do not see why we should not give thanks on the Sabbath as well as on any other day. It also occurred to me that this Government ought to approach the German Government with the view of getting them to adopt the 11th of November, ' Armistice Day, as a holiday, 'as I think they have more reason to rejoice at the signing of the armistice than we have.
As to the by-elections being held automatically, I quite agree with my hon. friend that it would appear to be a desirable practice. It is the practice in England, and I suppose that is a very good country to look to for an example. I have always observed that the party in opposition is strongly in favour of having bye-elections brought on expeditiously, but when in power it is not so anxious to have that practice carried on.
It may be that that sentiment exists to some extent even at the present day; I remember it did in the old days. I have not considered the merits of the Bill and therefore have not any further remarks to offer in regard to it, but I am entirely opposed to making election day a public holiday.


Alphonse Verville: If I understand the wording of this Bill

aright, it means that a bye-election at any time would be made a public holiday. If that is the case, I am opposed to the Bill. Let us take a large city where there are ten or twelve subdivisions:	Are we going to
proclaim a legal holiday for one corner of the city and order all the stores and factories to close, and leave those in the'other parts of the city open? Is that fair? The proposal might work very well in the country, but it would not be practicable in a city. It would be absolutely unfair to deprive a great many working men of their wages because they happened to be in a certain section of the city in which a bye-election was being held, and it would be equally unfair to the manufacturers and other employers. At first I thought the proposal was restricted to a public holiday during a general election, which I have always been in favour of, because a date can be fixed to suit everybody; and I believe when the people are choosing a Government for three or four or five years they should be given a chance to go to the poll, for it is *an occasion of great importance, and probably we are celebrating other holidays which are not nearly as important. Especially is a general holiday needed for a general election with women now in a position to exercise the franchise, and it is quite likely that in the very near future they may ask that the day be set apart as a public holiday. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) would not want to have the shops and factories closed in his own little riding wedged in among four other ridings-and the shops and factories in the adjoining ridings open for business. It would be absolutely unfair for every one concerned. I would therefore ask my hon. friend not to press that part of his Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not wedded to that
section.
Mr. RICHARD -C. HENDERS (Macdonald) :	Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say
anything about the matter of holding bye-elections at a stated time after vacancies occur, I desire rather to deal with the other feature of the Bill. As a farmer representing an agricultural constituency I would like to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience that would be experienced in the event of an election coming, say, at this time of the year and a public holiday being declared for it. Take the western part of our country where the threshing machines are running and we have hundreds of thousands of dollars of interest at stake. If it was a suitable day
for those machines to run, would you tie up the threshing of perhaps one or two million bushels of grain for the sake of giving everybody a holiday to vote, particularly if we had weather like that which we have been passing through during the last ten days, with the machines tied up every other day on account of rain? I am quite sure that if we declared a holiday under those conditions we would have the people up in arms about it. It is quite possible for every voter to have an opportunity to register his vote without stopping threshing for a minute. Suitable arrangements to this end are made from time to time during elections, and I do not think any serious difficulty" is experienced in doing so; but to tie up every machine for an election and particularly a by-election I think is going entirely too far.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill introduces what may be regarded as a very useful reform in connection with elections. I have very little to add to what has already been said in regard to it. I agree altogether with the mover of the second reading and the author of the Bill (Mr. Jacobs), that it is desirable to have elections held as soon as possible whenever vacancies occur. We have noticed from time to time that even in the midst of the war whenever a vacancy occurred in any constituency in the United Kingdom the Mother of Parliaments immediately brought on an election and the constituency was again represented in Parliament at the earliest possible moment, as it ought to be. As that system has worked very well in the Old Country-where I am sure they would not adopt such an obsolete system as we have-I think it will be a wholesome law for us to establish. I trust therefore that as far as the general policy of the Bill is concerned the Government will decide to adopt it.
I am in favour of a general election day being a public holiday. My good friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) spoke against stopping people from working, but as far as I know there is nothing to prevent any person working on a holiday if he wants to.


An hon. MEMBER:: He won't work,
though.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If he has a threshing
machine working, or is taking in his hay, or is engaged in any other farm work, and he finds it would be a great loss to him to observe the holiday, there is no punishment to deter him from continuing opera-

tions; but as a general rule the holiday would be observed. I am in favour of the general election date being a public holiday because I think it will tend largely to greater purity in elections. I run about as cheap elections as any man, otherwise I would not be able to run them at all, but I have been told that in some other parts of the Dominion some voters will say : " I will not lose my day's work unless some provision is made for it." That is " put up *' to candidates very often, and they have got to do a lot of " arranging " or they will probably lose the support of such voters.
If the day is a public holiday and factories and works of that kind are closed, that condition is not put up to the candidate. The adoption of this measure, therefore, making election day at general elections a holiday, would be a great step in advance; it would tend to make elections less expensive and, indirectly, to bring about purity in elections, as we call it. I can see the force of the argument put forth against declaring the days on which byelections are held to be public holidays, particularly in large cities, because that would interfere with the people outside of the riding in question. But general elections do not come round more than once in four years; under our Constitution they are required to be held at least once in five years; and a public holiday once in five years will not he very much felt in the long run. If the Government will accept the Bill, I believe that they will be bringing about very wholesome reforms in connection with the different points which the Bill covers.


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Digby and Annapolis) :: Mr. Speaker, there is much to be said in favour of the proposal that has been brought forward by the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). The question, however, is a somewhat complicated one. When I first saw a reference to it on the Order Paper, it occurred to me that it was a matter upon which I would wish to speak at some length. I am sorry that the discussion was brought on so speedily and so unexpectedly this evening for 1 should have liked to be in a better position to discuss it.
But there is another reason why, in my opinion, this matter should not be disposed of at this sitting. The House is somewhat slim and the only member who might give us a valuable opinion on this thing based on actual experience is absent from his place; I refer 'to the hon. member who

represents the constituency of Maiisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). We certainly ought to hear from him on a matter of this kind before we advance the Bill any further. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing it later.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. Davidson, which was agreed to on the following division, and the debate adjourned.

Messieurs.
Allan,
Anderson,
Argue,
Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Ball,
Best,
Blair,
Blake,
Bonnell,
Boyce,
Brien,
Calder,
iCasselman,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Clark (Bruce), Cockshutt,
Cooper,
Cowan,
Crothers,
Crowe,
Davidson,
Davis,
Poster (York),
Fraser,
Fulton,
Glass,
Green,
Griesbach,
Harold,
Harrison,
Hartt,
Hay,
Henders,
Keefer,
Knox,
MeGibbon (Muskoka). McGregor,
Molsaac,
Martin,
Mewburn,
Morphy,
Mowat,
Munson,
Myers,
Nesbitt,
Nicholson
(Queens, PE.I.), Nicholson (Algoma), Paul,
Porter,
Richardson,
Rowell,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Sifton,
Simpson,
Smith,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lanark), Sutherland,
Thompson (Weyburn), Thompson (Hastings), Thompson (Yukon), Wigmore,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wilson (Saskatoon), Wright.-69.
Baldwin,
Bfiland,
Bourassa,
Bureau,
Cahill,
Cardin,
Casgrain,
Crerar,
d'Anjou,
DdchSne,
Demers,
Desaulniers,
Euler,
Fournier,
Gauthier,
Gauvreau,
Gervais,
Halladay,
Hunt,
Jacobs,

Messieurs.
Lesage,
McCrea,
MeGibbon (Argenteuil), McKenzie,
Maharg,
Michaud,
Molloy,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Pedlow,
Pelletier,
Prevost,
Proulx,
Reid (Mackenzie), Savard, .
Seguin,
Sinclair Antigonish & Guysborough), Sinclair
(Queens, P.E.I.),

Johnston,	Tobin,
Lafortune,	Trahan,
LanetSt,	Truax,
Lapointe (St. James), Turgeon,
Leduc,	Verville,
Leger,	White (Victoria).-50.

The list of pairs is furnished by the Chief Whips. Messieurs.
Ames, Sir Herbert,	Leimieux,
Burrell,	Chisholm,
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Borden, Sir Robert,	Devlin,
Wallace,	Murphy,
White, Sir Thomas,	McMaster,
Tweedie,	Copp,
Middlebro,	Robb,
Redman,	Ross,
Andrews,	Fielding,
Armstrong (York),	Power,
Bolton,	Ethier,
Bowman,	Marcile (Bagot),
Boys,	Mayrand,
Bristol,	Kay,
Buchanan,	Lavigueur,
Burnham,	Denis,
Butts,	Fortin,
Campbell,	Fortier,
ChaJbot,	Parent,
Charlton,	Vien,
Clark (Red Deer),	Boyer,
Clarke (Wellington),	Cannon,
Clements,	Delisle,
Cochrane,	Deelauriers,
Cruise,	Du Tremblay,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Gladu,
Douglas (Cape Breton), Archambault,	
Edwards,	Brouillard,
Elkin,	Fafard,
Finley,	Kennedy,
Foster, Sir George,	Lapointe
	(Kamouraska).
Maclean (Halifax),	McCoig,
Hepburn,	Pacaud,
Reid.	Duff.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Joseph Archambault: For a copy of all the reports made to the Government by Dr. R. J. McFall, Cost of Living Commissioner.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: For a return showing the number of timber and mining areas (licenses) in the Povinces of British Columbia and Alberta, on which arrears of yearly rentals were allowed to remain unpaid and not cancelled, during the years 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919 ; also showing the amounts 'of such yearly rentals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Dominion Government and the various provincial executives in connection with the promotion of technical education.
On the motion of Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Friday, September 19, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Four o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) presented the first report of the Special Committee on Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Act, 1918, as follows:
Tour committee recommend that they be granted leave to have their proceedings, and such evidence as may be taken by them from time to time, printed from day to day for the use of the committee, and that rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.
Tour committee also recommend that they be given leave to eit while the House is in session.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Extracts from instructions to Dominion Police with regard to the use of firearms.- Hon. Mr. Doherty.
Statement showing expenditures made on account of miscellaneous unforeseen expenses since the last session of Parliament; list of Governor General's warrants authorized since the last session of Parliament; statement respecting superannuation and retiring allowances for the Civil Service for the year 1918-19.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I rise to a question of
privilege. On page 396 cf the Hansard of September 17th the hon. member for Perth South (Mr. M. Steele) is reported to have said in reference to me:
In fact, if I am not mistaken, my hon. friend did suggest, during the war, that Canada should refrain from assisting in the fight for freedom.
I regret that the Rules of the House do not permit me to use an expression which adequately conveys the opinion I have of the hon. member who made that statement. I wish to say that it is utterly unfounded in fact, and uncalled for.



BOARD OF COMMERCE-SALARIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Doherty the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Board of Commerce Act, chapter thirty-seven of the statues of 1919, by providing that the Chief Commissioner shall be paid an annual salary of ten thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners an annual salary of eight thousand dollars; such salaries to be paid monthly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My recollection of the Act creating the Board of Commerce is that the salaries of the commissioners are to be determined by the Governor in Council. Has it been found necessary to depart from the provisions of that Act and to resort to the present procedure?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of the Board of Commerce being in effect a court, it was thought desirable that the remuneration of the commissioners should be fixed by statute and not be determined simply by Order in Council which might possibly leave the remuneration open to modification. It was thought desirable, the members of the court occupying positions analogous to those of judges, that their salaries should be fixed and defined by statute.


Michael Clark: Does the acting Prime Minister think it likely that this board is to be a permanent part of the machinery of government in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act of Parliament which created the board appears to have contemplated that it would be permanent, in the sense at all events that its services would be needed for a number of years. I draw that inference from the fact that provision is made that the tenure of office of the commissioners should be for a period of ten years.


James Alexander Robb: Could the acting Prime Minister tell us for what term the commissioners are appointed, and what the salary of each commissioner was prior to 1914?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The board has just
been created; it did not exist prior to 1914.


James Alexander Robb: But I meant by my question to ask what incomes were they earning prior to 1914?
Mr. DOHERTY; j have not that information, and it is quite impossible for me to furnish it.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not
answered my other question. For how long are they appointed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have just answered
the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that under the statute their appointment is for a period of ten years.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it intended to appoint a French speaking commissioner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter of appointment is at present under consideration. I am not in a position to say that it has been determined that the gentleman appointed shall be of any particular nationality.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not a question of nationality; it is a question of ability to speak French.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a matter which . most certainly should have consideration.


Joseph Archambault: When may we
expect the appointment of the third commissioner?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman may expect it at any moment.


Joseph Archambault: I understand there is a big fight in Montreal as to who is to be the third commissioner.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to offer any opposition to the salaries to be paid to these gentlemen. (So long as they are serving the -State in accordance with the wishes of the majority of this House, they have to foe paid. At the same time, if it is in order, I should like to say that I do not think we can make any worse expenditure of money than on the salaries of gentlemen who are performing the economic antics that some of these gentlemen are indulging in. I saw in the newspapers the other day that one of them had actually threatened that unless prices came down along certain lines, he was prepared to go the length of forbidding exports. I venture to say that the gentleman who made a threat of that kind must be close to the verge of economic insanity. Just think for a moment of contemplating the results of forbidding the export of agricultural products! I have said again and again in this House that we use in this country every year about sixty million bushels of wheat; but we try to produce as near as we can from three hundred million bushels to four hundred million bushels, and some years have been successful. The very threat of such a restriction upon the commerce of the country is a menace against wheat production, as a child may observe,

I do not want to g<5 further into this question; it would be very simple for me to talk an hour on it. But I would like to call attention to the general policy of appointing this hoard and the object it had in view. The object was laudable-to reduce the high cost of living-and I have no doubt the Government were sincere. I do not wish to cast any doubt on their sincerity, although at the time I debated the creation of the board I expressed a doubt as to whether the Government expected much results from it, because some members of the Government had expressed a doubt whether anything could be done by artificial means of this kind to reduce the cost of living. But I just want to call attention to the fact that while the Board, of Commerce was appointed at the end of last session, we had scarcely gone home before the Government .appointed another Board-I think they called it a Wheat Board-and one of the first things that that board did was to order a fixed price on wheat. Now, Sir, I have been studying economics all my life, and I confess that I cannot understand the state of mind of a Government that supports both boards. How can you, Sir, on the one hand depress the cost of living by going to the extent, if need be, as one of these gentlemen of the Board of Commerce has threatened to. do, of preventing all export, and, on the other hand, keeping the price of wheat at an artificial figure? I leave the problem with the Government, and I leave their boards with them. I have made my protest not for the first time, and I repeat it.


Michael Steele: Mr. Chairman, I do not
purpose following the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in his remarks on this question; but he expressed a thought which I wish to make use of. He said that the threat of a member of this, board to stop the export of certain lines of foodstuffs indicated economic insanity. It occurs to me that perhaps that would explain the remarks of a certain member of the House who spoke a few days ago and advocated restriction of the export of foodstuffs, and who a few minutes ago made certain references to me on a question of privilege. Economic insanity is perhaps one form of insanity; there are various other forms that afflict the human race; and possibly that will account for the remarks he made on the question of privilege.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to the salaries which are now proposed. When the Bill was introduced, if I remember correctly, I said that I did
not think the salaries should be as low as then fixed, as it would not be possible to get the right type of men to fill the position; but I think the salaries now proposed are quite sufficient to secure the , proper type of Commissioners. The fear I had when the Board of Commerce was established was that members might be appointed on the board who would do more harm to the business of the country than they would do good. One of the members of the board at the present time reminds me of the sort of swashbuckler that you read about, who, in the olden days, used to go up and down the country roaring what he was going to do. I never heard of a judge-and this gentleman emphatically states that his tribunal is a court and that he is a judge-
I never before heard of a judge stating in the public press what he was going to do in regard to a case that was coming before him before even he had heard the evidence. This gentleman repeatedly states what he is going to do before he hears the evidence, and he is liable, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has pointed out, of curtailing production in place of increasing it. Those of us who have studied the question at all know that the greatest assistance that can possibly be given to decreasing the price of food and every other commodity is more production. Now, when this man threatens all kinds of businesses that he is going to do this, that, and the other thing with them, why, there is certainly no encouragement to business men to go ahead and try .to increase production and make their businesses a success. I hope that this gentleman will not be so keen to advertise in the newspapers what he is going to do. I have no objection to his doing all he possibly *can do to decrease the cost of living, not the slightest; but I want him to act, and not to talk about what he is going to do so long before he gets at it. If he follows that practice I think perhaps he may do some good; but if he continues his present course of advertising what he is going to do with his almighty powers, I am afraid he will do more harm than good.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, when I inquired from the minister what salaries the commissioners were earning prior to 1914 it was not because I had any objection to the salaries now proposed. But there is a suspicion in the public mind that the commissioners who are advertising themselves as the opponents of profiteers are themselves somewhat in the same class. It is

quite within the knowledge of a good many people that at least one of these commissioners was not earning prior to 1914 nearly the salary that he is now earning. There is another feature of this that must appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House.
This Board of Commerce, I imagine, is under the Department of Trade and Commerce or some other department of the Government. One of the commissioners has stated that he is going to prohibit the exportation of farm produce in order to bring prices down. The commission has advertised widely-indeed, has issued an order to this effect-that if the farmers put up the price of milk or cream they will be put in jail or fined $1,000. It is well known that the price of milk and cream to-day is much lower in Canada than it is in the United States. This means that the Board of Commerce, representing this Government and carrying out its policy, says to the producers of Canada: If you put up your prices to the level of prices prevailing for the export trade we will put you in jail or fine you $1,000. I would like to know whether that is the policy of the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member is quite mistaken in saying that this board is under a department of the Government. The board is a court and the members are no more under a department of the Government than the judges of our courts are under the Minister of Justice simply because they are appointed on his nomination. This board exercises the functions conferred upon it not under instructions from the Government, but in accordance with the judgment of its own members. With regard to the statements that have been made concerning the announcements of different commissioners, perhaps we all have had experience which has caused us to realize that the newspapers cannot always be relied upon as being absolutely accurate. Perhaps it is not absolutely fair for us to judge a man upon newspaper reports without our having before us evidence of the authenticity of the statements alleged to have been made.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If this Board of Commerce is a court-and, of course, it is a court, because the Minister of Justice says so-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because the statute says so.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Because the statute says so, and' the statute is something like the young Anglican curate who said: "I

say-and the Apostle Paul agrees with me." Well, the statute says so, and the Minister of Justice agrees with the statute. This body being a court, then, the commissioners must behave as judges, and if they do not do so the Minister of Justice should lay his kindly and restraining hand upon them.


Samuel William Jacobs: They ought to be impeached.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Minister of Justice says that we should be charitable; that we should not, without obtaining further information, take it for granted that this judge spoke in the loose way that it is reported he did; that the newspapers may have made a mistake. Well, my acquaintance with the gentleman whose rereported sayings are before the committee is limited, but I think that the words found in the press bear his imprimatur. I represent the foremost dairy county in this country-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -for its size.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You will note, Mr. Chairman, that I said "for its size." Other counties larger in area may produce larger amounts of butter, cheese or milk, but no county of its size produces butter, cheese and milk of as fine quality as those produced in the county of Brome.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why do I make that vaunting assertion? For this reason: That to attempt to control the price of milk without attempting to control at the same time the prices of cheese, butter and beef is absolutely futile. If you endeavour to keep down the price of milk below that which will pay the farmer to turn it into butter, or to take it to the cheese factory and have it turned into cheese, you will only reduce the supply of milk and increase its price. If I mistake not, an attempt was made some months ago to fix the price of milk sold in New York city. The result was that the farmers dried off their cattle and sold them for beef. Everybody wants to see milk plentiful, because it is the best drink, after water, that human beings can absorb.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There should be no question on that point in this House. Everybody wants to see milk plentiful, because it is a most necesary food, especially for

children. But to endeavour to control the price of milk in an arbitrary and offhand fashion is economically futile and politically unsound. I commend to the Minister of Justice the -wisdom of inquiring into the bona fides of these newspaper reports about one of his judges, and, if the reports are correct, of dealing with him in that kind, courteous and firm manner which, as a lone student of the Minister of Justice, I know to be characteristic of him.


Edmond Proulx: Some time- ago the Government passed an Order in Council prohibiting the export of raw hides. Was this procedure recommended by the Board of Commerce?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My impression is that the Order was made before the Board of Commerce had been constituted. I am not in a position to say that it was made upon any initiative of theirs.


Edmond Proulx: This is a great hardship to the farmers; it decreases the price of their cattle from $8 to $10 each. I assume that the object of the Government in passing this Order was to increase the quantity of leather available for Canadian manufacturers.


Michael Clark: And bring down the price of beef at the same time.


Edmond Proulx: To remove the duty on raw hides imported from the United States and other countries would have a more beneficial effect than to prohibit exportation. I do not believe that the course which has been adopted will have the effect of reducing the price of shoes. It has not had that effect as yet; indeed, the price has increased since the Order in Council was passed.


Donald Sutherland: Comment has been made in this House as well as outside of it upon the tendency on the part of blatant jingoism to excite and agitate the mind of the people. When the Board of Commerce Bill was before the House I expressed my views upon it, and I need not repeat them now. I said that if the people wanted something of that kind, or a new toy, I was not going to stand in the way of their having it. During the last few days some of the members of the Board have been making statements which would seem to justify the remarks that have been made here this afternoon by some of those who have spoken on the resolution now before its committee.
Ve have just been told by the Minister of Justice that this is a court which is
wholly independent of the Government or Parliament. The Bill that was put through gave them certain powers, and I quite agree with the statement that has been made that it is something unusual for a court or judge to make a statement regarding a matter to be dealt with before hearing all the evidence upon it. In view of those statements that have gone abroad throughout the country during the last few days, and this resolution coming before the House at this time, my opinion is that if we pass this resolution, it means that this House is approving the statements that have been made by the members of that board. We ought to be very careful to find out whether they have been correctly reported or not. I thought it impossible that Mr. O'Connor should have made the statements which he is credited with having made a few days ago at Toronto and Hamilton; but when I saw them in a number of papers, and not only that, but repeated on the following day, I came to the conclusion that the press of this country had not been altogether in error, and that Mr. O'Connor is deserving of being recalled for the purpose of giving an explanation to some one. So long as we have responsible government and members of Parliament elected to represent the people of this country, we should not delegate our authority to any body that is independent of us. To do so is not in keeping with responsible and representative Government nor with the times in which we are living.
Further, I believe-and this was referred to by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx)-that one of the first acts of this board was to recommend that an embargo be placed on the exportation of hides. I do not know whether that was done'by an Order in Council or by the action of this board, but I think it was the Commissioner on the Cost of Living (Dr. Mc-Fall), who recommended this course to the Government. But it is something that affects one matter that, according to press reports, has been referred to by Mr. O'Connor at Toronto and Hamilton during the last few days, namely the price of milk. What was the object to be attained by the embargo on hides, and what is the effect of it? The direct effect of this legislation is that to-day thousands, aye, tens of thousands, of cattle are being shipped to the United States by reason of the fact that their hides will command a much higher price in that country than they will in Canada. What is the con-

dition of affairs in this1 country to-day? Not during the past twenty-five years has this country experienced so serious a condition as regards its livestock as it isexperiencing just at the present time. In Ontario, we were never shorter of feed, and food for stock was never before commanding so high a price as it is at the present time. There is not sufficient food to carry the stock over winter; cattle are being placed on the market by the thousands, and are being killed and cut up as canners, and the hide is a very important and essential source of revenue to those farmers who have to dispose of their stock in this way.
As regards milk, we find in every dairy district in Canada, many of the herds are being reduced by one-half as a result of a scarcity of feed in the country. Does a member of this Board of Commerce mean to tell the people of this country that the price of milk must not be increased or the farmer will be sent to jail while this condition prevails!-and it is the condition, as is well known to every one who is engaged in agriculture in Canada.
Moreover, it is -a reflection upon somebody in this country when our greatest industry is not represented at what is termed a National Industrial Conference, which is being held in this building at the present time. These are some of the things that ought to be dealt with before this convention and that have a vital bearing upon the cost of living in this country. We have heard so much about profiteering and that sort of thing that it is as well for us to get right down to brass tacks and see what we are doing and what the real condition is. It is of no use trying to put the blame on some one else than ourselves. We are facing a condition such as this country has never faced before as the result of the energies of 50,000,000, nay, 100,000,000 people having been directed into channels, not of production, but of destruction, in order to bring about the victory which we have recently won in the war. And to think you can appoint a Board of Commerce to go through this country and, as a result of their actions, bring prosperity to the people, is the most absolute nonsense that I ever heard of. There is no possible chance of their accomplishing that, object. They may lay their hands on a few profiteers here and there; but let me impress upon this House that those profiteers will not be found amongst those who are engaged in agriculture in this country. The hope for the future of Canada rests upon our
[Mr. Sutherland.!
broad agricultural lands, and there is a conspiracy on foot in this country not to promote, but to damn agriculture during the years to come as it has never been damned before. Think of a National Industrial Conference at which agriculture, Canada's greatest industry, and those engaged in that occupation are not represented either directly or indirectly, and yet you find the (Civil Service of Canada and those engaged in almost every other walk of life represented. At that Conference they are discussing the high cost of living and the effect it is having on this country, and they are endeavouring to provide redress for the condition that is confronting us by restricting labour and fixing minimum wages. For my part, I want to state most emphatically that I do not approve the statements credited to this Board of Commerce. I hope, for their own sake, and for the sake of this Parliament which appointed them, that those statements are not true. I can scarcely conceive of men being placed in so responsible a position over and above Parliament and at this time with Parliament in session, acting in open defiance of the interest of this country, and I am not going to signify by my action in this House that I am in accord with the statements they are making. I am here to protest, on behalf of the people who sent me to the House of Commons as their representative, that this increase in tihe salaries oif those men is not in keeping with the statements they are credited with having made during the last few days.


Mr. BEST:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the acting minister how many of the members of the Board of Commerce have been actual producers of farm products, or are actual producers at the present time? What we believe is this, that there are appointed to deal with farm products too many boards, the members of which know nothing whatever about producing food on the farm. The most serious situation that the people of Canada are facing to-day is a lack of farm products, and there is nothing that we can do that will tend to lessen production more than what some of these boards are credited with doing at the present time. We have had the Board of Fuel Control, the Board of Food Control, the Board of Commerce, the Cost of Living Board, and the Purchasing Commission. Is this country going to be run by commissions1, or are the people's representatives going to have any say whatever? It is high time that the people's representatives in this House should have some say in these matters.

While I am not opposed to the appointment of a commission when it is really required, I do think in all fairness to the representatives of the people in this House and the people of Canada themselves that the men who are appointed to a commission should know something about the subject with which they are dealing. Don't appoint men to deal with farm products who don't know 'a hog from a sheep or potatoes from buckwheat; but that is what has been done in the past. I believe there are men in Canada to-day quite capable of dealing with these matters who would be able to tell whether or not a witness was giving evidence to the facts. I hope that in the future the 'Government in making appointments to any commission will see that at least some of the members know something about, and have had some personal experience of at least some of the subjects with which they will be called upon to deal.


John Hampden Burnham: Would the minister toe good enough to tell us what are the economic principles upon which this board acts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is very difficult for me to define the principle upon which a board constituted as this board is, and appointed for the purpose for which it was appointed, acts. The purpose, of course, in creating that board was to provide a method whereby it might be ascertained to what extent, if any, and by whom, what has been described in general terms as profiteering was being indulged in, and to provide means to check it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am a little surprised
that the Minister of Justice should have permitted the attacks which have been made here this afternoon upon members of the judiciary. I think it was his duty as Minister of Justice to rise and protest against the attacks made by his followers on the members of the bench. He has just told us that the gentlemen who constitute the Board of Commerce are judges, That is true, and 1 should like to cite the following rule in Bourinot (page 358):
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
It goes on; [DOT]
Members have even been interrupted in Committee of the Whole toy the chairman when
they have cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding.
It seems to me that the Minister of Justice, who is the guardian angel of the judiciary of this country, should at least protect these new judges from the improper atacks which are being made on them this afternoon.
The 'CHAIRMAN:	I should like to ask
the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is he now raising a point of order.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am raising a point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: In view of what has
been said, I consider that the point is well taken.
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON; I think a tempest in teapot is being raised in this discussion here this afternoon. It is perfectly true that Mr. O'Connor, who is not the chairman of the board but only a member of it, did', if correctly reported, make use of certain expressions that were not wise. However, he is not a trained judicial man, and I have no doubt that when he is sitting jointly with the chairman of the board, Hon. Judge Robson, he will learn discretion, and perhaps the discussion here this afternoon will have done no harm.
I have said all I propose to say with reference to Mr. O'Connor. I should like, however, to say a word about Judge Robson, the Chairman of the Board. He has occupied the position of Public Utilities Commissioner in the province of Manitoba, aud during his administration of that high office he commanded the very highest respect and support of the entire population of Manitoba. When he decided to retire from that position a general wave of regret passed over the minds of the people of that province, because they felt they had lost one of the soundest and ablest public servants they had ever had.
The hon. member for Chateauguay-Hun-tingdon inquired what salaries the members of the board were drawing previously. I cannot say as to Mr. O'Connor, but I am in a position to state that the salary which Judge Robson was drawing before he consented to accept the position of the board was very much higher than the salary provided for that position in the Act of last session, and higher, I believe, than is proposed in the present resolution. It seems almost unfair for hon. members to criticise at this stage the appointment of a Board of Commerce All hon. members of this House know that when the board was ap-



pointed there was no question that more agitated the people than the high cost of living. The country was aflame with unrest. All the people were cursing profiteering and denouncing the high cost of living, and it was in response to a general demand for some action that this board was appointed. Of course, it followed the recommendation of the committee that inquired into the high cost of living last session. I do not think any responsible member of this House would stand up in his place this afternoon and say that this board should not have been appointed. Hon. gentlemen who follow the trend of events in other countries know that similar agitations exist there and that means are being taken by the Governments of those countries to deal with the situation. In appointing the Board of Commerce the Canadian Parliament was simply following the line that had been adopted in the United States, which has appointed an Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate profits. It seemed to be generally agreed last session when the Bill creating the board was passed that no set of men would be able to fix costs but that they might be able to regulate profits, and if in their zeal one member of the board, without judicial experience, has happened to give expression to an indiscreet phrase I do not think it would be wise for this Parliament to be too hard on that gentleman, although I fancy-I will not go any further, Mr. Chairman, I see you are looking at me; I am quite willing to conclude the sentence right there, because I think hon. gentlemen understand what I mean. I do not think it would be wise to be too hard on a man for using an expression that may have been given offhand. I fancy that the discussion here this afternoon will have the necessary regulating effect on the conduct of that gentleman in the future.
In conclusion, I believe that the country will receive the very highest and most earnest and patriotic service, at least from the chairman of this board, and when the board is sitting jointly the chairman will be able to exercise a dominating and restraining influence upon the actions of the board.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I fail to see either the propriety or the need of asking the Committee to pass the resolution now under discussion. The Bill creating the Board of Commerce was passed with little consideration during the dying days of last session, at a time when Parliament, having been called upon by the Prime Minister and the Government

to sit day and night continuously, had through sheer physical exhaustion virtually ceased to exist, so far at least as any mature discussion was concerned. Section 19 provides that the salaries of the Chief Commissioner, the other commissioners, the secretary and all the staff shall be determined by the Governor in Council. The board has entered upon its work, and from all parts of the country criticism is being levelled at it; and less than three months after its creation we find the Government seeking to shoulder upon Parliament its self-assumed responsibiity of fixing the salaries of the officers. It is the duty of the Government to fix these salaries. They have the power to do so, having reserved it in the Bill, and I do not think that the general criticism of which the board is now the object is a' sufficient warranty for interference by Parliament in this matter. My view is that the House should say to the Government:	The Board of Commerce
is of your own making. It has only just begun its operations and is not giving the service which we expected of it; it is not giving any satisfaction to the country at large, and the duty devolves upon you to see that effective means are taken to make the board efficient. We are not opposed to the principle of fixing the salaries of these officials, but that is not the question. We passed a Bill giving the Government full power in this matter and I do not think we should have anything further to do with it. Let the Government discharge the responsibility which they sought. There is no need for calling upon Parliament to consider this question again, and for this reason I oppose the motion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think the Government is to be commended upon their establishment of the Board of Commerce, which is at least an evidence of a sincere desire to do what is possible to reduce the cost of living. But I was surprised when the board was named to note the absence of a commercial man from its personnel. It is composed of two lawyers and a former.newspaper man. who was a civil servant. Naturally I have a very high regard for the capacity of newspaper men, but it seems to me that a board of this kind should have an outstanding business man as one of its members. I am not so sure that two lawyers were required. I believe that with one lawyer and perhaps a representative of agriculture and a business man we should likely obtain better results than are possible from a board constituted as this is. I have no objection

to the salaries. Indeed, I think that one of the difficulties that have to be reckoned with in conducting a public business is the inability to pay a sufficient salary to attract good men. I am therefore perfectly satisfied in that respect. But I think that the people of the country will discover, as the work of the board becomes manifest, that it is essentially weakened by the lack of a man with an extensive training in business affairs. I do not object to Mr. O'Connor, but I have wondered whether his appointment was due to the fact that he had that capacity for advertising himself to which objections have been raised here. I am of the opinion that the people, when the board was formed, expected Mr. O'Connor to find a place on it. I do not know whether that is the reason he was selected, but the propaganda that was carried on by the newspapers made it perhaps inevitable that he should be chosen. As to whether his temperament adapts him to this kind of work is a matter of grave doubt in my mind. I suppose I am not at liberty to discuss the question of his fixing prices, but I know that when the Committee on the High Cost of Living was sitting he was absolutely and unqualifiedly opposed to fixing any prices. He may have undergone a change of heart since then. If he has, then the inference seems to be that he had not thought out the proposition to a final conclusion when he was before the Committee. However, I think it is altogether too soon for us to estimate what can be done or what is likely to be done by the board. It is unreasonable for us, to criticise the operations of this body until it has really had an opportunity to get into its stride. Six months from now perhaps we may have occasion to discuss the work of the board and shall be better qualified then to deal with its achievements than we are in a position to do at the present time. So far as the purpose of the resolution is concerned, I may express myself as being absolutely iff accord with it.


Michael Clark: May I put a
question to my hon. friend. Does he not see that when all the responsible men in the country are demanding production to the limit of all agricultural produce, that production must be inimically affected even by a threat to prevent exportation of such produce?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not want to be understood as giving my unqualified approval to the fixing of prices. I did not intend to
29-J
convey that impression, if that is what the hon. member for Red Deer supposed.


Michael Clark: Canada produces annually vastly more agricultural produce than she can use herself. That is elementary, and unless that goes on Canada's, prosperity is threatened at its very source. Under these circumstances, I ask my hon. friend if he does not see the unwisdom of a person in a responsible position, threatening the prevention of the export of agricultural produce, which is the only method by which we can get rid of our excess products.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the debate goes further I must refer to the point of order raised a moment ago by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who at the time drew my attention to the fact that we were discussing in Committee in the House of Commons the personal conduct of a judge, and read the following from Bourinot:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order. They have always insisted that, "Such expressions should be withdrawn" and that "When it is proposed to call in question the conduct of a judge, the member desiring to do so should pursue the constitutional course of moving an address to the Crown."
I should, perhaps, have asked hon, members present for their opinion upon the point of order before giving my, ruling upon it. It is, never pleasant for a chairman to, reverse a ruling he has given, but I think it is preferable that he should take that: course if good ground exists for doing so,, than to allow a bad precedent to be established.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: Since the ruling was; given I have sent for the statute creating; the Board of Commerce. If the members of that board had been absolutely in the same position as judges of the Superior Court my ruling would have been absolutely correct, but I find that clause three of the statute, constituting the Board of Commerce, reads as follows:
Subsection 3 of clause 3.
Each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment but may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council for cause.
Thus the position of members of the 'board is altogether different from that of a judge

of the Superior Court, who can only be removed by the Governor in Council upon an address of the Senate and House of Commons, and I therefore declare that the discussion was in order.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I say a word in explanation of the point of order which I raised? It was the Minister of Justice who directed the attention of the House to the fact that these gentlemen were judges, and upon that I raised my point of order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If hon. gentlemen will look up what I said tney will find I stated that the statute declared the members of this board to be a court. I did not use the *expression " court of record," which is the term employed in the statute. Speaking of the position of the members of the board, I said that it was in a sense analogous to the office of judge. The ruling of the Chairman explained precisely the reason why I did not raise the question which the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) brought up, and which he suggested it was particularly my duty, as Minister of Justice, to raise. These gentlemen-though I still adhere to the statement that their position with regard to dealing with questions that come before them is analogous to that of a judge-have absolutely nothing to do with the adrnini-stration of justice. There may be judges to judge other matters than questions that arise with regard to the rights of individuals under the law, as between one another. These gentlemen, however, have nothing to do with the administration of justice. They are members of a body that is given the powers of a court of record and they are in a position analogous to judges in the sense that they determine the questions that come before them, but they do not hold positions pertaining to the administration of justice.


Mr. GLASS:: There was no doubt a purpose, as the hon gentleman (Mr. Hoeken) has well said, in the creation of this Board of Commerce, but I think the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has given the House a very important warning this afternoon, and I desire to associate myself with every word he uttered. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and other members of the Government, have laid down to the people and to the producers of Canada that the fundamental requisite to meet the enormous cost occasioned to ,this country by reason of the war is increased production. Yet, Sir, no 
man in this House would dare to admit, I think, otherwise than that the course that is being pursued in the attempt to curb or to limit, prices to the producer, is going to have the very opposite effect. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) has just pointed out the condition that exists in reference to the ban put on the export of hides. Not only in my opinion has it been seriously detrimental to the interests of the country, but it has created among the farming community of Canada an unrest and a dissatisfaction that is becoming serious. Limiting the price of milk 'at the very foundation of supply, as is proposed by the ruling of Mr. O'Connor, given a few days ago, has resulted already, and will result continuously in a largely decreased production in the quantity of milk. All the commissions that this Government can appoint cannot compel the Canadian farmers to turn out or sell his produce below cost. So soon as you attempt to regulate that among the farmers of the country that very moment you are going, as some hon. gentlemen have already pointed out, to decrease the amount of production. Sir, if there was one thing that was more important than another in this country last year, and one that was not given sufficient attention to, it was that the propaganda in favour of greater production was not pressed home strongly enough upon the farmers of the country; they were led to believe that the armistice having been signed there must be an enormous reaction and that prices .were going to sink to a lower level, and that notwithstanding the increase in the cost of labour which was a serious problem to them, hon. members of this House who are acquainted with the facts, should have known, and doubtless did know, that that would not likely be the result. Last year the United States fixed the price of wheat for the farmers in that country, which was a bold and important stroke, and Congress made provision for an enormous sum of money to meet the possible loss that might accrue as the result of that action. But if we leave our wheat markets to the farmers and producers at the present time, and let the foreign market, or the export market, regulate prices in this country, it will encourage our farmers and result in largely increased production. I am opposed to the fixing of the prices for the products of the farm in any respect. If you leave the farmers alone, let them produce and take the markets as they are, they will be better satisfied; they have so expressed themselves in their different organizations throughout the country. They

do not want any more paternalism, they do not want to be directed and guided by commissions such as the one we are discussing. If the commission is going to perform the function expected of them, it may be right and proper that they should inquire into the dealings of individuals and middlemen who obtain abnormal profits. We do not need to go outside this city- in fact we can go into any town or village almost in Canada-to get evidence of that. In the retail stores to-day exemplification of undue profit is illustrated because there certainly is inequality of profit. It was shown here that a spread in price of over twenty cents a pound in the price of one commodity, bacon, prevailed between different stores in this city. That has been going on for a long time. I know from personal knowledge and from a personal investigation of the prices in the retail stores for this commodity that we use every day for our sustenance, that there is a spread to the extent of from twenty to twenty-five cents per pound in different stores in the same community. Now that is not right. These stores all buy at the same market and no doubt at the same wholesale cost. I must admit that every retailer, and every distributor of food, has not got an equal overhead cost, but certainly they cannot attribute to overhead cost the large spread between the rate of the dealer, who is selling at a fair charge, and that of the dealer who is trying to extort an enormous price.
Now, Sir, in the matter of cheese we know that in Western Ontario-and I presume similar conditions exist in the eastern part-there has been an enormous decrease in production. And yet the farmers have been asked to sell their milk at a lower price than the condensed milk factories are paying. We have said to the farmers that the prosperity of the country rests on the basis of agricultural production. If that is right, then in the name of Heaven let us give every possible encouragement to our agriculturists to increase production. I hope the Government will take cognizance of the importance of giving this encouragement to the farmers so that, notwithstanding the difficulties they labour under, they will exert their utmost efforts next year to secure increased production. Increased agricultural production will be necessary for some time to come, so do not let our farmers be led to believe that their markets are going to shrink to such a point that it is of no interest to them to produce. They must produce, and if there is one thing more than another that the members of this Government might direct themselves to it is in assisting to solve the problem of farm labour. I regret very much that the great farming industry is not represented at the Industrial Congress, a regret which has also been voiced by the member for South Oxford. It is unfortunate and I think in the days to come it will be the subject of severe criticism that the farmers were not invited to send representatives. An industry which represents very nearly sufficient in production to repay the total debt of this country in a single year is an important industry, and yet in this most important congress that ever assembled in this country its representatives are not invited. I describe the congress as the most important because we hope that its deliberations will prove a mighty force in allaying unrest and promoting industrial development.
My hon. friend from Toronto has suggested that we should not criticise the members of this board, but that we should give them six months or a year to see what they can do. Why, if they go on for the, next six months doing what they have done during the last six days to limit the prices to be paid to the producers of farm products, you will see such a stagnation and decreased production next year that it will be a serious blow to this country. Let us give the farmers every encouragement to greater production. And let us realize at the very commencement that we cannot regulate the prices of farm products with advantage to the country. Therefore leave them alone. If the export market will give [DOT] our farmers better prices than the home market, let us face the situation and acknowledge that we must bring our prices up to the level of the export value. I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) put' the question concisely and correctly, and there is no doubt that we must let the export market regulate the home prices. This Board of Commerce may attempt to regulate prices as much as they like, but they are not going to change the result. The farmer is going to get the price or he is going to stop producing; and if there is anything more than another that this country wants at the present time it is that all our ingenuity and all our energies shall be devoted to giving the farmer every encouragement in the direction of larger and greater production.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, it is

some satisfaction to see the distinguished Free Trader from Red Deer and the equally distinguished. Protectionist from Ontario standing upon the same platform in complete agreement. I have heard it said sometimes by an Appellate judge when reviewing a decision of an inferior court: " I disagree with every reason given by this judge for his decision, but nevertheless he arrived at the right conclusion." I am sure that my hon. friend from Red Deer and the good Protectionist from Ontario must be arriving at the same conclusion by entirely different routes. It is not for me to inquire how they get there, but it is gratifying to know that they agree.
I must say for myself that while I am in favour of the greatest encouragement to personal activity in every line of life -and that is the reason why I must be guilty of not being in favour of this great cry about Governement ownership, I am in favour of Government ownership in some things, which have nothing to do with this subject, but I am in favour of the greatest possible encouragement to individual activity and you cannot have
that	individual	activity	at its best unless	there	is	some	personal incen.tive	behind	it.	That	is human 11ature.	If	you	have	men working
for somebody else, as in Government ownership; you never have them working with the same zest or with the same ability that they would put into their own personal business. That is why I like to see individual activity in trade as in other directions.
I wish to say that I do not agree with the severe strictures which we have heard on the gentlemen composing this board. They may be perhaps indiscreet-I am not saying they are-in their observations, but they must make it known, Mr. Chairman, that they exist. They are to some extent, preaching a new gospel, and they must some way or other bring to the notice of the people the fact that there is a court, appointed by Parliament in its wisdom to look after matters of this kind. I am sure that that court would not reach any conclusion unless it was to a very fair extent at all events based upon the evidence adduced before them. And it must be remembered that their decisions are not absolutely conclusive, for there is a provision in the Act giving a right of appeal from their decisions to the Governor in Council, which can either reverse or modify their decisions in any way they may deem

proper. Therefore if any person feels that this board are reaching conclusions not justified by the facts, he can appeal to the Governor in Council, and it will be dealt with upon its merits.
It is a very drastic thing, I suppose, to pass an order prohibiting the exportation of any article, but nevertheless there may be conditions existing where it is perfectly justifiable and necessary to take such action. If it so happens that the price abroad is so attractive that it will put up the price of the commodity locally beyond the capacity of the local men to buy, and that the great inducement for sending the commodity out of the country makes it impossible for the local man to get as much out of it as is necessary for the subsistence of himself and his family, it may be quite proper to stop exportation for a while at all events and let legitimate local competition do its work as far as prices are concerned.
The Government has created an artificial condition in this country which makes proper local competition impossible; a condition under which we are ourselves putting up money in order to create competition among ourselves. The man who is working in a coal mine has to find money out of his own earnings with which to provide for the needs of his family. If the producer of cheese wants to make money he knows that hj has simply to deliver at Montreal any quantity of cheese that he likes at a price which is fixed in London by a trade commission created by this Government. That trade commission has been given the money, of the people of Ganada with which to buy that cheese. So that there is no proper local competition; money is transferred from the public exchequer by the Government to a commission in order tnat we may buy goods from ourselves. One section of the country, therefore, get their money easily, get any prices they ask, while another section which are not in a position to cater to that trade have to look in other directions. The result is that the good old-fashioned line of competition is altogether destroyed, I was always opposed to the creation of an artificial condition by the giving of our money to a foreign country in order that that country might buy our goods. That condition should not prevail and the sooner we get out of it the better.
We have far too many traders in this country, far too many grocery stores. It ' would be well to ask this board to inquire whether or not we are flooded with small stores and with trading people, and: paying

for rents, profits and overhead expenses in far more business esiaunsnments than we require.


Samuel Francis Glass: Assuming that the board found that there were too many traders, what remedy would my hon. friend suggest?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Provincial Government or the Dominion Government would have to license those who start upon any business. They would have to satisfy themselves that there was a proper field for that business in a particular place, that a proper amount of capital was behind it, and that there was real necessity for it. I believe that this sort of thing is done in Great Britain and in other countries. This is not a matter upon which I speak for the first time, or without previous consideration; it is a question which many people are thinking about, and it is well worthy of the con-'sideration of this board qr of any individuals or bodies of men who have at heart me interests of the working people who are nonproducers and who must buy at practically whatever price is asked the commodities that they require.
When I spoke on the Address on the 4th of September last! cited to the Government a long list of articles, the price of which had fallen materially in the United States because of the fact that the cost of living board over there was very active in trying to effect a reduction of prices and to put matters on a fair basis. I said on that occasion that if the prices of these foodstuffs were not falling in equal degree on this side of the line, if the prices were being unjustly maintained here at a high figure, the Government would be justified in taking the duties of these articles and opening up a fair field of competition between the American people and dealers on this side. I noticed a few days ago that Judge Robson, Chairman of the Board of Commerce, made some comments in Winnipeg along the line that I followed when I spoke on the occasion referred to. I trust that the Government will bear this matter well in mind and see to it that we in Canada get the same benefit through a reduction of prices as that which is accruing in respect of similar goods to the people on the other side of the line.
The real subject before the Committee is this question of the salaries of the commissioners. The amounts look large, but the minds of those of us who are not very young are trained to the old conditions and to the old ideas of the value of the dollar. But the purchasing power of the dollar today is only fifty per cent of what it was four or five years ago; a salary of $5,000 then would be equal to the salary of $10,000 now. So that when we are naming salaries for men whom we want to be comfortable and independent and to devote their entire time to the work which they have in hand, we must not be too close in our calculations.
I do not know the judge who is Chairman. I am glad to hear that he is a capable man and that he is sure to do justice to the position which he occupies. I do, however, know the Assistant Chief Commissioner. It is a mistake to suppose that a lawyer, because he is a lawyer, knows nothing more than something about statutes, the decisions of courts, and that sort of thing. A lawyer who is in good practice in his profession has a better chance of coming in contact with every phase of life than a member of any other profession. Take the matter of building houses. If you wanted a man to decide whether or not a house was properly built-to act as inspector, for instance-and a lawyer was suggested, you might say: What does- he know about that? But possibly that lawyer has tried three hundred cases involving the whole question of how a house should be built and every single thing about it from cellar to garret-how its walls should be built, how it should be- plastered, how the windows should be put in, and so on. He had to go over matters of that kind in the courts three hundred times and is thoroughly trained down in them. A lawyer must know all about any matter that comes into court; otherwise he cannot try his case. So that when we refer slightingly to a lawyer as knowing nothing about those things we are very much mistaken.
For that reason, I think we have a very capable man in Mr. O'Connor, whom I have known for the last twenty years. Mr. O'Connor comes from that little province .down by the sea; he has had a very extensive practice in the courts of our country, at nisi prius, courts of appeal and every other phase of his practice; he is a very keen, capable man, and I expect good things of him in regard to these matters. Although these reports get into the newspapers, Mr. O'Cbcnor is not a man to blow his own horn; he has never been, unless Ottawa has spoiled him since his .coming to this city. We should give this board every opportunity of handling the exceedingly difficult task with which they are confronted. If, as the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Hocken) said, after

six months or so, they show they are not doing what they should, perhaps it will be time for us then to say something about the way in which they are handling the business. For the present, speaking for tnyself, I should like to encourage them ,and to give them to understand that the iHouse of 'Commons which appointed them a short time ago is willing to give them ,every consideration and help. For those .reasons, I think we should pass this resolution empowering the Government to grant them the salaries for which they are looking. One hon. gentleman speaking the other day stated that we on this side of the House .were bitterly opposed to the appointment of this hoard. That, of course, must have been said for political purposes. I have .never heard from this side of the House a bitter word or, indeed, a word at all opposing the appointment of this board. Far from that, we on this side of the House, advocated this course long ago, indeed, long before the Government took any notice of the matter at all. I remember the first time it was mentioned, perhaps as far back as 1916, by myself, and the hon. member lor Richmond who was here at that time. .The Prime Minister of to-day, who we regret is not in the House, told us flat-footedly that he would do nothing of the kind. Somewhere away back in those days, that language will be found in Hansard, and further that it Would be absurd to inquire into or to try to control prices. Another minister of the Crown told us that it was ridiculous to suppose that prices could be controlled; that every soapbox orator at every grocery store in the land thought that he knew the remedy for these difficulties, and that matters bad to take their natural course. The idea which we were then advocating evidently grew and got some consideration in the land; otherwise, this board would never have been 'appointed. We were always in favour of it, and if it will do any good, it had its origin and foundation on this side of the House, and I trust it will be something of advantage to the country. The English people, who are at all events just as wise as we are, who are better acquainted with the effects of legislation and what parliamentary remedies may be or do, practise this, and they get good results from it. The United States Government, which have to deal with 100,000,000 people to our 8,000,000, and with vast wealth and vast combinations, have adopted a course of this kind and they are getting some results. That encourages us to believe that we shall get some results in this country.

While we do not want this board to do anything that is wrong, we must stand behind them in doing what is right, and our first duty is to make them independent by paying them sufficiently well so that they need not fear much about to-morrow. Those are the few observations that I wish to make, but I particularly took this opportunity of reminding the Government of the observations which I made on the 4th of September, when I pleaded for this remedy to be taken. If our dealers, our wholesalers and retailers, insist upon keeping up prices, there is at least one effort we can make, and that is to make these articles free.


Michael Clark: I do not want to detain the committee, but I should like to refer in a single sentence to a couple of points that have been raised by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He has referred to the falling prices on the other side of the line. I do not know whether a con- . stant study of financial journals is part of that universal knowledge which he claims for his profession, but I hope he will take it in good part if I inform him that months ago the financial and trade journals of the United States prophesied a fall in prices along certain lines of food products as a result, not of any actions of the Board of iCommerce, but as the obvious result which would happen when our soldiers came home from fighting and more people got into production and trade began to return to normal channels.
I give my hon. friend and the committee that information if they do not have it, because it was on record in those journals months ago-I read it myself-that those results would happen from the operation of certain economic causes.
I do not know that I was understood as opposing the salaries, although I would venture to remark that a rise of $2,000 in 'three months in the salary of the chairman of the commission would not indicate that the commission had had any great success in reducing the cost of living up to now, if the argument of my hon. friend is to hold water that their salaries must oe raised because of the increased cost of living. It seems rather a contradiction in things that wa should be increasing the salaries of the commissioners on account of the rising cost of living, these commissioners having been appointed to reduce the cost of living, and I hope they will be so successful that they will not come back next year for another increase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend possibly does not understand the situation. As I un-

derstand it, we are not increasing salaries. The salaries of this board were never fixed before; these are the initial salaries.
Mr. PE.DLOW: To be consistent on this subject, I rise to oppose the proposition before the House. During last session it will be remembered that when this Board of Commerce was about to be organized I opposed it for the reason that I concluded from my experience that it was being asked to perform the impossible. Events that have transpired since that time have confirmed me in that conviction. While the Bill was rushed through with a good deal of haste and apparent urgency at the last session, practically nothing was done by the Board of Commerce until the last few weeks. The first effort made by the board was not a success. They attempted to control the selling price of sugar, giving the retailer only one cent per pound to cover the cost of distributing that commodity. At the same time they obtained the information that it cost the retailers on the average from 18 to 20 per cent to conduct their business. It is only a matter of simple arithmetic for any one with even a moderate degree of intelligence to arrive at the conclusion that no man could sell sugar costing him xi cents per pound for 12 cents per pound, if his average expense 'to do business amounted to 18 or 20 per cent, and still continue in business.
The result is that retail merchants throughout this country are objecting to handling sugar, and how the consumers .will obtain their supplies is a conundrum to the man in the business. [DOT]
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for jSouth Oxford in their views on the pro-jubtion of the export of foodstuffs. Does it not seem an anomaly that this Government is endeavouring through the Board of Commerce to prohibit the export of farm produce over and above the amount that can be consumed in this country, when at the same time they are bonusing the export of textiles and other materials that this country absolutely needs? This country is an importing country for textiles. Up to the beginning of the war it had always imported fully 75 per cent of its requirements. If the Government had prohibited the export of textiles last session they would have done this country a real service by retaining in Canada the goods that are absolutely needed here to-day. You cannot get a manufacturer in this country to supply over 20 per cent of the requirements ,of any section of the country, yet we are
.absolutely dependent on our manufacturers ,for the supply of merchandise at the present time. I therefore think that the Board of Commerce will obtain no better results than the Cost of Living Committee obtained, upon whose recommendation the .board was created. Instead of allaying the .unrest that existed at that time the Cost ,of Living Committee only aggravated it by .the reports they allowed to circulate through .the press of the country last session. We have now exactly similar conditions in connection with the Board of Commerce, which is going around the country saying ,what they intend to do to the farmer and .the retailer, and so on. They can do nothing .with them, and if they start that sort of thing the first thing they know they will have a rebellion on their hands. They do not know what they are talking about. I am sorry I have to disagree with my leader in this matter, but that is one of the privileges we enjoy on this side of the House, for Liberals cannot be Liberals unless they are allowed liberty of speech and action in all matters. My leader has ascribed omniscience to the judiciary of this country. .They may, and indeed do know law, and doubtless many other things outside of law that come within their range of study and .experience, but they are certainly not omniscient.
Mr. McMAiSTER: That qualification pertains only to the retailers.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I certainly do not concede to the judiciary the omniscience my leader is inclined to ascribe to them. It has been claimed that there are too many stores in this country. I have also heard lawyers say that there are too many lawyers in this country, and I have heard doctors and dentists and insurance agents say the same thing of their professions. Even the preachers say there are too many preachers. A friend of mine not long since heard a preacher who was attached to the Universalist Church, whose doctrine is that every body will be saved, and my friend said, with considerable logic, that for the preacher to preach that doctrine was simply preaching himself out of business.
A week ago I had the pleasure of visiting a farmer in the constituency of South Oxford. That farmer had been the proud possessor of a cow that had been sold only a short time previously for $26,000. I do not know' whether the chairman of the Board of Commerce and his associates would say that the farmer was profiteering

in that transaction. That cow was raised on a South Oxford farm.
The hon. member for East Middlesex referred incidently to the variation in prices of commodities even in the city of Ottawa. Is not that a natural thing? No two beans are alike, no two hairs on a man's head are the same length, and no two people think exactly alike. The truth of the matter is that free competition very soon levels up prices. If a man tried to sell his goods constantly at a higher price than his competitors, he would be put out of business in a very short time. This is a matter that does not require any action by a cost of living committee or a board of commerce. The best cost of living committee and the best board of commerce is the purchasing public of this country. I say that the Board of Commerce will do no more good than the Cost of Living Committee, which was a failure in toto, and instead of allaying unrest it will only aggravate it. The board will accomplish nothing but raising the mischief generally. I know that the Board of Commerce was appointed last session in response to the * cry which we heard in this House and outside " Something must be done." I even heard the hon. member for Bhelburne and Queen's, who was member of the Cost of Living Committee say in this House that very same thing. In response to that cry the Government did do something, without thinking what they were doing. They have appointed a Board of Commerce that will be of no more benefit to this country than the Cost of Living Committee. The board will only succeed in making the last state worse than the first.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Board of Commerce Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Adjourn.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as the Government are concerned, we had been anxious to give an opportunity this evening to private members to put forward any measures in which they were interested. If those hon. gentlemen do not feel that they are being deprived of a right, and if it is the desire of the House that we adjourn, I am prepared to meet that desire.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the leader of the Government says that Private Bills would be taken up if we met to-night, does he

promise that we shall resume the debate on the Bill of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) this evening?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That was the very purpose in my proposal to meet to-night.


Michael Clark: The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier may probably have gone to Montreal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say what I said without having had communication with the member concerned. However, I am quite willing to meet the des/re of the House and adjourn.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, September 22, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, we all learned with profound sorrow this morning of the loss that this House and the country have sustained in the death of our friend Hon. Mr. Cochrane. We and the people of Canada have known him as a man who throughout *a lengthy career earned a reputation for sterling integrity, and whose every action was inspired by a desire to do his duty, and to do it in full measure. Not only in his private life was he distinguished by those qualities, but he brought them to the service of the people, first of his own province and then of this Dominion. I am satisfied that this House would desire to pay to him that tribute of respect and admiration which his devotion to the public service, the sterling qualities that he brought to that service, and the splendid record that he leaves behind him, command.
I do not know that in offering this tribute there is open to us any action that might be more expressive than mere words, but I am sure what I have said, entirely inadequate as it is to do justice to the memory of our late confrere, will find a unanimous echo in this House; I am equally sure that we all of us join most earnestly in tendering to his bereaved widow and family our profound sympathy.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria: Mr. Speaker, I join the acting leader of the Government in expressing our profound regret at the demise of our friend,

the Hon. Mr. Cochrane. Speaking for myself, and I am very sure for every member on this side of the House, I can with the greatest sincerity join in everything that has been said regarding our much beloved departed friend. We on this side of the House did not have the privilege of the close intimacy with the late gentleman that those who sat around him had; but still we had the opportunity of seeing him attending to his duty as an earnest, strong worker, and one who was determined, once he had made up his mind with respect to the public affairs of this country, to translate his conclusions into action. While we on this side did not on all occasions agree with the policy of the Government of which our departed friend was a member, we all believed that the Hon. Mr. Cochrane was following a conscientious line of action in the best interests of Canada, as he saw those interests.
I was really fond of the late Mr. Cochrane, and from my observations of his actions I reached the conclusion that he was a gentleman of sterling .character, of lofty views, and of strong convictions. He has left behind him a record that will do justice to himself, to his family, and to his party. # I always respected him because I believed him to be a firm party man, a man who represented all that was best in his party, and for that reason, although I could very seldom agree with his policy, I had the greatest respect for him as a gentleman who believed that the policies he was supporting were best for the country. I am sure, Sir, that we are unanimous in paying our tribute to the worth of our departed friend.



DOMINION BY-ELECTIONS ACT, 1919-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Solicitor-General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Dominion By-Elections Act, 1919.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE:: The object of this Bill is to .amend the Act passed last session in regard to by-elections. It simply provides that where any disqualification exists as against any particular race it shall be continued in the case of by-elections. It really raises the question of the Oriental vote.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What rate of exchange is now prevailing between Canada and the United States?
2.	What action does the Government intend taking to deal with this matter?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	New York funds, Montreal, September 17, 3 per cent premium.
2.	The rate of exchange is variable and ie governed by financial and commercial oonditions. In 1919 the rate has ranged from about 1| to over 5 per cent premium. No action by the Government ait the present moment is. contemplated.


VICTORY LOAN-WINNIPEG.
Mr. HAY:: What was the total amount subscribed to the last Victory Loan in the city of Winnipeg and on what amount was commission paid?


William Findlay Maclean: The total amount subscribed to the 1918 Victory Loan in the city of Winnipeg was $29,850,250. The amount on which commission was paid was $7,535,450.


PROPOSED DOMESTIC LOAN.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What commissions have been agreed upon between the Department of Finance and the various brokerage firms, in connection with the new loan?
2.	What sums will be paid in advertisements for said loan?


Hon.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Detailed arrangements respecting this and other features of the loan have not yet been arrived at. The general basis of last year will be followed.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS- UNIFORMS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	In what manner are contracts for uniforms, to be used by employees of the Transcontinental Railway and of other Canadian Government Railways, given out?
2.	Are tenders asked for?
3.	Are contracts usually given to the lowest bidder?
4.	Are contracts given by districts? If so, which firms in Quebec and Montreal are asked to tender?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	On the Canadian Government Railways section, uniforms were formerly obtained on the basis of competitive bids, but the results were so unsatisfactory that for

the past five years the work of making uniforms on that section has been entirely entrusted to the firm of W. J. Inglis & Co. of Montreal.
W. J. Inglis & Co., Montreal, have contract for uniforms for Quebec divisions of Canadian Northern Railway system, and for Ontario and western lines competitive offers are obtained.
2.	For former Canadian Government railways answered by 1. For Ontario and western lines of Canadian Northern Railway system, yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Contracts are not given by districts. See answer to question No. 1 for answer to balance of question No. 4.


TREATY OF PEACE WITH AUSTRIA.
*Mr. LAPOINTE (St. lames):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to submit to Parliament, for its consideration, the Treaty of Peace signed between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria and which was signed on behalf of Canada by Sir Eel-ward Kemp ?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, why?
4.	Will a copy of this Treaty and all documents appertaining thereto be available to the members of the House?
Hon. Mr. DOHERjTY: The Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria, signed at Saint Germain on Sept. 10, 1919, follows in general the lines of the Treaty with Germany, which has already been approved of by Parliament, while.in the most important features, namely, the League of Nations Covenant and the labour sections, it is identical therewith. If the authenticated copy of the Treaty with Austria arrives in time, the Government will submit the Treaty to Parliament at the present session; if not, the Government would not feel justified in summoning another special session for the purpose, but will take the responsibility of advising the ratification of the Treaty in view of the action of Parliament above mentioned. In any case copies will be distributed to members of Parliament as soon as available.


DR. GERVAIS ET AD.
[Stage Direction]
. Sir SAM HUGHES:'
1.	Were Dr. Gervais, Victor Carmel and Jean St. Germain convicted of the murder of Sheriff Mackay and Corporal Horsley In the vicinity of Prince Albert, Sask.?
2.	If so, has clemency been granted by the Governor General in Council?
3.	Will the Government table an explanation with all correspondence relating to this matter?
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

["I think on Tuesday last the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) made inquiry of the Government as to the constitution of the membership of the Industrial Conference which was in session last week, and whether the evidenae taken by the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations in Canada, which was appointed earlier in the year, was to be printed. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) and his deputy were very busy with the conference last week and it was impossible for me to obtain the answer before Friday last, when, owing to an oversight, the answer to my hon. friend's question was not given to the House. There was not an opportunity for me to do so yesterday, so with the leave of the House I should like the question and answer to he incorporated in Hansard.\nQuestions by Mr. Archambault:\n1.\tWhy were the National Labour Unions of the Province of Quebec and the Circles Catho-liques who represent a very large number of employees and who, according to the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations in\nCanada, are an important labour factor in the province, entirely ignored by the Minister of Labour in issuing invitations to the National Industrial Conference?\n2.\tWhy has the evidence taken before the Commission of Industrial Relations in Canada not (been printed, and why is it not available for the instruction of the members of the National Industrial Conference, who have asked for it?\n3.\tIs it the intention of the Government to have this evidence distributed before the end of the conference?\n4.\tIs it the intention of the Government to have this evidence printed before any legislative action recommended by this conference is considered?\nAnswer:\n1. In securing nomination of delegates to the Industrial Conference it was impossible to have regard to each isolated unit of labour organization, and nominations were therefore requested only from (a) the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to which the great mass of local trades union branches are affiliated, and (b) Canadian Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1, as representing the Railroad Brotherhoods, these important organizations not being affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress. National and Catholic unions are not, so far as has been learned, affiliated to any central body and it was not deemed practicable to request nominations. Returns collected by the Department of Labour show a trades union membership in Canada at the end of the calendar year 1918 of 248,887, including 2,787 members reported by the National and Catholic unions of the Province of Quebec.\n2 and 3. The evidence taken before the Commission was undoubtedly of much value and deserved and received a careful scrutiny at the hands of the Commissioners before the latter made their reports. The evidence was of a voluminous character and would, if printed, occupy some thousands of pages. It has not been deemed in the public interest to incur the large expenditures which would be entailed in printing and distributing the same.\n4. The matter will receive careful consideration."]
Edmund William Tobin: What is the total number of persons of both sexes now employed by the Federal Government of the Dominion of Canada?



John Ewen Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence and other papers and documents in the possession of the Government or of the Civil Service Commission relating to the appointment of a Harbour Master for the port of Oanso, N.S.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This motion asks
for a copy of all correspondence in' the possession of the Civil Service Commission. That I do not understand to be under the control of the Government, but theTe is no objection to bringing down any correspondence which is under the control of the Government.
Mr. I. H. -SINCLAIR:	I am asking for
the correspondence in connection with this particular appointment; I do not think it should be voluminous. I am not certain that there is any correspondence, but if there is I should like to have it.


Mr.  A. K. MAGLEAN@: How far does my hon. friend propose to proceed in asking for papers by this motion? I am not sure as to the facts when I suggest it, but possibly some private correspondence may have passed between the members of the Civil Service Commission and applicants; applicants might transmit to the commission letters and information which they would not desire to be made public. I am very much in doubt at the moment as to what extent papers and documents of that kind should be made a matter of return to Parliament. If my hon. friend will intimate that he does not desire anything of that nature, the motion may pass; otherwise, I think Parliament should consider the motion very carefully before establishing a precedent.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not able to intimate the exact correspondence that I want in connection with this case, but I

see no reason why the correspondence should not be given. There should be no secrets in connection with appointments to the Civil Service. If the Civil Service Commission obtain information from any quarter with regard to appointments, that information should be open and above board. We are informed that civil servants are appointed on their merits and that there is no back-door influence in connection with their appointment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I regret to have to inform the House that this motion is not debatable. The hon. member is proceeding to discuss a matter of principle which cannot possibly be discussed on this motion. The motion must either pass or stand.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not satisfied with the position which my hon. friend takes, although I realize that everything in connection with the matter of public appointments should, as far as possible, be submitted to Parliament. I therefore ask that the matter stand until we shall have had an opportunity of considering it further.
Motion stands.


HOUSES FOR SOLDIERS IN GARDEN CITIES.
Mr.  H. M. MOW AT@Parkdale: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to assist repatriation and civil reestablishment by advancing moneys to provide houses; that these houses should he erected in model townsitets or garden cities, one in each province; that land sufficient for market gardening should go with each house; that oocupants should be encouraged to buy their holdings by payments extended over twenty years ; and that the properties be so constructed that the owners can work at home w'th electrical power.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I propose this
motion again not for the purpose of discussing it at length, because I did so last session, but in view of a statement made by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder) at the conclusion of the debate last session. He said:
The subject introduced to the House by the hon. member (Mr. Mowat) is an exceedingly interesting one. I am sure he realizes that it is a matter that should not be pressed at the present time. The Government should have the fullest opportunity to consider the matter in its various details and I am sure hon. members will desire very full light on this question before committing themselves to it.
Nothing so far as I have heard has been done by the Government in this very important matter. I desire shortly, without discussing the particular arguments advanced last session, to state to the House what seems to me to be the present opinion of the country on this question.
There is no doubt that discontent or unrest prevails among some of the returned soldiers. The particular cause for unrest is the fact that they are unable in the large centres of population to obtain suitable houses for themselves and their families. The returned soldier has become a domestic man. Many returned soldiers married in the Old Country, and upon coming here they find it impossible to get houses which are suitable for themselves and their families. In Toronto, where I come from, the soldier very often has to house his family, consisting perhaps of a wife and two or three children, in two rooms in an apartment house at a very high rental; he cannot obtain a house which is suitable for his purposes. The consequence is that the matter has been taken up by the different branches of the Veterans' Association and by the press, with a view to pointing out that this is one of the particular causes of discontent. If a man is uncomfortable in his life, if he cannot look forward to having a comfortable home in the future, that worries him more than anything else, even more than the fact that he may for the time being be out of work, and throughout the country there has been this demand for increased housing facilities. This particular proposition does not come under the housing resolution which was passed last year for giving aid to Provincial Governments in- housing schemes, because that resolution referred particularly and, indeed, only to housing schemes, housing settlements and townsites in congested districts already in existence. That is the very thing to which the people who favour the scheme I am now proposing, object. As an eminent architect said, we do not want to be tied down to some old settlement which has already got anything but a good reputation; we want to start anew. The result is that we have as yet no scheme for homes in an entirely new settlement, such as the schemes they have in England and other parts of Great Britain and in the United States. It is to prevent Canada from being backward and behindhand in this most important matter that I bring this resolution to the attention of the House.
The idea is that land should be acquired initially near cities, large centres of population, so that the man who has never lived outside of a city shall not be taken away to an environment and conditions to which he is not accustomed. We have done a

unless the Government eventually follow the best thought of Great Britain and the United States and erect these villages at not a great sum, taking security for the repayment of the houses which are to be put up, we shall have a crying discontent in Canada which will exist for many years. If there is anything we desire in Canada it is that we shall not be backward. If we are not able to initiate good schemes for the reconstruction of the returned men-and we have initiated many good and novel things for that purpose-the next best thing we can do is to adopt the schemes which have been tried out and found by experience to be successful in other countries. I do hope that the Government will see its way clear, not to put the matter off by saying it must consider it, as it did last session, but to elaborate some scheme in the early future by which this matter can be taken up with energy and brought to a successful conclusion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) who presented the resolution to the House is to be highly commended. I do not know whether my view will prevail with many of the members, but I think this is one of the most important questions with which the Government of Canada has to deal. While I think both the civic and provincial governments have a greater responsibility, there is aq opportunity now, as pointed out by the hon. fnember for Parkdale, to take the initiative in this movement in connection with the repatriation of our soldiers.
I submit that comfortable housing is the first essential for the moral and physical well-being of a community. It is quite impossible for children who have been brought up in the narrow streets of a great city, where two, three or four families are living in one house, to turn out as well morally as they might have done if their parents had houses of their own and were living in the clean countryside with a garden about the house, such as my hon. friend has described.
There is another side. Nothing will add so much to the efficiency of the worker as good home surroundings. The man who goes to work in a factory at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning, and works eight or nine hours a day, will do more work in that period if he owns his own house in a healthy quarter than the man who comes from a congested section and shares his house perhaps with two or three other families. He finds a greater satisfaction in

his work and gives better results to his employer.
He is a better workman and a better citizen and under present conditions does not live, as so many have perforce to live, not as matter of choice but of necessity. If the plan which the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) has outlined were put into effect it would make for the steadying of public sentiment to a degree that very few of us really appreciate. I have given this matter some thought in the past, and I am quite satisfied that if we could make it possible for every man who works in a factory or in an office to own a piece of land and have on it a house which he could feel some pride in being the sole owner of, it would be a tremendous stride in the direction of national contentment; for such a man could bring up his family under conditions that would tend to sound morality, and in the final result we should have a far better citizen in every respect, a man who would' be of great value to the country and would exercise a potent influence on the life of his particular community. In regard to some of our big centres-and I refer particularly to my own city-the reason why there has not been more unrest than exists to-day is the fact that at least 'fifty per cent of the people of our city, for instance, own their own homes. Now, I should like to see the time when ninety-five per cent, indeed, a hundred per cent, of the people could own their own dwellings. In such a condition you would have better communities from every standpoint, physically, mentally, and morally; and what the hon. member has proposed tends in that direction, and therefore h as my unqualified approval. The greatest menace to the good order of the country is the large city with its crowded quarters and oftimes its unwholsesome slums. It could not be other than a menace. When a group of men living in places contiguous to one another for two or three blocks go home after a hard day's work and have nothing to do but sit around the doorstep or stroll idly around the pavements, inevitably they become discontented with their lot, and their discontent breeds the same feelings and sentiments in others. So that very soon the spirit of discontent permeates quite a large field and is found to prevail wherever tractable material affords it lodgment. I say that it is the business of the Government to cortect that state of affairs and make it possible for every man who works in a factory to have his own home so that he may rear his family under heal-

thy and hopeful conditions in order that they may he useful and admirable citizens.
Nothing better could be done for the country, if it were possible, than to take 200,000 people out of the city of Toronto, or out of Montreal, and distribute them around in the smaller centres of the provinces. If
10.000	people could 'be taken from Toronto and transported to Woodstock, and 10,000 to Guelph, a similar number to St. Thomas, and so on, the result would be wonderful. If some of these smaller places could be increased in population to 25,000 or 30,000 and Toronto be reduced to 300,000, the advantage in the social conditions would be mutually great. Every one of the places increased would be better, and it is unquestionable that Toronto would be greatly benefited; certainly it would be a better place to live in. In a town of 25,000 or
30.000	it is possible for a man who works in any factory to cultivate his acre or half acre at least. His family is then brought up under the very best conditions available anywhere, and the hope of this country is in the health of its children and their home influence. If ,we put the citizen in the position to instruct his children in the principles of hygiene and sound morality, and above all to enable them to get out into the fresh air where they will have every opportunity to develop themselves physically, we shall do something that will show an immediate benefit in every corner of the country and in every class of our people. In a campaign in which I was interested in Toronto, I discovered the fact that, in one section of the city, men had come out from the big centres of the United Kingdom, Manchester, Birmingham, London, and so forth, and a minister who was working in that neighbourhood informed me that they were, nearly all undersized and anaemic people. He said, however, that their children would compare favourably with those in any town in the province because they had gone out a distance from the limits of the city, had acquired their own little homes-some of them, comparatively speaking, hardly any bigger than packing boxes -and had given their children plenty of opportunity to play around in the fresh air, with the result that they had benefited immensely in physique, as was evident in their faces and figures every day of their lives. That is the kind of thing in which this and every other Government ought to be interested. I do not think that this Government could take 200,000 people out of any city and spread them around, but I am undoubtedly of opinion that the men who are operating the big industries of the
country would find it in their own interests, as well as in the interests of the whole country, if they would scatter, one here and another there, so as to distribute the population a little more evenly over the province than is the case at present. I believe they would have more contentment among their men and would experience fewer labour troubles, and I am quite sure that the men who work in their factories, together with their wives and children, would benefit to an enormous extent. I do not see how we can do it in any other way.
As I see this project I think that the civic and Provincial Governments have responsibilities. If I understand the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale. he takes the ground that as we are now engaged in the great work of repatriation and reestablishment of the men who fought overseas, that particular work can be made use of to initiate a movement which ought to be taken up by the Provincial and civic governments and extended practically without limit. If this Government could find it a wise and profitable enterprise to use the moneys, or at least part of them, that are to be expended for repatriation ini the way suggested by the hon. member, I have no doubt whatever that such a step would inspire the Provincial Governments, and the provinces might very well undertake a large campaign in that direction, because it is a form' of legislation that comes peculiarly within their purview. After the provinces had done their part, there would still be something to. be done by the civic governments in the great cities within reach of which such model communities might be established. I am not familiar with the geography of the surroundings of Montreal, but I know that in our own city a community such as the hon. member for Park-dale has suggested might be established a little west of Brampton, or going up Yonge street at Thornhill. For an expenditure of a few hundred dollars per acre, and with an electric line running up the main street and easily accessible, sufficient land could be obtained averaging four or five acres upon which these soldiers would make a handsome living if they were able and willing to work. It would be in close proximity to the market, and for all they could produce they would obtain the very best prices that can be commanded in Canada. In my office I have had returned men who formerly were among the steadiest in my employ, but when they sat down to their machines they could do nothing. They would say to me : "Mr. Hocken, I cannot



possibly- do this job." Before the war they were on the job every day, and were in every way steady, industrious and reliable. But three or four years of war had made it impossible for them to settle down before their machines and resume their former occupations. They could not do the work and consequently left the job that had been waiting for them. Now a man of this type if he were assisted to go on five acres of land and were given such advice and guidance as could be provided by the Agricultural Department, would I fancy in a couple of years' time make enough from the produce of his, little farm to keep him in comfort, and he would be living under conditions of outdoor life which his service at the front had made indispensable.
The proposition made by the hon. member for Parkdale ought to be received with very great sympathy by the members of this House and the 'Government. I hope, as he does, that this matter will be taken up seriously. I do not think it is something we should throw aside and say that it is a dream-that it is something that is impracticable. It is one of the most practical questions that has ever been introduced into the House, and it goes right to the fundamentals of our community life throughout the Dominion of Canada. T s'itneerely 'trust that -the question will receive immediate attention.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, there is just a word or two that I desire to say on this resolution brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). The matter was before us last year. It was not discussed at very great length; as a matter of fact, I think the hon. member for Parkdale was the only member of the House who spoke on. the resolution, which he introduced at that time.
The proposition which he has placed before us is merely one phase of a very large question .and I am sure that every member of this House will realize that. It is but an. aspect of the general question as to what shall be done in the direction of re-establishing the returned soldier in civil life. I am in. thorough accord with all that has been said-and I think properly said- in- regard to doing everything that is possible in the way of providing for the proper housing of our people in Canada. I do not think there is a member in this House who will disagree with the proposition, that it is the duty of the Government to see to

it that all of our people are housed to the greatest possible advantage and that it means a great deal not only to the people themselves but for the nation as a whole. I think I can say as well that conditions in this country are not just similar to the conditions in the old country. While we may have our housing problem, it is nothing in comparison, to the
4	p.m. housing problem which they have in Great Britain. I am not saying that for the purpose of intimating that nothing should be done in. this direction in Canada; far from it. We will remember some istatement's that were made here when, the question of housing loans, to our provinces was up for discussion; we will remember the pictures that were drawn, by one of the hon.. members for Montreal .and by members from other parts of 'Canada as well.
But, there is a phase of this question that this House would be bound to consider, and that is the question as to the extent to which this is a Federal duty, and the extent of jurisdiction over a matter of this kind. Personally I am inclined to think that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hoclten) has put his finger on at least one of the causes that has led to the conditions prevailing. If the managers or owners of the large corporations which have established industries in this country had just given a little thought to the care of their employees I think we would not have had the crowding of these industries into our larger, centres. The tendency would have been to place these industries in villages of the class that has been referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale, and they might very well have been started there.
The most important work that is now being carried on in Great Britain in the way of establishing garden centres and model cities is being very largely undertaken by those who are interested in the establishment of industries. That is true to a very large extent; although it may not be entirely true. It seems to me that if something can be done in the future to prevail upon those who are establishing industries, not to establish them in or near our large cities, where we have crowded conditions, very much can be done in this direction. I thoroughly agree with what the hon. member for West Toronto said. This is not a dream; it is a practical thing. It would be the easiest thing in the world to put through a law to establish model

cities such as have been referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale. We could buy land, put up houses and, I dare say, get people to go there and live, but do not make any mistake about it-that sort of thing costs money. It is a question of finance. The whole question to iny mind, is: What shall we do in connection with all these various schemes and proposals that have come before the Government? Which is the most practical; which is the one that will do the most towards securing the results that we have in mind ? That is something that must be considered.
We know that the committee that has been appointed by the House to consider the question of re-establishment will have before it, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty different schemes for carrying out that work. We have had a number of clear intimations from the House that endorse the carrying out of some of these schemes, but the Government is limited only by the financial condition in which we find the country at the present time. Although we may desire to carry out certain classes of work, the general financial conditions of the country are such as to make it impossible. This problem will come before our committee. It should be dealt with there just as various other propositions will be dealt with, and I would suggest that the hon. member for Parkdale himself attend in order that we will have an opportunity of going into the question, of taking it up from every aspect and of seeing whether or not it will be possible to come to some conclusion that will be practicable and that will be in the interest of those whom he desires to serve. I am quite sure that he does not desire to press this motion to a. vote at the present time, particularly as that committee has been appointed by the House and will be sitting during the course of the next two or three weeks for the purpose of considering problems such as this in order that it may make a report to the House upon which the House may take action.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker. I wish to assure the hon. member (Mr. Mowat), who introduced this motion, that I am in full sympathy with any proposition to provide proper housing for our people particularly in the large centre of population and in other places where the question has become an acute one. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) touches the point of the matter when he brings to the attention of the House the question of jurisdiction involved in this motion. Jurisdiction in regard to property and civil rights clearly belongs to the provincial legislatures. The question of the size of a man's house, the accommodation that he provides is largely a municipal affair to be dealt with by city and municipal regulations. We have no authority in this House to say to n man what the size of his house shall be, whether he shall connect with a sewer, how he shall connect with a sewer, what the sewerage system shall be-questions ail of which pertain to the life of the citizen and which are all important. Hnder our constitution and the division of power in this country, we have nothing to do with such matters. True, we passed a Bill last session, under which by some compromise between our own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the provinces we have assumed certain control over health, whether the health of the individual, the health of the family or the health of the people generally. By the use of that Act and the powers which we have taken to ourselves, we could possibly, to some extent, enter into the question of proper housings a proper system of cleanliness, etc., in cities and in centres of population.
Some good may result from this discussion, and if any of the ideas expressed shall lead large corporations and provincial and municipal governments to take steps to better present conditions we shall have done something for the benefit of humanity generally. But I think, Sir, it is very clear that under our Constitution we have no power to buy land and build houses thereon and then say to men who are working in factories: " Here, we have become landlords and we are looking for desirable tenants for our houses. Become our tenants." I do not think it was ever the intention of the Fathers of Confederation that we should go into that kind of business. -I think we should confine ourselves to the encouragement as much as possible of local and municipal governments and employers of labour to take action with a view to bringing about the very desirable conditions so well advocated by the mover of this resolution (Mr. Mowat) and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). Undoubtedly much can be done to make employers of labour provide better housing accommodation for their workmen. I come from a part of Nova Scotia where we have thousands of men employed in the ceal and steel industries, and I am glad to say that in at least 80 per cent of the housing systems there

provision has been made for small gardens of the type described by the hon. members who are behind this resolution. I trust the day will come when our provincial parliaments will take cognizance of the fact that every employer must see to it that proper provision is made for the housing of his employees.
I have no objection to this motion going to that place which the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. -Calder) has found as a cure for all the ills that flesh is heir to. He has appointed a committee with blanket jurisdiction to deal with all manner of cases, and I have no doubt that if given an opportunity the hon. member from -Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) will be able to inform that committee what he is seeking to accomplish, and then that committee will, of course, advise him that the matter must, under our Constitution, be dealt with by municipal and provisional authorities.
Mr. SPEAKER- Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr.  H. M. MOW AT@Parkdale: Mr. Speaker, I venture-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is about to reply.


Mr.  H. M. MOW AT@Parkdale: I venture to differ from my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition on the constitutional point, for it seems to me that we have ample authority to take up a matter of this sort. We took these men from Canada and sent them to war, and when they come back it is our bounden duty to look after them if they are without the amenities which decent citizens should have. When the men come back we provide hospitals and soldiers' homes for them, and although it may be said that those are only temporary measures, the principle is the same, and there is no reason why we should not erect suitable dwelling houses, which those men can pay for in due course. I recognize, however, the cogency of the reasons given by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) for referring the resolution to the committee he mentioned, whose powers seem ample enough to discuss this scheme; and while I did hope to press this motion to a vote -and I am quite sure hon. members would *support it-yet I know that under our system if a minister of the Crown asks that a certain course should- be taken, it is only in very exceptional cases that his request is not concurred in. I therefore withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND -CONSUMPTION.
John Hampden Burnham: Moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, whereas the struggle for existence expresses itself largely in the cost of production and the co-st of consumption and whereas confusion and therefore injustice and unrest are developed by the constant struggle to maintain a due relative proportion between these two costs, it is desirable that this House should discuss the situation to the end that the scientific method may be applied in Canada -to the struggle for existence, and whereas it is desirable that the directing head -or Government of the nation should conduct itself and all business, according to the s-aid method to the end that such order and success as attend, for example, the affairs of a department store should he applied to the national business, therefore, be it resolved, that a definite plan of Government in this respect -he laid before the people at the next General Election, and that a committee be appointed for that purpose.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will, with your permission, make a statement with regard to this resolution in order that- that statement may express shortly what I refer to, and after that I will with your permission, make a more extended comment.
1.	Eliminating the weak and the vicious, 90 per cent of the population may be considered as- trying to do its duty and to perform a faithful part in the struggle for existence, ninety per cent therefore may be considered a constant quantity.
2.	Should this constant quantity be considered as a number of free units, or as a united totality? The economic record from the earliest times of the different countries of the world which is most extensive and instructive, furnishes the .answer. The evolution of society shows that what began in free and rival units has developed in theory at least, into a society composed of both free and allied units. In the early era each family is supposed to be free to do as it pleases in its own home, but, later on, when it goes forth from home to earn its living, it inclines to unite with other families. At home it is still comparatvely free. The tendency is towards union everywhere.
3.	The invasion of the freedom of the family in its own circle is being proceeded with, however, chiefly in a moral way. The argument is being put forward that society must be considered only as a vhole. This involves the final stage of development. What has been known as freedom is being put aside for the interest of the majority. The rule of the majority is becoming absolute industrially and morally, but not relig-

iously. Morally and religiously are really one. Hence it will not be long before the rule of the majority will be extended to the religious on the ground of aggregate right as against individual right. This of course, upsets the whole theory of man's responsibility to God, which is supposed to concern the individual. The modern doctrine substitutes the ways of man for that of God. This fact is worthy of note because it shows how surely the national, if not as yet the world aggregate, has come to be considered as one. The constant quantity is becoming so well defined that it is affected only by itself, moving by means of a majority in a certain given or ascertained direction. It may be considered therefore as one man, that is, man and woman.
4.	The struggle for existence has to do with necessaries only. Therefore we simplify the problem we are now considering by eliminating the weak, the vicious and the element of luxuries. It is the man struggling for necessaries of life.
5.	In the last analysis the man whom we
have taken as our unit, to simplify matters, gains his living and that of his family, from nature. When, however, he said to his neighbours:	"Some of you do some
things, some of us will do others, and we will trade," the problem which we are now considering began.
6.	The basis of this trade became nominally the unit of labour cost. Labour produced wealth, and part of the wealth was used as capital. So long as the unit of labour-cost was paramount there was little difficulty. But when men begin to trade so as to obtain where possible, something for nothing, otherwise known as profit, the struggle, not with nature, but against each other, began, and it has continued and become intensified to the present day. It has been partially counteracted by organization, but it expresses itself very largely and terribly in what is known as sweating.
7.	Until the unfair element of securing something for nothing is banished, it is impossible to obtain order in the trade world.
8.	When it is banished and a unit of labour-cost is ascertained and established, it will be easy to calculate the true rate or price of exchange, or trade.
9.	The world really is divided into two parts, economically, the producing and the consuming parts. They trade with each other. When the fair exchange price is based upon the fair exchange value as ascertained for a constant quantity, by a constant unit of labour cost, the problem of the struggle of existence so far as it applies to the trading world, will be solved. The rest depends as they say, upon the individuals themselves. It will be no longer, as at present, a struggle to obtain order out of chaos. It will be no longer an unequal struggle. It becomes a fair fight, definitely ascertained quantities seeking definitely ascertained results. The problem ought to be as simple as one in simple equations. Why is it not solved then, if it is so easy, you ask? I answer:	What
can you do with people who believe in profit, who instead of reducing their common efforts and needs to a common basis, fight them out as if they were all different? We are fast beginning to see the first light of dawn, and then how we will laugh at ourselves, when daylight shows us up.
The modern system of method of science, of course, tests theories by experience, principles by practice. We have not yet. learned to do this in the business or trade-world, and it is to this absolute necessity-that I am presuming to direct your attention to-day.
That the unrest in connection with trade-and business still continues and has no particular likelihood of early settlement is very plain from the fact that we have had sitting in Ottawa during last week an Industrial Conference, the chief bodies represented at which failed to agree. This sort of thing has gone on ever since the modern industrial world developed. It went on under the guilds; it went on under the old village common system when they settled.everything in the vestries, and it is likely will go on till the end of time, attended with unrest, strikes and possibly bloodshed. It is no sign of common sense on our part that we still go on in this blind way. We have asked for the development of State control, but State control cannot fetop it. If the 'State seeks to control any branch of industry and the men in charge of that branch of industry says: Well, take it; we are done with it; then the State has to take it up. In the last analysis, therefore, State control means State ownership.
There was a time when people like free traders called upon the law of supply and demand to solve everything. Well, I have here the report of the Committee on Trusts which was submitted to the Minister of Re-Construction in the British House, Sir Auckland Geddes. I myself sent for this, report, and a more absolute condemnation of that idea could not be found anywhere. This report says:
Sir, we have held fifteen meeting's, and have-heard verbal evidence from witnesses representing the principal trade associations and com-

binations in the United Kingdom. We have also considered written statements submitted to us, in response to invitations issued by representative Trade Associations, combines, large amalgamated concerns, Chambers of Commerce and fedarations of manufacturers, and from individuals and firms in a position to judge the effects of combinations on outside interests. We have received communications from traders in competition with combinations, from merchants, from Government departments, from labour leaders, and from representatives of the Trade and Technical press. We have also made use of such reliable documentary evidence as was readily available, and have considered certain memoranda prepared for the use of the Committee by Sir John Macdonnell and others.
We find that there is at the present time in every important branch of industry in the United Kingdom an increasing tendency to the formation of Trade Associations and Combinations, having for their purpose the restriction of competition and the control of prices.
And believe me, the same thing exists in Canada to-day. The report goes on:
Many of the organizations which have been brought to our notice ha.ve been created within the last few years and toy far the greater part of them appear to have come into existence since the end of the nineteenth century. For reasons which we shall presently discuss, there has been a great increase in the creation of trade associations during the period of the wo r.
The following list of associations connected with the Iron and Steel industry, nearly all of which are definitely known or believed to be 'engaged in regulating prices and output, affords some indication of the extent to which the creation of Trade Combinations has now proceeded. The list does not purport to be at ail exhaustive, even of this one industry.
Then follows a list of some associations in the iron and steel industry, including the following:
IPig Iron: Scottish Ironmasters' Association Cl2 firms) ; South Staffordshire Ironmasters' Asso iation; West Coast Iron Committee (7 firms) ; Ferro-Manganese and Spiegel Association (5 firms)'; Cleveland Pig Iron Association (17 firms).
Steel:	Scottish Steel Makers' Association (7
firms) ; North-East Coast Steel Makers' Association (10 firms) ; South Wales Siemens' Steel Association (8 firms).
Roiled .Products:	British Joist Makers' Association (9 firms) ; British Rail Makers' Association (16 firms) ; Midland Steel Angle Makers' Association (6 firms) ; Small Steel Bar Association (8 firms) ; Sheet Makers' Conference (31 firms) ; Rod Rollers' Association; (1,1 firms) ; Welsh Plate and Sheet Makers' Association.
Castings ((Steel) :	Steel Castings Manufacturers' Association (20 firms).
Iron:	Cast Iron Hollow-ware Makers' Association ; British Cast Iron Pipe Founders' Association ; National Light Castings Association.
Forgings: English and Scottish Forgemasters' Association (18 firms) ; Federated Forgemasters (13 firms) ; Midland Forgemasters' Association.
Bar Iron; Lancashire Bar Iron Association,; Scottish Bar Iron Makers' Association (13 firms) ; South Yorkshire Bar Iron Association

(10 firms) ; North-East Coast Bar Iron Association (5 firms).
Miscellaneous: Iron and Steel Wire Manufacturers' Association (29 firms). (Prices are dealt with in the "Secondary Associations.") British Tube Makers' Association (32 firms) ; Steel Nail Makers' Association ; Weldless Steel Tube Makers' Association (7 firms) ; Wire Netting Association (10 firms) ; Railway Tyre and Axle Makers' Association (14 firms) ; Railway Wheel and Axle Makers' Association (15 firms) ; Steel Rope Wire Makers' Association ; Coil Spring Makers' Association.
The report goes on to say:
A large proportion of them are either permanently or Intermittently price associations, concerning themselves, as a rule, only indirectly with output. In the majority of cases they do not comprise more than a small number of firms, but generally a large proportion of the trade.
Amongst the associations encountered by the Ministry of Munitions there are here about fifty very large British associations, such as the Northeast Coast Steel Makers' Association, the Bailway Makers' Association, the Ingot Makers' Association, the Billet Makers' Association, the Brass Wire Association, Copper Vessel Makers', Silversmith Makers' and so on; an immense list, all engaged in the control of price, at least, if not both of price and output.
There has been also, as you are Aware, a tremendous development in the chemical industry; everything is fast becoming chemical in its nature. Even iron and steel, clothes, etc., are now being tested in a chemical way, and there must be added to this report, as found-by this committee, the whole chemical industry. These are the conclusions and recommendations of the committee :
In the United Kingdom, combinations operating in restraint of trade ,are, though not criminal, unlawful if shown to be against public policy, as public policy is understood by the English courts, where these words are construed in a somewhat narrow and technical sense.
We are unanimously of opinion that it would be desirable to institute in the Unite! Kingdom machinery for the investigation of the operation of monopolies, trusts, and combines, similar to the commissions and other tribunals created for that purpose in the United States of America and the British colonies above referred to. The problems to be considered, before any just conclusion can be arrived at with regard to the actual existence of abuses tending to the detriment of the public, or with regard to a form of safeguard or control which it would be practical to prevent such abuses, if proved, are not matters On which it is possible for a committee such as this to form any final or considered judgment. But we are satisfied that trade associations and combines are rapidly increasing in this country, and may within no distant period exercise a paramount control over all important branches of the (British trade.

We are satisfied that considerable mistrust with regard to their activities exists in the public mind, and that the effect of such mistrust may be equally hurtful to the political and social stability of the State, whether or not the public mistrust and resentment be in fact well-founded. We consider that it is desirable that means should be provided whereby the fullest information as to the activities of trade associations may be made available to the public, and complaints may be promptly and thoroughly investigated, so that doubts and suspicions may be dispelled, or, on the other hand, the true facts ascertained as to evils for which a remedy is required. We believe that it will be found necessary ultimately to establish further machinery for promptly and effectively dealing with such abuses as the Tribunal of Investigation may discover.
In addition to that, there is an addendum signed by Sidney Webb and several other well known men on the committee. The very best men in England are on the committee. This is the addendum:
The fact is that free competition no longer governs the business world. The common assumption that the rivalry of traders affords a guarantee that the price of commodities will oscillate closely about the necessary cost of production-whatever may have been its degree of truth in the past-is now, in this country, nowhere to be implicitly relied on. It is nowadays open to doubt whether we ever buy anything at the cost of production. We find that capitalistic combination, in one or other form, and at one or other stage of production, transportation and distribution, now loads in varying degrees the price of practically everything that we purchase.
To this has been added by the British Government in this pamphlet to which I refer, a report, a study of trade organizations and combinations, in order that it may have a complete bearing on this question. John Hilton, of the Gaston Foundation prepared this for the committee, and he says with regard to the law of supply and demand:
According to those doctrines, evolved In the course of the industrial revolution, supplies, prices, profits and wages could safely he left to adjust themselves. Leave the business world to its own devices, and, competition would ensure that all was for the best. Competition would harmonize supplies and requirements ; would lead to the survival of the most efficient business concerns; and would ensure that the level of wages, prices and profits in any trade or industry would always be "just about right."
The reasons given were as follows:-(a) If demand exceeds supply, competition between buyers sends up the price; (b) a relatively high price spells a relatively large profit; (c) a relatively large profit attracts capital find enterprise to the business; (d) supplies increase; (e) competition between sellers brings down the price to normal, and (f) in the struggle between sellers each endeavours to improve his processes and methods, the more capable succeed, incompetents are driven out, and the general level of economy and efficiency is raised throughout the industry.
This is what he says with regard to that:
The passing of competition.-The assumptions are, however, no longer valid. In the modern industrial and commercial world competition, which indeed never was wholly "free," -is becoming less free with each passing year.
In very many branches of trade and industry, business concerns whose inter-competition is conventionally supposed to maintain prices at a competitive level have, in fact, working arrangements of one kind or another which prevent competition.
Appended to this report is also a very-learned summary by the celebrated Sir John Macdonald, prepared for the Committee on Resolutions, at the instigation of the British Parliament, and he says with regard to modern economic conditions:	x
In proposing remedial or amending measures,
I assume that the law should be based on the existing economic order, and that it should take note of certain prominent facts, a'mong . them these:-
That competition is often wasteful; that it leads to needless multiplication of plants and
staffs, and standing charges; that it increases cost of dti&tribution in many ways ; thait it is often short-lived and precarious; that it is generally followed by combinations; that competition is not an end in itself, and that the motives for encouraging it often cease.
That monopoly does not necessarily mean " artificial dearness "; that monopoly in production and distribution may be attended by substantial advantages; e.g., economy and stability of prices, reduction of standing charges, facilities for standardizing; that there is a tendency towards larger units of production and distribution; that almost everywhere the tendency is towards production on a large scale and the suppression of small businesses;
That combinaton may facilitate interchange of experience and useful technical research work; that it permits of specialising in production and of reduction in the cost of advertising and marketing; that it is favourable to collective agreements and negotiation with labour representatives.
He goes on:
It is suggested that the law as to combinations should take note of all the above-mentioned facts. In the long run courts have followed, though slowly, the teaching of economists. It is suggested that they should come abreast of that teaching.
The remedies here proposed fall under four heads:
(A)	Preventive;
(B)	Disabling or disqualifying;
(C)	Punitive or penal;
(D)	Changes as to procedure and as to courts administering the law.
The remedies belonging to the first category, to which I attach more importance than to the others, are numerous. I do not profess to give a complete list. But they should, I think, include the following:
(a) Accurate and, as regards the chief articles of commerce, fairly complete statistics of prices, which would enable consumers to judge whether a particular combination is abusing its power and raising prices unduly.
We have there a pronouncement by the leading authorities in Great Britain at the

present time upon a subject which is causing the very greatest excitement in this country. It is something, therefore, to which we should give our immediate and most intelligent attention. It is no use our going on from year to year in the way we have been going on in the struggle of one portion of the body politic and of one portion of the industrial world against the other, in a wild effort to find an equilibrium, which cannot be found until certain fundamental principles are applied. When those fundamental principles are recognized and applied we shall be .able to give an intelligent and effective attention to the great problems before us, but in the meantime you see what effects are being produced. It has come very near to revolution in this country, and actually has produced revolution in places like Russia. It has produced revolution before this in France, and is on the very brink of producing' it to-day in Great Britain. Are we then going to confess that we must let evolution and Fate work out their own ends, rough-hew them how they will, and that as for ourselves we are unable to solve the problem and do not propose to try. Is that the attitude of this House? I trust it is not, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the House to give their practical attention to this matter by appointing a committee which will bring in a report to which it is hoped Parliament will give some attention, and if it does, we will get better results than conferences can produce-conferences such as we have seen, where men come together and do not agree. They cannot agree, because they represent opposing rival interests and are not trying to find the fundamentals upon which they can come together.
, Let me say once more that the object of this proposed committee is to ascertain the fundamentals, to present them to the people, and to ask the people to recognize them and govern themselves accordingly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The motion, as I read it, has two objects in view. It proposes, first of all, that there shall be a discussion by this House. To that, of course, there can be no objection, and the opportunity is now afforded by the motion of discussing the very important question of what remedies it may be possible to devise to meet the conditions on which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham) has dwelt.
I have had some difficulty I must confess, in seizing precisely what is the scientific method that the hon. member suggests fMr. Burnham.]
*should be supplied. There have already been suggestions how we might endeavour to meet the conditions to which he refers. We have had a conference, which has just closed, and which the hon. member describes as a conference which had failed to reach agreement. W'hile there may not have been absolute agreement on every-point between all the parties in the industrial life of this country represented at that conference, I think we have reason to congratulate ourselves that with regard to some very important matters it was possible to reach agreement, and with regard to many, progress was made.
As to the practical proposal contained in the motion, if I grasp its meaning rightly, the hon. gentleman proposes that this House should resolve that a definite plan of Government with respect to the application of the scientific method- of dealing with questions concerning the struggle for existence should be laid before the people at the next general election, and that a committee be appointed for that purpose. This last portion of the motion, I must say, seems to me to be hardly acceptable. We are very glad indeed to have an exposition of the views of the hon. gentleman, and if this discussion should be further extended we shall be very glad indeed to have the views of the other members of this House. The expression of all such views furnishes in the first place information, and possibly valuable guidance, to the Government in the formation of any plan of Government to be submitted at the next general election, but to suggest that this House should select a committee for the specific purpose of formulating a plan of Government seems to me to be practically proposing that this House should supplant the existing Government, which, after all, in a sense, is a committee of this House, and hand over to the newly appointed committee what is the proper function of Government, namelv, the preparing of proper plans of Government for submission to the people when it will be proper and we will be called upon t-o go to the people and submit our actions and our then present policies for their consideration. I think perhaps the hon. gentleman, having attained the first purpose of his motion, so far as this House desires to discuss it, will realize that the Government can hardly be expected to accept his second suggestion, which would produce the results I have just pointed out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to say a very

few words upon the very important question brought before the House by the hon. member from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). At the last session of the House, I think it .was during the Budget debate, I took the responsibility of saying just what he has said now, namely, that we have in this country no legitimate competition at all in any line of trade or commerce. I am very glad that my hon. friend has taken the same line, and I am particularly pleased that he was able to quote the very same opinion from a commission appointed by the British Government. If I understood him correctly one of the leading members of that commission made the statement that there was no such thing in Great Britain to-day as legitimate local competition.


John Hampden Burnham: They all state that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It appears that it was the unanimous conclusion of that very important commission. If that is the case in Canada, and T say it is, the motion of the hon, member can be understood by the Government to mean that the most careful consideration should be. given to circumstances of that character, and I should regard it as a very important part of the Government's functions, through a committee or of their own motion, or by whatever machinery they may devise, to find out for themselves if the statements made by the hon. member, and which were made by myself on my responsibility in the House when speaking upon the Budget not very long ago, are correct, and, if they are, to ascertain what the proper remedy is. When the National Policy was adopted in Canada, a policy which to some extent was a trade restriction and trade preference, it was contended by its opponents that it would simply create a condition such as we have to-day, a condition of combines, trusts, and so forth. But as Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper said on that occasion, there was no danger of anything of that kind, since honest local competition between different trades or between different men in the same trade would keep healthy and pure the commercial atmosphere of Canada and we would have no combines. There are in the United States trusts in every line of business-the beef trust, the ice trust, the flour trust, the sugar trust-trusts in connection with every necessary of life, and we have the same trusts in Canada, not on such a huge scale, because we have not the population or the wealth. But in miniature every one of those trusts exists in Canada. They may not, perhaps, be known as trusts;
they may not have that particular appellation, but they embody the same principle. The combination exists, whether we can discover it or not, and the poor man who has to buy is in the last analysis the sufferer.
I submit, therefore, that the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) to-day is fraught with information of a most valuable character, and I think that he has imparted to the Government and to this House a thought that is well worthy of our careful consideration. I do not know that I am in a position to tell the Government where they should begin in regard to these things, but the trouble exists. There is an arrangement, either a written arrangement or a gentleman's agreement, in connection with every* line of production in this country, by which prices are not governed by competition and trade but production is regulated so that it will not exceed the demand, and sales may be kept within the limits of the quantities which it is proposed shall be sold, and at prices agreed upon. These are matters which the Government can ascertain. It is not for me to .say how; but as the leader of the Government has said, the Government is responsible to the people, and I have no desire to take any illegitimate or direct means. of displacing or surplanting them for the moment. I want to do that in the proper legitimate way when the proper time comes. But while the Government is in power it is their duty to inquire into these matters and find an adequate solution for them. The hon. member for Peterborough requires the Government to deal with national matters in a scientific way. Well, I am afraid he might as well .ask that the propagation of Confucianism in Canada should he undertaken by the Methodist church as to ask this Government to conduct matters in .a scientific way.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have listened with some interest to the remarks of the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Peterborough, .and the addresses of those wrho have spoken on the subject have left my mind iij more or less confusion ns to the real meaning of the resolution. For the purpose of drawing out the mover I should like to make a few remarks.


John Hampden Burnham: Go on with your own idea. Don't mind drawing me out.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The resolution says that it is desirable that the House should discuss the struggle for existence, etc., " to

the end that such order and success as attend, for example, the affairs of a department store should be applied to the national business, therefore be it resolved, that a definite plan of government in this respect be laid before the people at the next general election, and that a committee be appointed for that purpose." National business may mean one thing or another. Whether it means, as is evidently considered by the leader of the Opposition, a commercial policy, from a trade point of view, or whether it means the internal conduct of the affairs departmentally of the Government is what I have not quite clearly before me. The resolution might reasonably be urged upon the Government to devise a plan whereby the internal economy of the Government's own affairs would be reached through the medium of a committee and thereby the expenses of Government be greatly reduced. If the hon. gentleman means that I am very much in favour of the proposition, because in ordinary conversation and parliamentary dissertation we hear continually about the overlapping in the Government service. We hear that instead of having, as in a departmental store, just a sufficient number of employees to do the business a we have one man treading on another's coat-tail and kicking his heels because there are too many clerks in every department. That is said to be true. It may be true, and no doubt under the old system, before patronage was abolished, it had necessarily to be true because every member of Parliament had to bring some one from his constituency to Ottawa for a job. My mind, however, is directed to this point: So far as the resolution relates simply to Canada it relates to a minor portion of the world, and to be effective the hon. gentleman's motion should be world-wide in its scope For instance, how can Canada to-day by a committee provide for its national business in a world sense, in view of the unrest and the unsettled conditions that exist, when Canada does not know the policies of the different nations with regard to trade and commerce and industrial life? Viewed from that standpoint, I think the resolution is rather premature. We have to wait for more normal conditions before we shall know in Canada exactly what kind of policy this country should adopt. Reference has been made to the present period of unrest and revolution in Russia. As I view the situation in Russia, there never was a revolution there. A revolution was manufactured for Russia by intriguers in

Central Europe, principally Germany. I remember a statement made by Rudyard Kipling once, when he said, at the time the Czar was threatened by Nihilists and Anarchists, that owing to the peculiar construction of the Russian nation-a high class of few and a low class of many, the lower class being practically serfs-they were not constitutionally fitted for revolution, and therefore there would be no revolution until the serf learned enough to put his shirt inside his trousers, to quote the exact words; They were mere clods. The revolution in Russia was made for these people. It did not spring from them. It had no hope of being successful. That manufactured revolution has spread until there are fifteen or twenty areas of civil war in Russia today, and she is no nearer the end than she was.
To my mind, the conditions in Canada are not so bad if we will let them alone. We have had the influenza. It was worldwide as the unfortunate conditions arising out of the war have been world-wide. The influenza ran its course, it petered out, and so I feel that the unrest we have noticed in the industrial life of the country lately will also disappear, if we talk a little less about it, think a little less about it and do not strive to raise up nightmares and bugaboos. God knows there are enough outside of this House, on every railway train and on every street comer, who are doing that. The condition of the world because of the terible strain of the war is very much like a disturbed physical condition on the part of a human being. Things come up which decentre a man's nervous system and he becomes a shattered wreck. So the world, because of the great strain under which it has been labouring, is in a condition of nervous prostration, it is suffering from shattered nerves and, as with a man whose nervous system becomes decentred, the only way is to try and get back to normal. It seems to me that it is our duty in Canada to try and get back to that condition. Let us sing more, let us have a little more band playing, a little more music, a little more healthy sport, accompanied by reasonable business activity on a fair basis, and then we will be approaching that era when we will come back to normal conditions.
It is a most remarkable thing that while unrest prevails, our industrial establishments are doing well. Hon. gentlemen seem to be sorry that they are doing so. The wage earner of Canada is getting

higher wages than he ever did in history and even in comparison with the cost of living, because the wage earner, while he lives well, can teach some others how to live reasonably, frugally and well at the same time. The working man to-day is enjoying the advantage of a higher scale of wages than he ever dreamed of. Yet, strange to say, the unrest is there. I have not yet heard it very well explained why there should be this unrest amongst the labouring population when one workman has four or five requests to work for others. It does seem to me that we are getting into a chronic state of mind. I think sometimes that, in this House we have the spirit of pessimism rather than the spirit of optimism, and it is high time that we should allow Canada to have a little breathing spell, a little recreation, coupled with reasonable business activity. Let 5 p.m. the influenza run its course and some day the sun will begin to shine, we will bring the country back to a condition of normal health, and we will get ahead as Canada, in common with every other nation in the world, has a right to get ahead.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I would like to say that the proceeding which I have indicated was supposed to be, and is in fact, entirely in line with the usual method of procedure in introducing some variation, or considerable novelty, to the attention of the Government. For example, when they wished to overhaul the Civil Service they asked Sir George Murray to come here and make a report. It was brought into the House, discussed and adopted. There was no reflection whatever upon the Government then. I am making no reflection upon the Government now, nor upon the Opposition, but I am endeavouring to arraign the condition of affairs which exists at large, and if in any manner I have succeeded in pointing out any major propositions worthy of attention, and if the Minister of Justice wishes to suggest that there should be any other body than a committee, and so that we shall not go on here and discuss it and not come to any conclusion, I will agree to anything the Minister of Justice may suggest as to the manner of dealing with the resolution, provided he considers the main principle. I think he rightly understands that it is not the intention to compel him and his confreres to abdicate the functions of Government. I hope they will long continue to ornament the positions which they occupy, but at the same time these things must be gone into, even though the heavens, let alone Governments, should fall.
I have been very well pleased with the position which has been taken by the hon. tlie leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), who, in his usual well-known practical manner, has struck the nail straight on . the head. It has been found by the best men in the world that there is no legitimate competition. How can there be rest when the people of this country, who are trusting to the members of this House to look after their affairs, cry out to them in vain: "If there is no legitimate competition, if when you find that we are being pilloried, that we are being sweated, why do you not do something?" How can we reply and say: "We do not know what to do; we will call a conference; we will think it over, but we will not promise anything; we will go on from day to day and from week to week committing the same blunders?" That is not satisfying the people. That is not right, that is not true, and no man who has a modicum of economic information can say for one minute that a restful condition of equilibrium has been attained.
The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) has arraigned the Government fearfully. He says that they ought not to have called this conference; he says not to give out to the people that there is any unrest or any cause whatever for perturbation. He says it is true that there is unrest in the country, but on the other hand he assures us that he is an optimist. As you know, the optimist is the man who does not care what happens so long as it does not happen to him. That is a well-known and thoroughly well tried definition, but I believe the hon. gentleman is too kind-hearted a man to think anything like that. He has been led astray by the glibness of his own tongue. He is arraigning the Government more seriously than anybody I know of ever did when he says that they have no business to call this conference and have no business to hold another conference with the farmers, that they should take everything as read and as settled. Grip once pictured Sir John Macdonald as extending his hands over the people and saying: "Be ye warmed and fed," and expecting them to be warmed and fed accordingly. Of course, that was satirical, but it is typical of what is happening to-day. We want no more of that. If we do not understand, or if we are wrong,

let us find out the cause of the conditions of unrest and let us not stand idly by and take no measures to deal with these unfortunate conditions. I therefore press the resolution.
Motion negatived.


THANKSGIVING DAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 2 (Mr. Pedlow), respecting Thanksgiving Day, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Thanksgiving Day to be held oh second Monday of November in each year. Interpretation Act and Bills of Exchange Act amended.
Robert Lorne Richardson: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Cockshutt:
That Clause 1 he amended by replacing in the sixth line thereof the words " Second Monday " by the word " Eleventh."


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Chairman, my first intention when placing this proposition on the Order Paper was to name the date instead of the day as the proper time on which to observe Thanksgiving Day as a memorial of the termination of the great world war. As soon as that resolution had been reported in the press I was deluged with telegrams, and even had a deputation come all the way from Toronto, on behalf of the 'Commercial Travellers' Association and other bodies, agreeing with the principle of observing Armistice Day, but expressing their desire that it be observed on a day instead of a date. Armistice Day, as the House will remember, was observed on Monday, the eleventh of November last. The day lends itself very conveniently to the business of such an intelligent and representative body as the Commercial Travellers' Association, comprising a membership of over 30,000 travelling men, and I had the Bill drafted with a view to meetr ing their desires. It was also called to my attention that prior to 1908 Thanksgiving had been observed on Thursday, and in response to representations made by the same body of men it had been changed from Thursday to Monday.
The reasons for their request are obvious to any one who will consider the situation. The month of November is one of the most important months in the commercial life of this country, for during that month the commercial fraternity place a large proportion of their business for the ensuing year, and if Thanksgiving Day 
should come on any other day of the week than Monday it breaks into a whole week of their business, entailing, of course, a great commercial loss. The day therefore can be as well, if not better, observed on a Monday as on any other day of the week, and it is a well known fact that up to 1908 the observance of Thanksgiving Day, which was on a Thursday, was not as enthusiastic or as general as had obtained in the earlier years. It was easily conceded, therefore, that by changing the day from Thursday to Monday it was an advantage, because the religious part of the Thanksgiving could be observed on the Sunday prior to the date set aside for the holiday, and so Thanksgiving Day developed into a holiday instead of a holy day. I think from both the religious point of view and the point of view of thankfulness there was no loss in that connection.
There is also another feature in connection with this matter which has been emphasized during the past year, and it has been called to my attention in an announcement in the Acadian Recorder, published in the city of Halifax. This is from the issue of May 3, 1919, and is headed " Holiday Mix-ups ":
Halifax always seems to be in a mix-up as to holidays, particularly in the summer season as these days draw near. Victoria Day falls on a Saturday this year, and the Board of Control decided on Monday for the holiday. This will certainly suit those who can leave their employment at 1 p.m. Saturday and do not have to return again until Tuesday morning. But it will not suit those who have business with the banks and public offices. They will be legally closed on May 24, the shops will be open, while on May 26 the banks would be opened, while the stores would be closed. Besides, people in the country who will observe May 24 will find that their order cannot be attended to in Halifax on account of the stores being closed on Monday May 26. If the Ottawa government will declare Victoria Day postponed throughout the country until May 26 there would be no objections, as then there would be uniformity, but if one place celebrates May 24 and the other May 26 it will be a great mix-up. It is understood petitions are being circulated to ask the Board of Control to rescind their resolution. The 21st of June also falls on Saturday this year, though that is a local holiday.
This shows clearly that a movable day is certainly not as desirable as a fixed day in the week for a holiday. In the discussion that took place on the second reading of this Bill, the view cf the speakers was practically unanimous, if we except, possibly, the remarks of the Minister of Justice. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), while partly favourable to the date, was, I think, quite satisfied with the proposal that a day, not a date, be fixed.

The member for Brantford shakes his head; so I am not correct in that. But the other four members who spoke were agreed on this point. I refer to the member for West-mount-St.Henri (Mr. Leduc), who was very positive in the matter; the member for St. James (Mr. L. A. Lapointe); the member for St. Denis (Mr. Verville) and the member for PaTkdale (Mr. Mowat). There is no question that it would suit all parties concerned much better to observe the day rather than the date; the event can be equally well observed on Monday as a date that might fall on any day of the week. Anyway, only about four days in a great cycle of years would be out of line so far as the holiday occurring on Saturday, or Sunday is concerned. If it fell on Saturday or Sunday, it would as a natural consequence be observed on the Monday following. I ask the committee, therefore, to grant the expressed wish of the intelligent body of men to which I have referred, the Commercial Travellers' Association. The holding of the holiday on a certain day has also been endorsed by the Methodist Conference which was held at Kitchener on June 2 last, in the form of a resolution which I have on file. It has been endorsed also by the Retail Merchants' A -sociation of Canada, a body representative of over 200,000 establishments doing business throughout the country. It has been endorsed also by the Associated Boards of Trade of Ontario, who held their meeting in March last, before the decision had been reached to change the wording of the legislation from that of the resolution to that of the Bill as drafted by the Parliamentary counsel. I had a visit from the vice-president of that association, who assured me that had the meeting of the Associated Boards of Trade known that it was desired to set a day instead of a date, they would have incorporated that in their resolution.
Subsequent to the second reading of the Bill, I directed the attention of the Chairman of the National Industrial Conference to this matter, who very kindly had the subject discussed on the floor of the House while that convention was in session. He has sent me a statement setting forth the discussion that took place. I quote from the report:


Georges Henri Boivin: Are there any other delegates desiring to express an opinion on the subject?-Then the secretary will kindly communicate with Mr. I. E. Pedlow, M.P., the message that the subject matter of his Bill was discussed by this convention, and that all the opinions expressed were favourable to its adoption.
Mr. R. A. Rigg, who, I understand, was a representative of the labour element at that convention, made the following remarks with regard to the matter:
Mr. Chairman, in the interval, while we are awaiting something else, I have had my attention called to a Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons this morning, I think, for the purpose of making the second Monday in November a Dominion holiday, jointly to observe Thanksgiving day and Armistice day, and the member who introduced the Bill, Mr. Pedlow, I believe, is desirous of ascertaining the opinion of this Conference as to whether such a statute is desirable. I think that from the point of view of the representatives of the employees there will not be the slightest objection to that, and I do not believe there will be any from the other side of the House. X beg leave, Sir, to move that this Conference express its opinion in favour of such statutory action being taken.
Mr. S. R. Parsons, a representative of capital at the convention, said:
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are all ready to approve of the suggestion that in some way we should commemorate Armistice day, and I believe further that the second Monday in November is a far better day for Thanksgiving day than the earlier date on which we have celebrated it in past years.
That remark has reference to the practice which has prevailed in past years of setting aside a day in October as Thanksgiving Day.
I think also that the fact has been made clear that Monday is in our estimation a preferable day for it seems to suit all of us workers better than any day in the middle of the week. We used to have Thanksgiving day on Thursday, and I suppose the United States still have it on that day, but we have come to believe, those of us who work so hard, that it is better to have two days of rest coming together. I certainly am in favour of the sugestion which has been made here and which, I understand, has been embodied in a Bill before the House of Commons.
I noticed an item in the Toronto Globe of Saturday last, as follows:
There is a very general opinion that the day on which the great war really ended-Armistice day, November 11-should hereafter be chosen as Thanksgiving day in Canada. Thanksgiving day in early October, comes too soon after Labour day.
That is another feature of it; if you select as Thanksgiving Day a day in the second week in November, you select a day which will be about midway between Labour Day and Christmas Day.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am quite in favour of the idea that Armistice Day should be celebrated. But if you set aside as Thanksgiving Day the second Monday in November, you depart altogether from that idea,

because the holiday will not fall on the 11th. The whole idea is to keep fixed in the minds of the people the thought that the nation is called upon to give thanks each year on that day because of the great event that occurred on November 11.
"Mr. PEDLOW: If November 11th should fall on Saturday or Sunday, what then?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Why, just hold
Thanksgiving Day on Saturday or Sunday, that is all. Can the nation not give thanks just as well on Sunday as on any other day? If you celebrate Armistice Day on the 12th, 13th or 14th, the people of the nation, especially the children, will lose sight of the idea of commemorating the 11th of November, for the special event jvhich it signifies. Unless you stick to the 11th, what object is there in dealing with the matter at all? We might just as well pursue the old practice and allow the Government to fix the day. As to its falling on the Sabbath and thus, in some respects, taking away from the holiday, that is an additional reason why I support the proposal that the holiday shall he observed on the Sabbath if it falls on the Sabbath. In my judgment, this country is cursed with too many holidays; they are a vicious interference with business. Perhaps a good many professional men who are members of this House do not realize what it means to have holidays projected into the business of the country every few weeks. If we are going to celebrate the idea of the armistice and to give thanks on Armistice Day for the armistice, in Heaven's name, let us stick to the eleventh, whether it fall on Saturday, Sunday or Monday, or otherwise, let the Government fix the date.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Personally, I have not very strong views one way or the other in regard to this matter, but it seems very largely a matter of sentiment whether we have Thanksgiving Day on Armistice Day or not. But if we are going to have Thanksgiving Day on Armistice Day, or as near to it as we can, I favour the suggestion made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) to have the day instead of the date. He told us, very fairly to my mind, that the idea of changing Thanksgiving Day from Thursday to Monday was largely because many men who are known as commercial travellers try to get home for the week end, and in that case they can remain over Monday and have the two days' holiday without its interfering with their work so much as would be the case if Thanksgiving Day occurred in
[Mr. Richardson.!
the middle of the week. It is not necessary to repeat that argument because it was a very strong one, and the Government, in proclaiming Thanksgiving Day on a Monday in recent years, were influenced very much by that.
Another very strong argument is this, that a very large number of students attending college in the different college towns-I happen to live in a college town and I know this from experience-who are half a days railway ride from home can, if Thanksgiving Day falls on Monday, leave on Friday afternoon and remain at home over the week end and spend Thanksgiving Day with their parents. The same thing is true with regard to school teachers, particularly in the rural districts. Teachers who are living away from home can close the school on Friday afternoon, get home for the week end and spend Saturday, Sunday and Monday at their homes. If we made Thanksgiving day always fall on the 11th of November, when the 11th of November would fall on a Saturday, a great inconvenience would result to the business world, because it is very important to have business houses open on Saturday, not only to the business men themselves, but, as we all know, to the people in making their preparations for Sunday.


William Foster Cockshutt: I spoke on this matter on the second reading and I have very little to add. If there be any sentiment in this matter at all-and I judge that sentiment is at the bottom of the Bill- the eleventh of November and no other day is Armistice Day. If we are looking for a holiday, I quite agree that Monday is the most suitable day. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) says that we have too many holidays, but I do not want to discuss that feature. But if there be any sentiment that leads us to select the eleventh of November for the purpose of thanking Almighty God for the blessings received by the termination of the great war, no day other than the eleventh of November can fill the bill. The hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) was of that opinion when he put his resolution on the Order Paper in the first place. As I said when I spoke on the second reading, at the solicitation of the Brantford Chamber of Commerce I placed a similar resolution on the Order Paper of the Associated Boards of Trade of Ontario, and when I referred it back to them, they said: Stick to the date, so that having referred the matter back to them, and in view of all the conditions that have been brought forward-and I admit they

are important and that we could argue a good deal as tq the propriety of having the holiday on a Monday, and I am sure that would carry if we are looking for a holiday -I am obliged to support the amendment. If we are looking for a Thanksgiving Day, meaning something and having in view blessings received from a certain great thing that happened on a certain day when the enemy was delivered into our hands and the armistice was signed and the world became, to a large degree, at peace, if that is what actuates us-and I think it is what actuated the hon. gentleman when he introduced his Bill-then there is no other day than the eleventh of November on which to celebrate this. If you want a holiday, that is another question altogether, and a great deal of my support for this Bill is taken away if the day is fixed for the second Monday, because I think that destroys the sentiment of the thing altogether. I have, therefore, pleasure in seconding the amendment, and if members will look at the matter in the light in which I have endeavoured to put it in these few words, they will find that the eleventh is the proper day on which to hold this day of Thanksgiving.


Mr. J. R. WILSON (Saskatoon):: I wish to express my unqualified approval of the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) for introducing this Bill, but I had no idea that any other date than the 11th of November would have been mentioned. If the second Monday is the day chosen, our children who are growing up will not know without inquiring just on what day the armistice was signed and the world delivered of this war cloud that was hanging over it prior to that date, and as this is a day of great importance in the making of history, the eleventh is the only date. There are three " elevens " connected with the signing of the armistice. On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the year was the armistice declared and signed, and it is very important that we should stick to the date, the eleventh.


Mr. HENDERS:: I would like to call the attention of the House to another fact. A good deal of emphasis has been placed on Thanksgiving Day's coming on Monday. Thanksgiving Day was a date arranged by Government, and it was not celebrating any particular event; it was celebrating an annual thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest for the returns for the year, and consequently it could well be fixed on any day that the Government thought would best suit the convenience of the people.
But when we come to commemorate specific days, we say: The first of July was Confederation Day, Dominion Day; we do not say: We will celebrate that on the second or third Monday in July, but we think of it on the first day of July, and if the first day of July happens to be a Sunday, we may defer the celebration until the Monday, but the date in the mind of the people all the time is the first of July. The same is true in regard to Christmas Day and all those days that celebrate or commemorate specific events. I am very much in favour of the resolution except on the point of changing from the date to a day. Let us stay with the date.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member for Springfield argued that holidays that fall on Sunday should be celebrated on Sunday, but that has not been the custom. In such a case the holiday is always celebrated on the Monday following.


Robert Lorne Richardson: There is a difference between giving thanks to Almighty God, and celebrating a holiday.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: We follow that custom with regard to Confederation Day, the first of July, commemorating a great event in the history of this country.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is a day of jubilation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If it falls on a Sunday it is celebrated on the Monday. Good Friday and Easter Monday are different, always falling on the same days of the week, although the dates differ every year. I believe that Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the 21st of March. These two holidays are always celebrated on the same days of the week, so we have a good precedent to guide us.
As to holiday and holy day, I think I covered that fairly well in my previous remarks. Thanksgiving Day up to 1907 had always been regarded as a holiday rather than a holy day, on which there was horse racing, sham battles, and all kinds of sports. Very little church work was done on Thanksgiving Day up to the year when that day was last celebrated on a Thursday, in 1907. The day was then changed at the request of this important body, the Commercial Travellers Association of Canada, and other organizations, and I think the point was well taken by them that the Thanksgiving services could be conducted on the Sunday previous, and the Monday be celebrated as a holiday. That is my idea regarding the celebration of Armistice

Day. There was a certain 'amount of thanksgiving in the minds of the people on the first Armistice Day in 1018, but far more a spirit of jollification. I had mo're fun on Armistice Day than I ever had before in all my life. The telephone girl had me up at 3.30 a.m. She knew I was anxious about the event. We had in Renfrew through a mistake celebrated the signing of the armistice on the Friday previous. On the Monday we went at it again and kept it up from half past three in the morning until after midnight. It was a real jollification. The lid was off all over the town, and we had a real good time, and I think it was the same all over Canada. If we set aside Armistice Day as a day of thanksgiving, thanks could be given in the churches on the Sunday, and Monday be celebrated as a holiday.
As I said on the second reading of the Bill, the children of Israel very wisely set a pile of stones at the river Jordan as a memorial, because it provoked their children to ask questions about it. It will be the same with this memorial day. When it does not fall on the 11th of November, children for all time to come will ask why the day is being celebrated. Judging by the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Doherty), the other evening, he does not think we should celebrate Armistice Day on a certain date every year, but that it would be all right if it came any day within the week.
I submit that we should consider the convenience of the Commercial Travellers' Association and of the retail merchants and the business community generally, as well as the convenience of the schools and colleges. The students at college will naturally want to be home with their parents and friends who may have taken part in the war. We could tell them the story of Passehendaele. Festubert and Givenchy on Sunday and then on Monday we could have horse racing, and those who did not care for that could indulge in other sports to suit their taste.


Avard Longley Davidson: There are some objections, I think, to the proposal made in the Bill to observe Thanksgiving Day in November. November in this northern climate .is not an attractive month in which to celebrate a holiday. As a rule, we are not in a very thankful spirit in November. That month may be all right in the United States, where winter does not set in so early, but our bleak November days, when, as Longfellow says,
When the vine still clings to the mouldering wall, And at every gust the dead leaves fall,
[Mr. Pedlow.f
are not conducive to thankfulness. However, 1 can see one reason for the change. By making the change we would be able to commemorate a day on which we were delivered from a great national peril. If we make Thanksgiving Day come on an anniversary like that it will mean something, but if you do not keep the 11th of November, the actual day on which the Armistice was signed, but some other Monday in November, you might just as well celebrate some Monday in September or October, when the skies are bluer and the devotee is in a more thankful spirit. As a matter of fact, if you celebrate as late as the second Monday in November, some considerable time will have elapsed since harvest and we may have forgotten our blessings. The grapes are all eaten by that time and many other fruits. The sentimental argument has some weight, but it does not apply in the case of the Bill, which does not propose to commemorate the 11th of November. I think there is no justification for the Bill as it stands.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) say that in his constituency they celebrate Thanksgiving Day with horse racing. I come from a province where Thanksgiving Day is regarded as a religious anniversary, and I could hardly conceive so devout a man as my hon. friend sitting on a grand stand giving thanks by watching a horse race. He has said that we have a good parallel in the case of the children of Israel, but I am sure they never celebrated Thanksgiving Day in that fashion.


Willis Keith Baldwin: 
Robert Lorne Richardson: It is not proposed that Thanksgiving Day shall be held and Armistice Day also celebrated. The purpose is to do away with the regular Thanksgiving Day and have Armistice Day take its place, and if we are not going to stick to the eleventh, we may as well leave the matter with the Government, as we have done during the last thirty odd years, and let them appoint the day.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: It might be desirable that the Bill should remain in Committee so that there might be a greater opportunity for the expression of public opinion on the subject. I think we were all agreed the other day that this is a matter that should be settled in such mam ner as will meet the views of the largest number of people in Canada, and from that point of view I think it is well to afford as wide an opportunity as possible for its consideration. The hon. gentleman will no doubt agree that such delays as we have had so far seem to have resulted in the eliciting of views favourable to his measure. I suggest that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Foster Cockshutt: Does the Minister of Justice intimate that the matter will be open to reconsideration? If not, I do not see any particular reason why it should stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the Committee has decided upon this amendment. I do not suggest that upon the amendment we should come baok into committee, but I say that the Bill might remain in committee for the moment. I do not think there is any danger of its not coming up again. It might remain in committee for the moment simply for the purpose I have mentioned, but if there be any really substantial objection I have no desire in the world to insist upon any motion,


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Chairman


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The motion to rise and report progress is not debatable. Unless the Minister is willing to withdraw



his motion I do not think any further debate should he .allowed.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-ELECTROCUTION.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 6, to amend the' Criminal Code- Electrocution!-Mr. Mowat-read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Davidson in the Chair.
On section 1-death sentence to he carried out by electrocution:
Mr.  H. M. MOW AT@Parkdale: times carried out sentences of capital punishment; from bodies of citizens; from citizens on grand juries and in county and city councils-in Ontario, anyway,-setting forth the desirability of a change. While I have no doubt that the committee is of opinion that some change should be made, I shall quote some of these expressions of opinion which I have received, with a view to confirming and strengthening that opinion. The Attorney General of Alberta says:
I beg to say that in my opinion electrocution is to be preferred to hanging in the case of a criminal condemned to a death sentence. As the facilities for guarding prisoners are better at the penitentiary than at any of the provincial jails, I am also of the opinion that immediately a prisoner is condemned to execution, he should be confined to the penitentiary. There have been several escapes of condemned murderers during the last few years which is very regrettable from every point of view.
The sheriff of Montreal says:
I endorse unreservedly the proposition to have the Criminal Code amended so as to put execution of capital punishment under the direotion of the warden of the penitentiary in each province. The actual practice of hanging in the jail of the district where the crime was committed is costly and has been the cause of much trouble in many instances.
The difficulty of finding a reliable hangman adds to the hardships of the situation and too often the mishaps of amateurs have been more derogatory than beneficial to the administration of justice. Electrocution is more in accordance with progress and1 a central place of execution in each province, is in my opinion the best method of dealing with the law of capital punishment.
The sheriff at Winnipeg says:
I am in hearty accord with the provisions of the Bill. The present system in force is antiquated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory and I hope you will succeed in having the change in the Criminal Code made in so far as the mode of enforcing the death penalty is concerned.
Under the law we have capital punishment for murder, treason, piracy where force is used, rape, and for the offence committed by persons who are subjects of a friendly State and who try to carry on war in Canada. But the question of capital punishment, concerning which there is great difference of opinion, does not come up in this debate.
I quote the opinion of the (sheriff of Calgary:
It is very satisfactory to me to know that at last this matter is being brought to the attention of Parliament and I trust that the Bill will be passed in due course.
I have had a number of cases of capital punishment where the sentence of the Court has had to be executed, and in some of these cases

the conditions surrounding the execution of the death sentence have not been satisfactory.
The carrying out of the sentence of death by hanging is in my judgment a most inhuman manner, to say the least, and the results obtained by electrocution, according to all the information I have had on the subject, are much more uniform and humane.
This is from the Sheriff of Sudbury:
In counties and districts there is usually no death cell apart from other prisoners; it is difficult to get a death watch and expensive to secure the services of an executioner, and sometimes inconvenient to secure carpenters to build the scaffold, while a lack of experience of most of the county sheriffs is easily understood.
There is a further objection to local executions in the fact that it has a very serious effect on local citizens of high-strung or nervous disposition and temperament, and serious illness has been known to result to numerous people residing in the neighbourhood where the execution has been slated to take place.
The sheriff of Halifax says:
I am strongly in favour of changing the mode of capital punishment to electrocution; also that the death sentence should be carried out in the penitentiaries. I do not think there can he any argument against the change, as it can be carried out with more privacy and safety to all concerned.
The sheriff of Toronto says:
The sheriffs have great difficulty in securing a competent man to carry out the sentence of the Court, and even with a man who has had large experience there is great anxiety for fear that something may happen that cannot be provided against. There has been no bungling at Toronto jail that I have known or heard of except on one occasion many years ago when the executioner arrived at the jail in a state of intoxication. On that occasion the death of the prisoner was delayed very much longer than it should have been by a mistake of the executioner that was not perceived, though very intelligent men were assisting him. There is also a danger that the man engaged to carry out the sentence becomes ill at the last moment or is delayed by accident to the train on which he is travelling. I only know of one man with skill in this matter, though I understand there are several who at times undertake the duty, hut I am told there have been several painful accidents.
The experience of that sheriff is no doubt the experience of other sheriffs, namely, that ithe executioner is nearly always in a highly nervous state. When he gets off the train and it is generally known what his mission is, he is the most execrated man in the community. He is boo-hoo-ed by the boys on the street 'and insulted by everybody in the lower walks of 'life. It is hardly to be wondered at, therefore, that he resorts to means to "buck him up" for his gruesome task. I venture to say that every sheriff has had trouble with the man who is paid to undeAake this duty.

The sheriff of Brant says:
In the first place an execution, especially in a small city or county town, is a shocking thing, where for weeks before the occurrence it is the principal topic of conversation. It is discussed amongst the school children, and I know from experience that every kind of^scheme is devised by certain people to gain access to or interview the condemned man. An execution in a local town has to greater or lesser extent a degrading influence on a certain class of the population. The average jail is not equipped with a death cell or the appliances for the carrying out of the death sentence. In some cases owing to lack of space other prisoners have to be kept in the same corridor. It also frequently happens that the officials, sheriff, governor, etc., are new officials who have never had any experience in capital cases.	[DOT]
The sheriff of Lambton says:
May I be permitted to express my approval of the Bill introduced in Parliament to amend the Act so that capital punishment shall be electrocution, instead of hanging, for the following reasons.
In the first place, the old method is so gruesome as to be repellent, not only to the officials in charge, but to the whole district in general.
A great difficulty will also be the securing of a death watch in such a case; also the uncertainty and difficulty in securing some one to carry out the extreme penalty. In brief, your amendment is a step in advance along the line of humanitarianism. I hope that you will be successful in getting this Bill through.
So, with the sheriff of Lanark. Most of the sheriffs who have written me are of the province of Ontario. It may be said that the sheriff naturally wants to evade a disagreeable duty; but even provided that that is so, it must be remembered that by so doing he relinquishes a considerable part of the remuneration of his office. Therefore, the statements may be received, not entirely qualified by the idea that they wish to evade their duty. Some sheriffs have executed men and they have not done their work well. When Grover Cleveland was running for President of the United States, it was charged against him as a campaign piece of propaganda that he had executed a man. He had; the reason being that he was at one time sheriff of Buffalo, and being a man with a very high sense of public duty, he thought it was his duty to carry out the execution personally. Whether it was done properly or not, I do not know, but that shows the strong feeling that can be aroused in the unthinking public-I will put it in no more offensive terms than that^as to the unpopularity of carrying out the law. The sheriff of Huron says:
It is simply a disgrace that in this day and generation such crude, barbarous and slipshod methods have to be resorted to and allowed, to carry out the sentence of death pronounced on any condemned person, or in other words,
to kill the condemned with the material provided the best way one can under the circumstances. The arrangements may be good or they may be bad, and local conditions for aarrying out an execution are generally pretty bad.
So with the sheriff of Prince Edward county and the sheriff of Essex. The sheriff of Middlesex says:
I beg to say that I am heartily in accord with the proposed amendment for several reasons. The first reason being that we are not supplied with a death cell, that is a cell apart from other prisoners; secondly, the difficulty in securing a competent death watch ; next, the want of experience of sheriffs, the securing of an excutioner, and also the expense of dispoeing of the body, etc.
I have also a communication from the sheriff of Parry Sound. The sheriff of Haldimand says:
I notice that you have a Bill before the House asking to amend the Criminal Code re prisoners who are sentenced to death, that the punishment should be carried into effect on an elecric chair instead of the old barbarous method of hanging. I am astonished that in this Christian country, this system of capital punishment should exist to the present day.
I have also communications from the sheriff of Halton, and the County Council of the county of Halton. The sheriff of St. John, N. B., says:
My attention has been called to the introduction in Parliament of "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Electrocution)" and to-day I learn that you are the promoter of the Bill.
I am very much in favour of the Bill and hope you will succeed in having the Bill enacted into law.
I have also communications from the sheriff of Algoma and the sheriff of the county of Dufferin. The sheriff of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry says:
I had an execution on March 28 and had trouble getting the scaffold built. Several carpenters and one building firm refused to build it. I finally hired a man at $10 a day and he put it up with the assistance of two prisoners.
I have also communications from the sheriff of Bruce, the sheriff of Welland, the sheriff of Hastings, the sheriff of Peel, the sheriff of Grey, and the sheriff of Prescott and Russell. The sheriff of Kenora says:
People are very largely what their heredity and environment have made them, and it may be necessary to put some people to death for the protection of the community, but in doing so there should be no spirit of revenge connected with the act, hence it should be done in the most humane way, and certainly electrocution is a much more civilized and humane way of putting them to death than hanging, especially where the executioner makes a bungle of the business as he sometimes does.

The sheriff of Thunder Bay says:
The common jails of the province have with one or two exceptions no provision made for the carrying out of the sentence inside the jail so that a scaffold must be built in the yard. The walls surrounding the same are not high enough for the scaffold and therefore a hole has to be dug lin the ground to allow of the drop. It is impossible to get any carpenter to build same here. I could not get one four years ago and I have been unable to get one to promise to do so for the execution that is fixed for next month.
I have also communications from the County Council of Haldimand, the County Council of Norfolk, the sheriff of Norfolk, the Board of Control of Hamilton, the Wentworth County Council, the Grand Jury of Peel county, the County Council of Lambton, the Grand Jury of Brant, the County Council of Prince Edward, the Municipal Council of the County of Fron-tenac, the Middlesex County Council, the Town Council of North Bay, the Grand Jury of Wentworth, the County Council of Perth county. The County Council of Huron say:
This council approves and strongly recommends the passage of the Bill, being of the opinion, that hanging is a barbaric method and one which cannot be effectively carried out in county jails.
I have also a communication from the Grand Jury of Middlesex. A fine point arises here; one of the ever-recurring conflicts in constitutional law between the Dominion and provinces. The point has been raised-I must say I anticipated it- that the Dominion cannot carry out this provision. It will be noticed by looking at the whole Bill, that in the clauses subsequent to clause 1062, the words " warden of penitentiaries " are substituted for the word " sheriff." That transfers the carrying out of the sentence to the warden of the penitentiary in each province. It seems to me essential that this should he done in one place in each province just as is the case in the state of New York, in a perfectly equipped place, and the proper place will be the penitentiary, because there is no county jail, I should imagine, in any province where proper rooms could be had or where it would be fair to make certain counties assume the whole expense of carrying out all the executions in that province. Under section 92 of the British North America Act there is committed to the province, "the administration of justice," part of which would be this: that is to say, the carrying out of capital punishment comes within the realm of the administration of justice. Under section 91, subsection 27, the Dominion has power to deal with

" criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters." Of course, this is not procedure in criminal matters, because when a man has been condemned, the eniminal "procedure" .stops. The Dominion dlso has charge of:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of penitentiaries.
What I had in mind when drafting the Bill so as to make the warden the executioner instead of the sheriff was that this constitutional difficulty could be bridged over by making the warden a provincial officer ad hoc for carrying out the sentence. There may be difficulties in that which I do not wish to take on, and I am willing, if the House will allow me, to ask that all the clauses in the Bill shall be withdrawn except clause 1062 which provides:
Section one thousand and sixty-two of the Criminal Code is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
1062. In all cases where an offender is sentenced to death, the sentence or judgment to be pronounced against him shall be that he be electrocuted.
All the other matters which are supposed to be matters of provincial jurisdiction, such as the inquest, the persons to be present, the certificate of death, the declaration by the warden, the identity and death to be proved, the place of burial and so on, shall be cut out and left for discussion between the Minister of Justice and the attorney generals of the several provinces, and I am sure there will be no real difficulty in their coming to a conclusion as to what should be done. As the matter stands now, the public hangman is a joint nominee. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is disposed to correct me in that, but he can state the fact as it is.
What I understood was that in view of a lot of bungling and the dreadful things that have taken place in the gaols, the provinces and the Department of Justice, before my hon. friend became minister of that department, agreed that there should be one person nominated hangman for the Dominion, and that the expense in connection therewith should be contributed in proportion by the province or the sheriff, and the Dominion. If that is not so, I shall be glad to correct the statement.
That there have been dreadful bungling and scenes revolting in character owing to the inefficient carrying out of our present method, nobody can deny. In the last few months there have been two cases at any rate which stand out in the public mind

as examples of a condition that should not be tolerated any longer, and which I am quite sure have prepared the public mind to accept this Bill. I need not go further than allude to the execution at Edmonton in April last. I wrote to the reporter of the Edmonton paper who witnessed that execution, and he was good enough to send me this report of what took place:
The execution took place at the provincial jail at Fort Saskatchewan about 5.45 on the morning of April 23. Every detail had been arranged beforehand. The convict with hands tied behind his back was placed upon the scaffold and when properly hooded and the noose adjusted, the executioner pulled the lever. The trap door swung apart. The body hung still and apparently lifeless. The hangman hoisted the black flag and left the scene, everything for the moment evidently satisfactory.
In a few seconds, however, the man began to kick and wriggle his body and succeeded in getting his hands unfastened. The hangman being recalled, re-adjusted the rope and the man died in about 10 minutes. It was stated by some one that the neck had not been broken but that the man had been strangled to death. The verdict of the jury was ''justifiable homicide."
Only this month in such a city as Montreal another mistake was made by the public executioner, and this is the account as telegraphed from Montreal to an Ottawa paper-I shall quote only one or two sentences :
Untold Agony is Suffered by Murderer.
An (hour after the bolt was released which launched his body into space he was still alive, the drop failing to break his neck. Ten minutes after the man was cut down the jury went to see the body, but found him alive although half strangled. Dr. Benoit declared that the heart ceased beating eight minutes after the hanging, but there was great muscular twitching until 9.02, when it ceased. He could not say the man was dead as long as this continued.
This is a horrible state of affairs, and when it can occur in a great metropolitan city like Montreal what can we expect of little jails where the sheriff has an execution perhaps only once in ten years? The Globe, of Toronto, in commenting on these events in Montreal, said on September 13:
Hanging as a method of capital punishment should be abolished after the disgraceful bungling in Montreal, where an Italian lived for more than an hour after the drop.
Surely the House of Commons of the present day cannot but see its way to accept this legislation amended as I have suggested, substituting electrocution for the worn-out and barbarous method of hanging by which a man, instead of having his neck broken, may be strangled and suffer untold agony struggling to be free from his pains.
Let us show that we are alive to what is demanded by the public and demanded by humanity itself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before this amendment is adopted I have a suggestion to make to the House, which I trust will meet with its approval. I congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) in the efforts he has made to make the death penalty less barbarous and less repulsive to our modern thought and feeling. I was very much struck with the statement of a certain sheriff which he quoted-I think it was the sheriff for the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. That officer stated that he had found it hard to get carpenters who would work for even ten dollars a day in the putting up of a scaffold.
I know that for years past it has been with the greatest difficulty that the authorities could find men who would perform the service of hangman, and I think that to substitute electrocution for hanging is a step in the right direction. But when we are at the business, could we not go a step further, could we not abolish the death penalty? If we did that we should put ourselves in line with fully three-quarters of the most advanced people on the face of the globe. We should not encourage crime, but discourage it, because, strange as it may appear, history teaches that the more brutal and the more awful the punishments the less repressive their effect seems to be. I have merely to refer hon. members to the history of British criminal law. A hundred years ago there were scores of offences upon the criminal statute-book punishable by death. If a young man stole a few shillings' worth of food he was liable to be transported, or even hanged. Hanging was quite an ordinary occurrence. I remember attending a meeting at Montreal a few years ago where a very prominent man from the United States came to speak on this question of capital punishment. I went to that meeting with an open mind, but the arguments which he brought forward on capital punishment convinced me. He pointed to what other civilized nations which had abolished the death penalty were accustomed to do in regard to serious crime, and then he made this assertion: The death penalty, he said, encourages crime in this respect, that the riien who go to the electric chair are regarded as the heroes of the underworld; just as the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church in other spheres of life, so the death of these men raises them in the estimation of all the underworld, and they are looked up to with what is akin to veneration. This may appear inexplicable to us,

but this was a man who had been, if I mistake not, governor of Sing Sing penitentiary, and he was one of the recognized authorities in the United States upon this subject.
It has been proven by the history of many European countries that when they abolished death penalties they did not, by so doing, increase the number of murders.
The statistics of murders in one state, the name of which I cannot recall at the moment, were most 'illuminating. They revealed the fact that in the period during which the death penalty was suspended the number of murders decreased. The death penalty was re-imposed, and concurrently with its re-imposition the percentage of murders increased. If that fact can be taken as an exemplification of a general rule, then it was perfectly clear that the death penalty was not a deterrent of murder. Now, there are those who will quote Scripture to me and say: " He that taketh a man's life shall be-" I cannot quote exactly, I am sorry to say.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MdMASTER:	Well, some hon. gentlemen on the other side who formerly occupied pulpits will probably be able to
assist me.


Samuel William Jacobs: Charity begins at home.
What about the leader of the Opposition? (Mr. McKenzie).
Mr. MdMASTER:	The point I wish to
make is this, that the old Mosiac law, " An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'' has, in my opinion, been superseded by a different system. We are living under a more magnanimous and humane dispensation. Is it not rather humiliating to our civilization that when a man commits a heinous crime the only thing we can do with him is to put him to death? Does it not to a certain extent smack of the old idea of vengeance? I move, therefore, seconded-by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow), that instead of section 1062 of the Bill there should be substituted these words:
The death penalty Is abolished and all crimes heretofore punishable by death shall be punishable by an incarceration not to exceed the remainder of the life of the accused.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is kind.
Mr. MoMASTER:	Perhaps an amendment like this would come with better grace from the gentleman (Mr. Doherty) who is in such a distinguished manner leading the House to-night. There is, I grant you, a smack of Hibernianism about the amendment which I propose, but I do not wish

to suggest that the life penalty must be imposed in all cases, and that is the reason why I hawe framed the amendment as it is worded. I commend it to the good-will of the House, and although the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) is a long step in the right direction,-for which reason I intend to support it,-I believe that if my amendment is received it will constitute a still longer step in the right direction and make the other provisions of the hon. member's Bill unnecessary.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must remind the hon. member (Mr. McMaster) that the House is at present in Committee and that no amendment can be made in Committee which changes entirely the principle of a Bill which was adopted by the House upon its second reading. The principle of this Bill is to replace hanging by electrocution, whereas the principle involved in the sub-amendment which is submitted by the member for Brome is to abolish the death penalty altogether. That in my judgment should form the basis of a new Bill and I therefore rule the subamendment out of order.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am opposed to the
measure introduced by the hon. member for Parkdale, on the ground that it is an invasion of provincial rights. Hanging is within the purview and scope of the provincial authorities and to seek to foist it upon the Dominion authorities is to my mind unconstitutional. With regard to the change from hanging to electrocution, I fear that the glowing picture which the member for Parkdale has drawn of the simple manner in which the life of the *convict can be taken by means of electrocution might act as a stimulant to crime rather than a deterrent. The gruesome scenes which the hon. member depicted of the hanging of various murderers 'throughout the country, with sometimes more or less abortive results, would in itself, it seems to me, be the deterrent which society requires to put an end to murder as far as possible. The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), kind-hearted man that he is, wished to make it more simple even than would be possible under the system proposed by the member for Parkdale. The member for Brome suggests that instead of execution the convict should, as he picturesquely put it, be incarcerated for a period not to exceed the term of
9 p.m. has life. The hon. member evidently does not agree with the

Irish writer who 'thought that life imprisonment wiajs much more serious than death itself; for that writer says that by life imprisonment you take away the man's life but you do not give him death- I do not know that there has been such a Strong desire throughout the country for a change of the system as to justify this Parliament in instituting a change. The system is a good old English one, consecrated by a thousand years of practise, and so long as there are murders, just so long, I suppose, we shall have to resort to capital punishment. We all know the famous expression of the French writeT, Alphonse Karr, who said he was in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, but that he was also in favour of the murderer first 'adopting that principle. I think that under the present system we have worried along fairly well. The member for Parkdale has spoken about the views of sheriffs; they would like to shift the responsibility on to the wardens; but we have not had any expression of opinion from the wardens as to whether they would care to assume -that responsibility. There ought to he throughout the country a strong agitation demanding a change before this Parliament should seek to disturb the present system. I am rather surprised that a stalwart Britisher like our good friend from Parkdale should desire to abolish the British system and substitute the American. "No truck ot trade with the Yankees" was, a few years ago, almost a classical quotation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not from the member fox Parkdale, then.
Mr. JACOBS. The member for Parkdale must have been inoculated with the idea at that time, because I do not think he could have undergone a change so suddenly. Now, if this system is good enough for the British people I am inclined to think that t'he member for Parkdale should he content to let it continue for some time yet in Canada. For these reasons therefore I declare myself opposed to the amendment.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: First, I think the bon. member for Parkdale has made a very excellent case in support of the proposition which he submits to the House. I quite agree with him when he says that the method to which my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) has just referred as being a classical one and having been in use for more than a thousand years, is decidedly unscientific, very barbarous and something which we have outlived. The hon. member
for Brome (Mr. McMaster) advanced the interesting argument that hanging encourages crime, if I gathered what was suggested correctly. He told the committee that when a criminal was hanged he became a martyr to his fellow-criminals of the underworld. I can advise the hon. member for Brome and the committee that in the territory I have the honour to represent hanging never encouraged crime.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is that?


Alfred Thompson: The hon. member for Brome says that 'hanging encourages crime.


Samuel William Jacobs: In his county, perhaps.


Alfred Thompson: In his county, perhaps, but it does not in the Yukon Territory. We have hanged every man that ever committed a murder, we hanged him quick and it has had a very deterrent effect Ujpon other would-be murderers. Just across the line the Americans have the territory of Alaska. I do not know how many capital punishments have taken place since the Americans purchased that territory from Russia in 1867, but there have been very few, and murders in Alaska are comparatively common, simply because the would-be murderer knows that he has a remarkably good chance to escape the gallows. In Alaska life is held cheap by the criminal class as compared with the way it is regarded by the same class in the Yukon Territory. Ia the Yukon, if a man goes out to kill another, he knows that the law is going to be after him from the time he thrusts the knife or pulls the trigger, or in any other way takes life. They never let up till they get him, they bring him to Dawson, and he is hanged on a scaffold in full sight of anybody who wishes to see the gruesome deed done. It is a gruesome deed, but it has to be done. I am absolutely opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, and if the hon. member for Brome had lived on the frontier as long as I have, I do not think he would be in favour of its abolition. . I am glad the amendment offered by the hon. member for Brome was ruled out of order. I am in favour of the method proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale of carrying out the sentence of the court. It is much more humane and scientific; it is no experiment; it has been tried, and tried successfully, for thirty years, by one of the most intelligent commonwealths on this continent, namely, the state of New York. The evidence submitted by the hon. member for Parkdale, given by the physician in

charge of Sing Sing penitentiary, goes to show that the sentence is carried out with remarkable simplicity and -with equal effectiveness. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill submitted by the hon. member for Parkdale.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that what is now before the Chair is a proposed amendment by the hon. (gentleman (Mr. Mowat), striking out all the clauses except the clause to substitute electrocution for hanging. I would suggest that the committee might perhaps adopt that amendment before the committee rises, because it is my desire to move that the committee rise and report progress in order that it may be possible to adjourn, the House so as to permit of the members having an opportunity of paying to our late confrere and colleague, the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, that tribute of respect which would consist in following his remains to the station. The funeral, I understand, is to take place in Toronto on Wednesday. Though it may not be possible for us to attend the funeral there, I think it would be a satisfaction to our feelings and to our desire to express our regret if we should have the opportunity of accompanying his remains at least to the station this evening. I would suggest that before doing that the amendment should be submitted, and then I propose to make the motion that the committee rise.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Before the committee rises I desire to record myself as being in favour of the Bill of the hon. member for Park-dale. I cannot -conceive why, in a modern, humane world, this should need any argument. It seems to me that all men who have the cause of justice and humanity at heart, if they still wish to retain capital punishment, should desire at least to make it .as humane as possible to those who may be the victims of it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The carrying of this amendment will not dispose of the Bill. The Bill will come back into committee and any further discussion can take place upon it then. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member for Park-dale be allowed to withdraw these sections:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When it is a question as to whether the Bill shall be accepted at all, is it proposed that we shall accept part of it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is proposed now is to allow the hon. member to with-

draw part of it.	The effect of the
present amendment is simply that the hon. member who proposed the Bill withdraws the measure with the exception of one section which would remain and which, as the Chairman has pointed out, would come before the committee again for consideration. The hon. gentleman in withdrawing these sections has acted upon a suggestion of my own in which I have pointed out that it seemed to me quite clear that we should not mix up the administration of justice in the way proposed. The administration of justice belongs to the provinces; the execution of these sentences is the execution of the judgments of provincial courts, and they are executed by officers of these provincial courts. The hon. gentlemen, in deference to my suggestion, desires to withdraw these sections of his Bill. We are not accepting anything by passing the amendment. These sections will be struck out, and there will remain before the committee the point in regard to the substitution of electrocution for hanging which will be dealt with later on. However, I have no desire to insist upon disposing of the amendment at the present time if it is thought better that all these provisions should still remain before the committee. I thought that would be a definite step of progress before the committee reported. I suppose we can report progress without having done that but I would like that in any event we should be enabled to rise now so that we may be able to perform the duty which I have mentioned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to interfere with any arrangement that may exist between the leader of the Government and the author of the Bill. All I wanted to say was that in view of the statement made by the leader of the House that he would not think of passing legislation of this kind without the concurrence of the various Governments in Canada, it would be awkward to accept any part of it if no part of it was ultimately to go through. That is why I said we could not accept any part of these arrangements.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.

Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the adjournment at this early hour for the reason I have already explained, namely, that we have an opportunity of

paying our last tribute of respect to our deceased colleague, the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, by following his remains from his late residence to the railway station. The funeral proper will not take place in Ottawa, but I am sure it will be a satisfaction to us to have even this limited opportunity of making public our sentiments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
Tuesday, September 23, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

PRIVILEGE-HON. CHAiRLES MURPHY.
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a -question of privilege. When I returned to the city on Saturday evening last I was- informed that during my absence from Ottawa the hon. member for Durham (Hon. Mr. N. W. Rowell), after incubating for eighteen months-[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. member desires to rise to a question of privilege, he should recite the matter complained of and make his denial with respect thereto.


Charles Murphy: I shall do that as briefly as possible. I was informed, then, that the hon. member had delivered himself of a series of evasions, half-truths, and absolute falsehoods which he had characterized as a reply to some observations I made in this House on the evening of March 19, 1918. Now, .Sir, since my return to the city I have had an opportunity of reading Hansard containing the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman on Wednesday last, and to-day, with your permission and the indulgence of the House, I desire to occupy a few minutes in dealing with such of these statements as are of a personal character and that reflect upon .my alleged conduct as a member of Parliament and upon what I am alleged to have said, but which, as a matter of fact, I did not say.
The rules of the House, Sir (as the hon. member for Durham and all other hon. members in this House know), prevent me from dealing with falsehoods of a general character contained in the speech made by that hon. gentleman on Wednesday last; therefore I cannot do more than state that I will deal with these statements at the first opportunity at the beginning of the next session.
Now, Sir, in reading Hansard of the seventeenth instant, I. observe that the hon. member for Durham characterized my speech of March 19, 1918, -as. an "attack." In point of fact, Sir, my speech was a review of the general election of 1917, and in part was a reply to an attack made by the hon. member for Durham, in a speech delivered at North Bay, upon the members of certain French religious orders and upon others whom he assailed for alleged lack of sacrifice. My references to the hon. member for Durham were merely to compare his sacrifices with those of the people whom he attacked during the general election. In Unrevised Hansard-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. member to- order, but he is not within the rule at the present moment. It is, perhaps, not objectionable that a preliminary statement should be made, but the hon. member is, in effect, making a reply to a speech, whereas he should simply read any specific statement of which he complains and then make his denial with regard thereto.


Charles Murphy: I was just about to do
that, but I did not think that either you, Sir,-with all respect-or the House would be fully seized of the denial unless I made that preliminary explanation.
Now, in Unrevised Hansard of September 17, at page 406, the hon. member for Durham is reported to have spoken as follows:
It has been said in the press that I was in the House or at least in this building on the night in March, 1918, when the member for Russell made his attack.
" His attack," you will observe, Mr. Speaker-I have explained that my remarks were a reply to an attack. I have had to correct even a Toronto university professor for the misuse of that word.
I think Le Devoir -and some of the other papers reported that I was around the House that night but kept out of the Chamber. I regret to say I was at home in my bed that night under the doctor's orders. There is a custom which has become an honourable tradition of this House, that when one member desires to rise in his place and make an -attack upon the position or character of another, he gives that hon. gentleman due notice. I received no notice. I was in the House in the afternoon, and notwithstanding my indisposition, if I had received any notice, I would have come back that night.
You will observe that the hon. gentleman admits that he was in the House in the afternoon of March 19, 1918. He was here when I rose to speak just before six o'clock, and when, through your courtesy, Sir, and the courtesy of the light hon.

Prime Minister, an adjournment was granted so that I should not be obliged to begin my speech until the House resumed for the evening session after eight o'clock. The [DOT] hon. gentleman, therefore, knew that I had the floor, but he says that he was indisposed and did not come back that evening.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I regret again
to have to call the hon. member to order, but he is still not within the rule, because he is making a statement which is in the nature of a reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Durham. If he wishes to deny any statement, he may do so; but he is not doing that.


Charles Murphy: I wish to deny that any advantage was taken of the hon. gentleman, either through his absence or through his illness. I cannot make my denial in a few words; I have to preface it with an explanation in order that I may make it clear to the House. I merely wish to add that the- hon. gentleman was in his seat in the House the next day, but he did not rise to a question of privilege-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is
really making a statement; he is not making a denial of a statement made by the hon. member for Durham. I must ask him to read any specific statements of which he complains, and then to make any denial that he wishes to make.


Charles Murphy: I have read the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I am endeavouring to make my denial. I regret that it may seem to exceed the rules applicable to the occasion; if I can make it any briefer, I will. I merely wish to say that the -hon. gentleman was in his 'seat the next day in this House; that he did not rise to a question of (privilege, but that he gave out an interview to the papers that evening. He was in his seat in this House the following day, and he did not rise to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is quite out of order in 'the proceeding which he is- taking. I again must ask him to read any specific statement of which he complains and to make his denial with respect thereto. He is, in effect, making a speech in reply to certain allegations made by ithe hon. member for Durham, under the guise of -a question of privilege, which certainly is not in order.


Charles Murphy: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member must be under a misapprehension as to 'the nature of his rights under a question of privilege. If he wishes to (take exception to any statement which the member for Durham made, he may do so, and make his denial. Further than that he may not go.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what he is doing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Murphy: 1 am doing that, Mr. Speaker, and I am endeavouring to do it within the rules and with your concurrence. I merely wish to say that it is both childish and foolish for the hon. gentleman to formulate a Charge against me, as he has done in the extract which I have read, based on his absence or illness when I spoke. The extract which I have read contains a further reflection upon me and a plea for sympathy on the ground that I did not give the hon. gentleman notice of what I intended to say. Whoever heard of any hon. member of this House ever giving any other hon. member notice of what he was going to say in the debate on the Address? You, Sir, know and every other hon. member knows that hon. members rise alternately on this side and on the other side of the House to speak in the debate on the Address-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. member persists in taking the course he is taking, I shall have to ask him to desist. I must ask him to confine himself to the practice which has obtained in this House for the last fifty years. The hon. member is in fact making a reply to the speech of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) in the guise of a question of privilege, and that he may not do.


Charles Murphy: I have no intention of doing that, and on the point that I was discussing, I will merely say, in answer to the charge made against me, in the extract which I have read, that I was under no obligation to give notice to the hon. gentleman


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Murphy: -of what I was going to say.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in making that statement on a question of privilege. It is open

for the hon. member only to deal with specific statement to which he intends to make a denial or to take exception.


Charles Murphy: On page 407 of Unrevised Hansard, the hon. member is thus reported:
I shall not attempt this afternoon to go through in detail the lengthy address of the hon. member for Russell but I shall take up the salient features of it and deal with them. Let me quote, Hansard 1918, page 40 :
And then he quotes from my speech of the 9th of March, 1918, as follows:
Now, Sir, what happened when the hon. gentleman entered the provincial field of politics? With his usual presence of mind he arranged with his friends to form a committee for the purpose of raising a fund to guarantee him against any loss while engaged in his work as provincial leader. Mr. A. E. Ames, of Toronto, was chairman of the committee, and in addition to Sir Joseph Flavelle, the contributors included several other Toronto orUL nen. The fund itself was called the " Secret .rial Fund '' and I am informed that it varied in amount from $9,000 to $11,000 a year.
Not to burden Hansard with too many quotations, I will say that a further report of the speech shows that the hon. gentleman admitted that such a fund was raised for the first time after he became provincial leader, and then he put up a straw man for the purpose of knocking him down, and he attributed to me a desire to give the impression that the fund in question was paid to him as salary or as compensation for loss of time. I deny that I ever made any such statement. What I said I repeat, namely, that it was a fund raised for the purpose of guaranteeing the hon. gentleman against any loss while he was engaged in his work as provincial leader. I can make that clear by reading a couple of sentences from the hon. gentleman's speech and by quoting briefly from certain correspondence on this very subject.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member will not be in order in reading any correspondence at all. He must deal only with the specific statement to which he wishes to make a denial or take exception. He cannot establish any case or enter into any argument.


Charles Murphy: Then I shall merely read an extract from page 408 of Unrevised Hansard:
Let me say this in passing. If the hon. member for Russell was as conversant with the inside history of the provincial Liberal party as one would think he was from a perusal of his address, or as he professes to be, he should have knowfl that the statements he made in the House were untrue.
An hon. member: He did know.
I should like to know who said that.
Mr. Rowell: An hon. gentleman 6ays he did know-I cannot say os to that; but this I do know that he had scarcely made his statement in the House before he was told by letters of protest from Liberals in Ontario that they were untrue.
After I made that speech in the House, I received hundreds of letters, all of which approved what I said. In two of these letters, my attention was drawn to the fact that I was in error in saying that the hon. gentleman had been paid a salary. I at once corrected that misconception, and I proposed reading an extract from a letter I wrote to Mr. Bowman whom the hon. gentleman eulogized in his speech, but I understand from your ruling that I am precluded from doing that. Therefore, I shall merely say that the hon. gentleman's statement is untrue, and I stand by what I said on March 19, 1918. I am not in the habit of making here or elsewhere statements that are without foundation or that I cannot prove when called upon to do so. After having received further information on the subject, I wrote Mr. Bowman on the 31st of October, 1918, a second letter in which I elaborated the proofs as to the correctness of my statement, but again, Sir, I am precluded by your ruling from reading that. The hon. gentleman, I observe, admits that Mr. Ames was a contributor to the fund, but he denies that Sir Joseph Wesley Flavelle was a contributor, and he gives as a basis for his denial, and in order to formulate another charge against me this evidence, that Sir Joseph Flavelle was a Conservative. That is not evidence at all, because we all know that commercialized Christianity in pursuit of a common purpose-


Ernest Lapointe: It recognizes no party line.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I regret that the hon. member will persist in wandering far afield from his rights, even as liberally interpreted. There will be no question of privilege in respect to Sir Joseph Flavelle or any other gentleman. The hon. member may, if he wishes to do so, take exception to a specific statement made by an hon. member in this House.


Charles Murphy: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I do not wish to assume even the appearance of being in conflict with your ruling, but it restricts me so much that I am precluded from making the specific denial that I wish to make. On page 409 of Up-^vised Hansard of September 17, the

hon. gentleman referred to my charge that he had been engaged in a conspiracy to supplant Sir Wilfrid Laurier as leader of the Liberal party, and in order to hurl a charge of untruth and falsehood against me, he read this extract from a letter written to him toy Sir Wilfrid Laurier after he had joined the Union Government:
I may frankly add that I have too much respect for your convictions to allow an action which I cannot approve to interfere with our old personal relations.
That does not alter what I said or in the slightest degree prove my statement untrue. That is precisely what Sir Wilfrid would have written.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is proceeding to enter into argument again. He is not taking exception to or denying the truth of a specific statement. Except he does that, he has no right on a question of privilege.


Charles Murphy: I want to deny the
statement made by the hon. member that my statement was untrue. I read this extract and purpose to make a comment upon it, and I would have -concluded with the observation that the hon. gentleman got no letter from Sir Wilfrid after he spoke at North Bay and certainly he got no letter after I spoke on March 19, 1918.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in making that statement.


Charles Murphy: I want to read a couple of sentences from page 4X1 of Unrevised Hansard and to make denial with regard to them. The hon. member said:
I had an opportunity of visiting the front in 1916 ; the member for Russell makes reference to that occasion. I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity of visiting the front;
And on that he bases a cheap sneer at me with reference to recruiting. I took every possible part in recruiting that those who claimed a monopoly of the war would allow me to take. The hon. gentleman omitted to tell you that in order to make that trip to the front, he received about $3,750 from a group of gentlemen in Toronto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is certainly not in order in making that statement.


Charles Murphy: I am just through. I merely wish to add that had I been a financial leech or a political parasite, I could have got to the front in the same way as the hon. gentleman did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is out of order.


Charles Murphy: For the present it is evident to everybody that the rules of the House prevent me from saying any more. I can, however, assure you, Sir, and the members of this House that I will return to this subject at the next session of Parliament.


DR. GERVAIS ET AL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
TARIFF INVESTIGATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I recall to the Government that last session when the Budget speech was being delivered by the then Minister of Finance, it was announced that a commission would be appointed this fall to make an investigation with a view to revising the tariff. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint that commission this fall, and if so, 'when?


William Findlay Maclean: My recollection of the statement made by the Minister of Finance is hardly the same as my hon. friend's. I do not think he promised that a commission would be created, but merely intimated that in accordance with the previous practice, certain members of the Government would visit different sections of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what I meant.


William Findlay Maclean: The matter is now under consideration by the Government, and I cannot give any more definite reply at the present time.


NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Findlay Maclean: I think on Tuesday last the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) made inquiry of the Government as to the constitution of the membership of the Industrial Conference which was in session last week, and whether the evidenae taken by the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations in Canada, which was appointed earlier in the year, was to be printed. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) and his deputy were very busy with the conference last week and it was impossible for me to obtain the answer before Friday last, when, owing to an oversight, the answer to my hon. friend's question was not given to the House. There was not an opportunity for me to do so yesterday, so with the leave of the House I should like the question and answer to he incorporated in Hansard.
Questions by Mr. Archambault:
1.	Why were the National Labour Unions of the Province of Quebec and the Circles Catho-liques who represent a very large number of employees and who, according to the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations in
Canada, are an important labour factor in the province, entirely ignored by the Minister of Labour in issuing invitations to the National Industrial Conference?
2.	Why has the evidence taken before the Commission of Industrial Relations in Canada not (been printed, and why is it not available for the instruction of the members of the National Industrial Conference, who have asked for it?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to have this evidence distributed before the end of the conference?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to have this evidence printed before any legislative action recommended by this conference is considered?
Answer:
1. In securing nomination of delegates to the Industrial Conference it was impossible to have regard to each isolated unit of labour organization, and nominations were therefore requested only from (a) the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to which the great mass of local trades union branches are affiliated, and (b) Canadian Railway Board of Adjustment No. 1, as representing the Railroad Brotherhoods, these important organizations not being affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress. National and Catholic unions are not, so far as has been learned, affiliated to any central body and it was not deemed practicable to request nominations. Returns collected by the Department of Labour show a trades union membership in Canada at the end of the calendar year 1918 of 248,887, including 2,787 members reported by the National and Catholic unions of the Province of Quebec.
2 and 3. The evidence taken before the Commission was undoubtedly of much value and deserved and received a careful scrutiny at the hands of the Commissioners before the latter made their reports. The evidence was of a voluminous character and would, if printed, occupy some thousands of pages. It has not been deemed in the public interest to incur the large expenditures which would be entailed in printing and distributing the same.
4. The matter will receive careful consideration.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CURRIE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe): I desire to rise to a question of privilege. It is not very usual for me to reply to any remarks in any of the papers, but my attention has been called to a copy of the Globe of September 18, which contains the following paragraph: '
Colonel Currie, M. P., declared that 4,000 returned soldiers were at Burwash prison farm. The actual number is about 25. The Colonel beats Falstaff's estimate of the number of men in buckram.
What I did say, as anybody can see by referring to Hansard was that I had been informed that 4,000 men " had been " sent to Burwash Farm, which is an altogether different thing. As this is not the first time the Globe has indulged in this form of misrepresentation and garbling of my remarks, I think it is time their attention
[Stage Direction]
was called to it, and that they put a stop to it. The Toronto Star the next day follows in the same vein and enlarges on the Burwash statement. It says:
When Col. Currie Breaks Boose.
" Fifty per cent of the men who broke the Hindenburg line were conscripts," declared Col. John A. Currie, M.P., in his speech to the House. This is an extraordinary statement and one which the Canadian corps will justly resent.
My statement was very close to the truth. The Star goes on:
Col. Currie is also credited with having said that 4,000 returned soldiers were at Burwash prison farm. The actual number is about 25. Why does Col. Currie indulge in such wild exaggerations ?
' I might very well ask, why does the Star indulge in such wild exaggeration? I deny its statement which I have just quoted in toto. The Ottawa Citizen refers to the same speech of mine in an editorial in which it starts off with a statement that the Originals of the First Division did not approve of my stand on the question of the gratuity. I have this to say. I have a long telegram here
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Allister Currie: I am absolutely in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is not in order. If he desires to take any exception to a statement which a newspaper makes with reference to some statement he has made in this House he may do so, but it is not in order for him to read any document in support of his denial.


John Allister Currie: I understand the rules of the House very well. I was not going to read the telegram. I was only going to say: " I hold a telegram in my hand." I will give the telegram to the press. It shows that the statement of The Citizen is absolutely false. The Originals Club of Toronto, which represents the Originals, did approve of my stand, and, as a matter of fact, asked me to take the stand I took. The Citizen, in the same editorial, goes on to refer to my service at the front, and to a recruiting speech I made in the city of Ottawa. I am only sorry that speech did not send Mr. Bowman, who is an Englishmen of military age, to the front.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is exceeding his rights upon a question of privilege.


John Allister Currie: I will say this:	The
returned soldiers should know that the man who wrote that article and who writes other

articles for The Citizen is Mr. Bowman, a slacker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask the hon. member to (bear in mind that we must be guided by the rules in this House. Hon. members should not take advantage of their rights.



MEMORIALS IN FRANCE AND FLANDERS TO CANADIAN SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I shall try and set a good example, Mr. Speaker, in observing the rules of the House. In view of the fact that the Belgium Government some time ago presented a very suitable site at Ypres, and the French Government a suitable site at Vimy Ridge, for the erection of memorials to our Canadian 'boys who fought and have fallen in those places, I should like to ascertain from the Government-I do not want the answer to-day-[DOT] what steps they are taking for the erection of these memorials, of whatever description they may be.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia): I saw the article to which my hon. friend has reference, I think, in the paper some time ago. It was proposed that the Canadian Government should erect in Flanders memorials commemorating the various actions of the Canadian corps at the front. The matter was taken up by the Overseas Ministry and the High Commissioner, and an officer of the Canadian Engineers, Colonel Hughes, was delegated to look over some sites and try and locate suitable property. I do not think that Colonel Hughes is a relative of my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: He is a good man all the same.
Major-General MEWBURN: He made a very exhaustive survey of the various grounds, the details of which I have not with me. Eight sites were to be selected on which it was proposed to erect memorials in commemoration of the various battles in which Canada took part and of the sacrifices she made. Memorials were contemplated to commemorate Vimy Ridge, the Somme, and other celebrated battles. A minor survey was made of these properties, and it was understood that the French and Belgian governments would convey them to the Canadian Government. Colonel Hughes is now in France endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with these respective governments in order that the particular sites that are finally selected

may be coveyed to Canada. A vote was passed in the House last year of five hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of building memorials. The matter is still under consideration and is by no means being overlooked. The first locations were not quite satisfactory and the high commissioner and the overseas minister iare preparing a full report which will be forwarded.



BOARD OF COMMERCE.

[Stage Direction]
On ithe Orders of the Day:
Donald Sutherland: I desire ito direct 'the attention of the leader of the Government and members of the Obvemment to some statements which have appeared in 'the public press during 'the last few days and which are alleged to have been made by the vicechairman of the Board of Commerce with regard to fixiing the iprioe of milk in Ontario. This is a matter of very great importance to the people of that province'. I desire ito observe 'the rules of the House, and I beg to direct the attention of the Government to the alleged ruling of the vice-chairman of the Board as appears in the press-, some clippings of which I have in my hand-.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not -apprehend that -the hon. -member would have the 'light to make any statement on this -matter on the Orders of the Day. If he desires to ask a question with respect to the Board- of Commerce he may be in order; but the Board of Commerce has its powers defined under the statute -and- iit is not competent for the Government to vary them.


Donald Sutherland: I wish to ask a
question with regard to the powers of the board and what effect this ruling, if the report is correct, will have. If after investigation, the board-having ruled that for forty days from the 14th of September there shall be no increase in the price of milk in Ontario-finds that such an increase is justifiable, will the Government reimburse the people who may -suffer as a result of this ruling?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member has submitted his question, which I do not think should properly he put on the Orders of the Day. It should! be placed on the Order Paper in the ordinary course.


Donald Sutherland: If I am not in order in calling the attention of the Government and of the House to this matter, then, Sir, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the
House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance to the people of the province of Ontario.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member would not be in order unless he submitted this motion in writing, and then it would be a question for the chair to decide, after seeing the motion, whether it was in order or not. The hon. member and all hon. members must bear in mind that on the Orders of the Day there is no subject before the House, although the -custom has grown, largely through the indulgence of the chair, of permitting certain questions to be put in respect of matters of very urgent public importance. iHon, members have their full opportunity of obtaining information by placing their questions on the Order Paper from day to day, hut the indulgent concession has been made by the Chair enabling members to submit questions on the Orders of the Day where a delay of two or three days in securing a desired answer might possibly prejudice the public interest. Unless a question comes within such bounds, hon. members must observe the rules and place their questions upon the Order Paper.


Donald Sutherland: Permit me to state, Mr. Speaker, that I have no intention whatever of violating the rules of the House, and my question was prompted altogether by reason of the fact that the matter involved is one of great public importance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has submitted his question to which the Chair has taken no exception, although expressing a doubt as to whether it is a question which ought properly to be -submitted on the Orders Of the Day. It is for the Government to answer or not as they see fit.



RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. IB. DEVLIN (Wright):	Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government if the article appearing in to-day's Ottawa Journal, a newspaper which always supports the Government, is truthful when it makes the statement that two ministers of the 'Cabinet, notably the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) and the junior member for Halifax (Hon. A. K. Maclean) intend to resign before the end of the session?
Right Hon. -Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting -Prime Minister): My hon. friend has put his question and I imagine that is all he expects to come of it. I am not in a
[Stage Direction]


position to make a categorical answer to my hon. friend's interesting inquiry. The delights of anticipation are often sweeter than those of actual realization, and my hon. friend may enjoy the first if it will console him for a little while.
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am thinking of the
anxiety of the people.



THE PEACE TREATY.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3 for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers.
'Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill which is now before the House is very brief knd clearly sets forth the purpose which it seeks to attain. This, together with the fact that the Bill has already received an explanation on its introduction and its first reading, and the further fact that we have had a somewhat prolonged and, I think, a very exhaustive debate upon the Treaty which is to toe given effect to under the provisions of this Act, should make it unnecessary for me to speak at any length in moving the second reading of the Bill. In its terms, the Bill is similar to one which has been adopted in the British Parliament in order .to attain so far as Britain is concerned, the same end. There it served the purpose which is not necessary here; it served as a means of expressing the approval of Parliament of the Treaty itself, that approval being inferred from the fact of its conferring upon the executive government the powers necessary to carry out the Treaty in all its provisions. This House has already expressed its approval, so that this Bill is to . enable the. Treaty to be carried out and give effect to its provisions. The Bill, in order to attain that end, proposes to confer upon the Governor in Council the power to make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to he necessary for carrying out the Treaty. That is the provision of subsection one of section one. Subsection two is merely a provision to enable such orders as may be made to he properly enforced, providing for the imposition of penalties in respect of breaches of its provisions.
The third paragraph provides merely for the expense to be incurred in carrying out
[Sir George Foster.!
the Treaty and which is to be defrayed by moneys provided by Parliament.
I think it may safely be said that the steps which it is proposed that the Governor in Council should have power to take in virtue of this Act are of an executive character or nature. The Treaty itself determines the rights and obligations of Canada, in common with those of the other parties to it. There remains, we having approved 1'reaty, to provide for the means of giving it effect, for the method in which the rights conferred are to be exercised, and likewise the method by which any obligations which may result from the Treaty and which call for action on the part of the executive government, may be given effect to and carried out. I think it is safe to say that the orders which will, require to be made will not be, properly speaking, in the way of legislation. They certainly will not involve legislation of any permanent character, but it will be necessary to make provision from time to time for carrying out the different provisions connected with the Treaty. As giving an instance, one might refer to the economic provisions of the Treaty. I refer particularly to those provisions which confer upon Canada the right of liquidating property of German nationals situated in this country and of making provision for how the proceeds re-sultmg from that liquidation are to be applied. It will be necessary no doubt to lay down regulations prescribing the mode of procedure in connection with that liquidation and the means to be taken for the disposal of such moneys as may result from it. We also have provisions in the Treaty in regard to the relations of debtor and creditor which may exist between nationals of the respective countries-the nationals of Canada on the one hand and the nationals of Germany upon the other. For the purpose of giving effect to the . provisions it will also, in all probability, be necessary to make regulations prescribing just the particular manner in which they are to be carried out. That manner will differ accordingly as this .country .should decide to adopt the system which in the Treaty is described as. the clearing house system, or should exercise its right of refraining from availing itself of this privilege. These I give only as instances, and I think that probably they are instances of the most important matters in regard to which it may be necessary to make orders in the nature of regulations.
I think that what I have said should serve to make clear what may be described

as the principle of the measure. What the House is asked to assent to, in so far as the principle involved is concerned, is the conferring upon the Governor in Council of the power to do those things which will be necessary to the execution of the Treaty. Having approved, as this House has unanimously approved of the Treaty itself, I should anticipate that there could be no very serious ground of objection to the power being conferred that is necessary in order to give effect to the Treaty. I would like to point out that there is no general power of legislation conferred. The powers to be exercised are strictly confined to the limits of the Treaty itself and to such regulations as may be necessary and will have to do with the enforcement of the rights of the kind that I have mentioned and with the performance of such duties resulting from the enforcement or execution of those rights as may result from the terms of the Treaty.
I beg therefore to move that this Bill be now read the second time.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) when the Government expects the Treaty to he concluded and peace fully established, or have they any information in regard to that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Government is in receipt of a cablegram from the British Government acknowledging the receipt of information that this Parliament had approved of the Treaty, further informing us that New Zealand and South Africa have approved of the Treaty, and intimating that they are in the expectation of receiving from day to day advice that Australia has approved the Treaty. When that last is received His Majesty will then be in a position to take action to deposit the ratification of the Treaty. Under its terms the Treaty is to become effective when ratifications have been deposited on behalf of three of the great Powers as well as of Germany. Germany, I understand, has already ratified, or at all events decided to ratify. The British Empire, when the approval of Australia is received, will be in a position to deposit its ratifications, The Treaty, however, as I have said, will not become effective until two of the other great Powers join with Great Britain and deposit their ratifications.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: May I ask what truth
there is in the report in the newspapers that South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have received a portion of the war indemnity and that Canada has not received *anything?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite at a loss to conjecture how South Africa or New Zealand can as yet have received a part of the war indemnity which war indemnity has not yet been determined.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The paper puts it on the ground of increased territory in each case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think, in the first place, that it is quite correct to say that any of these Dominions have received an increase of territory, properly speaking. I understand that the conclusion had been arrived at that they should bg designated as mandatories in regard to certain territories which had been formerly held by the German Empire. I am not aware that the terms and conditions of these respective mandates have as yet been settled, or that the mandates have been actually conferred or that they are actually in force. I am not saying that they are not but I am not aware that they have been completed. But I think I am correct in saying that it was not a question of adding territory properly speaking, to these different Dominions but it was a question of conferring upon them mandates in regard to certain territories which mandates would be subject to the conditions that may be prescribed when the mandate is so conferred.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice has spoken of approval being given by Canada, South Africa and New Zealand, and that the approval of Australia is also expected. The minister, however, has not mentioned India. May I ask in what manner it is expected that India will give its approval?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not sufficiently familiar with the system of administration in India to be able to give an answer to that question offhand. If hon. members desire to put these questions I am quite willing and happy to answer them, but may I suggest that perhaps it would be a little more regular if such questions were put in couynittee.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I ask if this Bill has been preceded by a resolution, because I notice in subsection 3 of section 1 that any expense incurred in carrying out the Treaty shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the provision in the Bill is quite clear. If any money is to be expended we shall have to come to Parliament for it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to refer very briefly to the Bill but before doing so I would remind the Minister of Justice that according to a promise made by himself, .and I think also toy the Prime Minister, every member of the House has the opportunity to discuss any phase of the Treaty when considering this measure. The hon. gentleman .may have forgotten that promise, but I wish to remind him of it so that any hon. gentleman who wishes to discuss the Treaty may, according to the promise made by the Government, avail himself of the privilege now.
When -we were discussing the Treaty itself I pointed out to the Government that I did not think we had power on our own account to make .a Treaty. This Treaty which has been consummated, and which we have discussed, is a Treaty between Great Britain and some other powers. It is perhaps not a treaty in which any body specifically undertakes to do anything for Great Britain, but it is an undertaking, or an arrangement by which Great Britain binds herself to do certain things, in which treaty foreign powers concur. It is therefore a mutual obligation and contract between two or more countries and is in the nature of a contract, or otherwise a treaty. Under the arrangement at the Peace Conference Great Britain has entered into the Treaty, and having done that I do not think that we, as a part of the Empire, have any power to enter into another or concurrent treaty, under the sections of the British North America Act which I quoted at the time we were debating the Treaty itself. Section 132 of the British North America Act reads:
The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all .powers necessary or proper for performing: the obligations of Canada, or any province thereof, as part of the British Empire towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.
Now in respect to obligations in connection with the Treaty, arising by reason of any undertakings that Great Britain entered into and which require money to carry out, we have power to provide those moneys under the section I have quoted; but if we start out to make treaties ourselves then, as far as I can read the Act, we have no power to at all events so far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned-supplement those obligations by money votes, or

by providing for the expense of carrying out the provisions of a treaty which Canada itself has entered into. It is perfectly clear that we have power to furnish the money to carry out any obligations that fall upon this country as a whole, or any province of it, by reason of a treaty entered into by Great Britain; hut I find no authority for providing money to carry out the terms of a treaty which we make ourselves separate and apart from the Mother Country. I simply point this out to the Minister of Justice as he may have some understanding, or explanation, from the constitutional standpoint to give as to why, or upon what principle, we depart from that section of the British North America Act.
Now we come back to the old difficulty of Orders in 'Council. I want again, Mr. Speaker, to register my protest against this country dealing with foreign countries by Orders in Council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is a 'loose and lax enough system that we should be dealing among ourselves, or dealing with our own people, by Orders in Council; but when we come to make regulations enabling the Government to enter into foreign relations with the United States, or with France, or Belgium, or any of the other kingdoms of the world, by Order in Council I think it is carrying that privilege much further than we should allow it to go. The Minister of Justice tells us that most of the matters for which we are to provide are set forth in the Treaty itself. If these matters are set forth in the Treaty in plain language there would appear to me to be no great difficulty in putting them into the form of a statute and giving power to the Government to carry them out if this House should so desire. But we are left in ignorance of what those things may be, and we are asked to vest in the Governor in Council such powers as may be necessary to make rules and regulations to carry out conditions as to which we are not informed. I am not quite sure that the Government itself fully appreciates the length to which it asks us to go. This Treaty requires us to join in war if it is necessary. Should the Council of the League of Nations decide that war should ensue then it would be the duty of Canada, as a nation so constituted under this Treaty, to participate in that war. That is one of the things to be done under the Treaty-take ,a part in world-wide wars. I am not saying that is wrong, perhaps it is not, but it is one of the undertakings to which we have obligated

ourselves. Now, does the Government say that the Governor in Council should get together and pass an Order in Council by which the military forces in Canada shall be called out and sent out of this country to fight wherever they may be called upon to go? It is certainly no strained construction upon this Act to say that that is possible. I submit, Sir, that very few members of this House, if any-in fact, I do not think any member will be found-who would agree to vest power in the Government, no matter how strong their faith in that Government might be, to pass an Order in Council by which such action would be carried out -without reference to the people or reference to the will of Parliament at all.
Subsection 1 of the Bill says:
The Governor in Council may make such ajrp-ointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty.
The Minister of Justice, w(ho has had long experience on the bench, will surely agree that at least a liberal interpretation of the power conferred by this subsection is that it will enable the Governor in Council to miake an Order sending the military forces of 'this country to wiar. If such an Order in Council were called into question as having no Statutory basis', those supporting it would have good) reason for saying that provision for such ian OrdeT in Council was made under ithiis subsection.
When the Treaty was- before Parliament, it was .pointed out by 'the Minister of Justice, 'the President of the Council and others that under the Treaty, or by reason of our acceptance of it, none of the powers of the Parliament of Canada would be in any wav interfered with or impaired. The member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) submitted an amendment the purpose of which was sdmlply to make it plain -and clear that Canada's position with regard to the settling of questions concerning war was to be the .same after the acceptance of the Treaty as it was .before the Treaty was signed. That amendment, supported by bon. members' on this isdde, was turned down by the Government land its supporters, 'the assurance being given 'that our powers would be just as they were before this Treaty received 'the approval of the House. If that be the case, is not my contention strengthened that whatever we do in the way of implementing this Treaty should be clearly set forth in an Act of Parliament; that we should not he left to
conjecture as to what an Order in Council may be? Particularly is this necessary when we are dealing with such a vital question 'as that of whether Canada as a nation should enter into, a conflict with any other nation of the world. We .should not be <asked to give these extensive and practically limitless powers to the Governor in Council. I may be told that we cannot put these details into a statute. But many Acts of Parliament go into details. Take, for instance, the Grain Act, with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is very familiar. That Act sets forth minutely every detail of the operations of that department; it leaves little or nothing to be dealt with by Order in Council. If that procedure was necessary in that case; if similar procedure was necessary in the many other cases which I could mention,, it is even more necessary in connection, with the establishment of means of communication between ourselves and the outside world. Nothing should be left to conjecture; the powers conferred upon the Government or upon any agency which may he-established under this Act should be put in the form of a statute, i I see that this Act provides for the imposition of 'penalties. I do not quite understand the purpose of that provision. Certainly we cannot impose penalties upon any person outside of our own country who may fall short of the terms of this Treaty. Possibly it has in contemplation the doing of something in violation of the Treaty by one of our own citizens. However, I assume that when we get into committee these things will be more fully explained. But I repeat that the House should consider seriously whether it is not better that we should legislate with regard to these questions rather than leave them to the judgment of the Governor in Council.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, before the principle of this Bill is consecrated, I should like to express my approval of the position taken by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). It is unfortunate that under the rules the House must resolve itself into committee after the second reading, not after the first reading, of a Bill, because when a vote, if any, is taken upon the second reading of a Bill, then the principle is consecrated.
To certain subsections of the only two sections in this Bill I wish to take very strong objection. So far as I can see, the only purpose of the introduction of the Bill is to continue a system which has become very unpopular in this country, the

system of Government by Orders in Council. We on this side of the House, believing that we were acting in the best interests of the people, assented in the early days of the war to the War Measures Act, an Act which gave the Government power to legislate between parliamentary sessions upon all matters which required to be dealt with before the following session. The Government passed Orders in Council relating to everything which, in their judgment, the War Measures Act gave them power to deal with in that way, and for some years, we had in this country what was known as Government by Order in Council.
The preamble of this Bill, which is entitled " An Act for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers," has two divisions. The first sets forth that the Peace Treaty was signed and given effect to by the plenipotentiaries therein named-and these plenipotentiaries were named by an Order in Council.
The second portion relates to the expediency to do certain things proper and expedient for giving effect to this Treaty, those things being:
The Governor in Council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Order in Council, and do such things as appear to Him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty.
The objection I take to this is that, without knowing what the Government may do, we are asked to give them a blank cheque to establish offices' wherever they may desire, to make appointments in Europe or in this country without the people knowing beforehand anything about them, and to make such Orders in Council andi, besides that, do such things as appear to the Cabinet, because the Governor in Council is the Cabinet, to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty and giving effect to its provisions. The second subsection reads:
Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order In Council.
That savours too much of the history that we have gone through during the last few years. We have had instance after instance in the operation of the Military Service Act of young men by Order in Council being brought from one province before a military tribunal sitting in another province, of the courts of this land not having been re-

[DOT]spected, of habeas corpus having been suspended, all by Order in Council. We have had cases where ministers of the Cabinet, and notably the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), have stated to their electors that all hoys who. were required at home need not enlist, afterwards stating that if the tribunals conscripted them, they, the Government, would see that the judgment of those tribunals would be set aside, and that if the tribunals did not conscript sufficient, they, the Government, would see that the judgment of the tribunals would be set aside. This country has for some years been practically in a state of anarchy, and by consecrating again this similar provision in this Bill, we give to the Government a blank cheque by which they may repeat the actions which have transpired in this country during the last three or four years. Therefore, as this is my only possible means of protesting against government by Order in Council, I want to do so most emphatically now. The time has come in this country when a democratic form of Government should be renewed. There is amongst the civilian population of Canada enough trouble now that we should revert to the old system of Government for the people and by the people, and cease government by Order in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Governor in Council to carry out provisions of treaty:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Was Sir Herbert Ames appointed by the Government, and what is the nature of his functions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sir Herbert Ames was not appointed by this Government. The office which has been offered to Sir Herbert Ames is an office in connection with the Secretariat of the League of Nations.


Samuel William Jacobs: To which we are a party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To which we are a party. The appointment is made by the secretariat which I might describe as being the bureau or office of the organized body known as the League of Nations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who pays his salary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The salary will be paid by the League of Nations.


William Stevens Fielding: To which we shall contribute as a member.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What share?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that the provision in the League of Nations is that, in any contribution to the expenses of the League generally, the apportionment shall follow the rules laid down, if I remember rightly, for expenses in connection with the general postal convention.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says that Sir Herbert Ames is to be appointed by the League of Nations. Of course, the League is not yet organized.
I suppose this means that Sir Eric Drummond had the power to appoint him and that he appointed him.
,Mr. DOHERTY:	I understand Sir Eric
Drummond is forming an organization. Of course, it is strictly speaking premature, because the League of Nations not having been constituted and got together, no one can make an appointment to the Secretariat of the League; but it was thought wise that an organization should be formed in advance; that a deal should be come to by those immediately interested as to the project of the organization of the Secretariat. When the League of Nations gets together all that will fall to the ground unless the League adopts it and is satisfied with it. This is all in the nature of project at the present time. Nobody can at the present moment undertake to pay Sir Herbert Ames a salary on behalf of the League of Nations. But a plan is being formulated and, with a view to carrying out that plan, I understand different officers have been suggested. The only one who is designated in the League is Sir Eric Drummond, and I understand his appointment will not become effectual until the treaties have been ratified and the League of Nations actually constituted. What has been done is in advance and with a view, when the League of Nations, which we hope will come into existence, comes together; that it may have at its disposal to adopt or to reject, as it thinks proper, an instrument by which its business affairs, if I may use that expression, may be administered.


William Stevens Fielding: I think Sir Eric Drummond has the power to appoint assistants in the Secretariat. He is designated in the Treaty, and I take it for granted that Sir Herbert Ames was appointed by Sir Eric Drummond, who is the only authority that could appoint him. I do not think there is any doubt he has that power.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will have that authority when the Treaty is ratified. In the
meantime he is acting in advance on the authority that the Covenant proposes to give him, tout, of course, the Covenant, like all the rest of the Treaty is subject to ratification. I think, however, he is safe in taking for granted that that wilj be done.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the holding of this new position to which Sir Herbert Ames has been appointed, and in respect of which this country is going to contribute a portion of his salary not be incompatible, under the Independence of Parliament Act, with his remaining a member of this Parliament? Does Sir Herbert Ames intend to occupy both positions-Secretary of the League and a member of the Parliament of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to what his intentions may ultimately be I am not in a position to speak, but if my hon. friend will refer to the Independence of Parliament Act I think he will find it refers to offices to which some emolument derived from the Crown is attached. I think it would be very difficult to say that a salary derived from a body such as the League of Nations, merely because of the fact that Canada may be a member of the League and as a member be assessable for the provision of a portion of the general expenses, would bring Sir Herbert Ames within the terms of the Independence of Parliament Act. However, that is a question which it will be for him to consider in the first instance, and for this House to consider if it should be properly raised. At the present time I am not quite certain that the office has been officially accepted by Sir Herbert Ames, or that he is therefore actually in office. As I pointed out a few moments ago I do not think he can possibly be in office as>
an officer of the League of Nations until the League of Nations has been formed, which will only be when the Treaty has been ratified by a sufficient number of the parties interested.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that he has already sailed to assume his new duties. The press has given that information to the public.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sir Herbert Ames has sailed, I understand, for the purpose of looking into the whole matter; and it is not at all impossible that he will assume the performance of the duties; but surely the hon. gentleman understands that there cannot arise a contractual relationship between him and the League of Nations until

the League of Nations has come into existence. What is being dome at the present time is purely provisional or preliminary. Sir Eric Drummond, very much interested I have no doubt in having a proper organization of his secretariat ready as soon as the League comes into existence and is in a position to act, is taking time by the forelock and providing that organization notv. If the Treaty should not be ratified and the whole thing falls through, neither he nor Sir Herbert Ames nor any other person will have come into any contractual relationship with the League of Nations.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has Sir Herbert Ames' salary been discussed, and if so, is the minister in a position to tell us what his salary will be?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a matter for determination by the League itself when it will be constituted. What salary Sir Eric Drummond may recommend, I am not in a position to state.


William Stevens Fielding: It would be reasonable to suppose that the matter has been the subject of 'communication with Sir Eric, and that Sir Herbert Ames has ibeen nominated by the Canadian Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not by the Canadian Government. The Canadian Government, as the Canadian Government, has nothing to do with the appointment.


William Stevens Fielding: Or any minister of the Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware of the matter having been referred in any way to the Government as a Government. If Sir Eric Drummond thought it desirable and that it would perhaps be showing some consideration to Canada to select a Canadian, I should think it would be a very natural thing for him to consult such Canadians as he came in contact with. I am not saying that he has not done so, but certainly he did not consult with me.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend is not aware that the Government has been consulted, he is not a careful reader of the public press, because it has been announced that Sir Herbert Ames has been named for that position by the Prime Minister of Canada. I am not finding fault with that, but when my hon. friend says 'that the Canadian Government had nothing to do with the appointment, I have a little difficulty in understanding that.
[<Mr. Doherty.]


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot undertake to be responsible for what is stated in the newspapers.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend says that it is not correct, and that the Prime Minister has nothing to do with it, I accept his statement. I do not think it would be unreasonable that the Prime Minister of Canada should have something to do with it in the circumstances. I think my hon. friend must be mistaken when he says the Canadian Government have nothing to do with it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no knowledge- let us limit it to that.-of any action on the part of the Canadian Government in connection with the matter. I am not in a position to say whether or not any consultation with regard to Sir Herbert Ames' qualifications or otherwise was had with the Prime Minister. I am not in a position to say yes or no. I am not saying I do not 'know not because I think there would be anything improper in such consultation, but simply because I do not know.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps it would be fair to assume that Sir Herbert Ames' fame preceded him and that it was not necessary to have any recommendation from any member of the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not impossible.


Charles Murphy: Does this preliminary organization of which the minister has spoken include representatives of each of the nations affected?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think the .matter is dealt with at all in that aspect. To put it very simply, without any desire to depreciate in any way, it is a matter of employing oflicials or clerks. Their functions are higher than those of clerics, but these officers are simply the officials who are going to look after the work of the organization. They are not going to deal with international questions, or anything of that sort. It is very much the same organization as the Clerk and the other officials of this House, for instance. The people who form part of the secretariat will not take part in the deliberations of the Conference or of the 'Council. They are-I do not think it is a term that ought to be considered offensive at all-purely and simply the servants of the organization to look after the details of carrying on the office work that will require to be done in connection with the League of Nations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with my hon. friend from iShelburne .and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that a recommendation has been made to Sir Eric Drummond by the Prime Minister of a Canadian official such as Sir Herbert Ames. That was openly stated when Sir Robert came back from the Conference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He certainly is not a Canadian officer. I know that from conversation with Sir Herbert Ames himself. It was pointed out to him that the official must realize that he is becoming the official of all the nations of the world, and that he is no national representative.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not disputing that. I just wanted to emphasize that it would be nearer the truth to say that the Prime Minister did make a recommendation of Sir Herbert Ames. Sir Herbert Ames has been selected to be Assistant Secretary to Sir Eric Drummond because the two languages to be used in connection with the League of Nations, as was the case in the deliberations on the Treaty of Peace, will be French and English; and it is to the credit of this country that there was found in the Parliament of Canada a gentleman who was sufficiently proficient in both French and English to be appointed to this office. It is a great compliment, and at the same time a great lesson.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree with my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) that we are signing .a blank cheque, and a very large one, in giving the Government these *vague and, possibly, very large powers. The minister might help us a little by giving us some idea of what is likely to happen under these powers. " The Governor in. Council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as are necessary." What appointments are likely to arise? I quite agree that the minister cannot be very definite. We have to deal with things in. the future as they arise, but probably the Government have some inkling of what appointments and offices are contemplated under that clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to give the hon. member information in regard to that point. First, in reference to some things said by the leader of the Opposition. He need not have any anxiety that we shall read this provision as conferring on us authority to go to war. I think we made pretty clear what was our conception of the obligations under the League in that respect, and that when it comes to actually going to war there is nothing in the Treaty that enables any one to impose that obligation upon us, and therefore there would be no question, in carrying out the Treaty, of our undertaking to go to war.


Charles Murphy: Does the minister now
assure the leader of the Opposition that this measure does not confer a power to send troops out of Canada by Order in Council?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the penalty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In realizing on the
property of German nationals in this coun-

try it is not impossible that we will have efforts and attempts to evade the exercise of our rights, and it may become necessary to make regulations in that regard which would impose penalties for violations of the regulations. The power of imposing penalties, it was thought, ought to be specifically granted because it is a power which ordinarily and generally speaking ought to be exercised by Parliament. At all events it is well to make it perfectly clear that the Government not only have power to make regulations but to enforce them by penalties if it becomes necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: Might I remind my hon. friend of the question that I put regarding the probable appointment of officials which he has overlooked? By this Order in Council you are taking power to appoint officials. I would ask the hon. gentleman to indicate what officials are to be appointed in so far as he can do so now. He did mention as amongst the classes of officials to be appointed that there would be legal advisers and officials of that kind,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, legal advisers, sequestrators, liquidators, and people who could carry out the liquidation of these properties and who would manage a clearing house if we should determine to adopt the clearing house system.


William Stevens Fielding: Are there any officials other than' that class contemplated by this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no other in my own mind.


William Stevens Fielding: Is Canada to be represented in the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not consider that the appointment of the representative of Canada in the League of Nations would be the making of an appointment for the purpose of giving effect to the Treaty. That is one of the rights which will enure to Canada after full effect has been given to the Treaty. One of the effects of the Treaty will be the right of Canada to appoint a representative, and it will be time enough then, I think, for us to determine what the class of representative shall be. I confess that it had not occurred to me in connection with the Bill that what was in mind was the appointment of persons to represent Canada at the gathering of the League of Nations. As regards our rights in connection with the League of Nations, the Treaty produces its full effect when it has assured to us those rights. The appointment of a representative would rather seem to be
something done in the exercise of the right than something done in order to give effect to the Treaty. I confess, and I think I can safely speak for the Government, that we had not in contemplation the appointment of a Canadian representative to take part in the Assembly of the League of Nations when using the word " appointment." These appointments are for such work as is necessary to make this Treaty effective. As regards the League of Nations, I understand it is made perfectly effective. I do not see that anything further requires to be none to assure us of our rights in connection with the League of Nations. These rights once assured to us, it is our privilege to exercise them in our own behalf.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Prime Minister of Canada, being the head of the Department of External Affairs, would he not likely be the one who would represent Canada at the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question whether the representatives should not be settled in the Covenant itself on some basis of that kind did receive consideration. At one time that idea prevailed and in the original draft provision was made that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs-which in our case I have no doubt would be the Secretary of State for External Affairs-should, by the Covenant itself, be determined upon as being the proper persons to represent their respective countries either in the Council or in the Assembly of the League of Nations. But after discussion the provision was left as it is now in the Treaty for determining the right to representation, leaving to the respective members the privilege of determining in the manner they thought best who should represent them in the Council and in the Assembly.


William Stevens Fielding: I must not dare to express any legal opinion contrary to that of the Minister of Justice, and anything I say is submitted for his consideration. I do not think that the Treaty or the Covenant of the League of Nations-either or both-will give the Government of Canada the power to appoint anybody to anything. Therefore, I think any appointment that may be made of a representative at the Assembly of the League of Nations would have to be made under this Bill, because, except under this Bill, His Excellency the Governor General would have no power to appoint anybody. I am offering this suggestion in order that the hon. gentleman may think it over. Either the ap-

pointment would have to be made under this Bill or not at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will certainly give consideration to that. In the event of there being an Assembly of the League of Nations called before we have an opportunity to have another session of Parliament, it undoubtedly would be desirable that there should be power somewhere to appoint a representative. I am not prepared to say that it is not desirable to make it possible under this Bill to make such an appointment. But speaking quite frankly, I had not in my mind at the time the idea of the appointment of officials to exercise on Canada's behalf the rights secured to her by the Treaty itself. What was in contemplation was the appointment of officials to do those things which might be necessary to make this Trpaty effective; that is to say, to secure to us all the rights we have under it and to carry out anything we are called upon to carry out. I will look into this question.^ As my attention is called to it,
I might say that I do.not see that there ought to be any very serious objection to the suggestion, even giving to the word "appointment" an interpretation which would cover a representative of the kind mentioned. Undoubtedly this country ought to be represented, and if the call came at any time hereafter, or at any time when it was not possible to proceed otherwise, the only body that properly ought to exercise that power would be the Government of the day.


William Stevens Fielding: Instead of a representative of Canada being appointed on the League of Nations from time to time, is it not possible, that a permanent appointment >may be made? The remarks of the hon. gentleman are rather suggestive of that. When the assembly is called, if it be called, then of course Canada would have the right to make an appointment. Looking into the whole situation it strikes me that what will probably happen is that some gentleman chosen by the Government of Canada will be designated to be its representative, and so long as he holds office, I presume during pleasure, he will be the permanent representative of Canada on the League of Nations. It looks to me as if that is contemplated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that the Covenant, or the officers of the League, contemplated constituting a body composed of persons permanently appointed. I do not want to speak too positively about that but I think I am fairly sure that the Cov- , 
enant itself makes no provision for the same individual continuing for any period of time to be the representative of any particular country-I tlhink I am safe in saying that there is no provision of that kind in the Covenant. I think much would depend upon the frequency of the meetings that might be called as to the desirability, or otherwise, of the same gentleman being the representative of a country during a period of time, or a period of time that might cover a great many meetings. I must confess that I had not given thought to the question of whether it would be more desirable to appoint a man to be the representative of Canada for, say, ten years or to appoint a representative according to circumstances. I think it would be well to consider that meetings will be called under different circumstances when different classes of questions are going to arise; and the man that might be most suitable to represent a country and discuss certain classes of questions might not perhaps be the very best man to represent that country in the case of other classes of questions. The impression I had in my own mind was that each country would, at all events, be free to select a different representative on the occasion of each meeting as it is called and-though the question never came to my own mind; I cannot say I recollect having looked at the Treaty from the point of view of ascertaining that-I think I can speak with fair assurance when I say that there is no provision in the1 Covenant that would limit each of the countries concerned as to the manner of its choice of a representative or as to the period of time during which the particular individual should continue to be the representative. It would seem to me to be only reasonable, however, that each country should be free to change its agent according as it thought proper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the case of Sir Herbert Ames, if his appointment should be permanent and confirmed by the League I would understand that his salary would be paid from a fund assessed upon all the countries forming part of the League; but in the case of the special representative, say of Canada, or of Australia, or of New Zealand, has it been decided whether the salary paid to such -representative shall be paid out of a common fund assessed by the League upon all countries interested, or paid by the particular country for whom the representative acts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a clause providing that each country shall pay the cost of its own representation. The expenses

that are to be paid, as I mentioned a few moments ago-distributed or apportioned on lines similar to those of the International Postal Union-are the expenses of carrying on or of running the machine, if I might use the expression-


William Stevens Fielding: Office expenses practically.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -but I cannot lay my hand on the precise article at the moment. There is a provision, I think, which expressly states that the respective countries are to meet the expenses of their representatives, but at all events provision as to the expenses of the League is to be found in Article VI:
The expenses of the Secretariat shall he borne by the members of the League in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with the minister that it is not necessary-perhaps it is not possible-at present to reach conclusions as to the manner in which Canada would be represented, but it seems to me what is likely to happen is this: If the League of Nations goes into effect, as '.ve all hope and believe it will, should any trouble arise in which a meeting of the League is required the notice will be a short one. When war is at the door you cannot wait for formal proceedings. I have no doubt at all in the case of the Great War the British Government would have preferred if they had had an opportunity of getting the advice and concurrence of the Parliament of Canada before they gave the declaration of war; but with the Hun at the gate they could not do it and they had to go on. So it may be in the case of the League of Nations. Things will press; and if for example the hon. gentleman himself were chosen as Canada's representative in the League of Nations andi a sudden call were to come requiring his presence at Geneva when there were urgent duties to be performed here he might find the situation very embarrassing. It seems to me that in order to have prompt action what is most likely to happen-it is only guesswork on my part as to the future-will be that when the League of Nations gets in full working order somebody representing Canada will -have to be available at any moment and that might mean a permanent appointment-permanent only in the sense that he can only hold his office so long as he has the support of the Government of Canada behind him, I think that is the way it will work out, but I quite agree with
the minister the matter is one we will have to leave to the future.


Samuel William Jacobs: Aeroplanes will be in general use by that time.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I ventured in a most humble way to express an opinion upon the proper construction of section 132 and the Minister of lustice says that my views do not concur with those of Lord ^Jdilner. Now I thought that the people of Canada sent us here to exercise some judgment and discretion of our own and that we are here, upon the supposition at all events, that we shall use whatever judgment the Lord has endowed us with; but we are told to-day that unless that judgment corresponds with the view of Lord Milner it is to be wiped off the slate at once and it is unfortunate to express such views. The Minister of Justice without answering my argument at all said that my views, were most unfortunate. Well, the minister did not tell us in what way they were most unfortunate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In respect of the statute that you read in support of your view; that is the unfortunate circumstance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Unfortunately for us
in- this country we have to read a statute and give it the best interpretation we can; we have, not got a vest pocket edition of Lord Milner-


Ernest Lapointe: And we do not want it either.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -to give us the interpretation of these statutes. The courts of this country have managed to struggle along for the last hundred years without Lord Milner at their elbow, and I am not aware that when the British North America Act was drafted by the Fathers of Confederation, with such legal advice as they could get, Lord Milner was around.
But now we have found a new constitutional confession of faith, which has its beginning and end, its interpretation, application and execution, in Lord Milner. If we do not comply with him, of course everything is out of joint.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Having discovered this new confession of faith, its beginning and ending, and so on, does my hon. friend intend to apply for a patent for it? It is his own original discovery.
Mr. McKENZIE': I am pleased to find that there is something yet to be discovered

which is not owned and controlled by this Government. I had thought that there was nothing in sight'that was not controlled by the Government, chiefly by Order in Council; I feel very much elated that there is anything left for me to discover.
Many of our good friends in this country seem to be very much interested in the fate of the beloved green island beyond the seas in connection with the troubles that are abroad there just now. The plenipotentiary from Canada should have some slight reminiscences in that regard, but his entire neglect to do anything in that 'behalf is now to be attributed to the leadership and control of Lord Milner over the proceedings of our plenipotentiaries, including the Minister of Justice. There is the explanation: Lord Milner would not permit him to say anything except what suited him. Let me assure the minister that I speak as a Canadian and for myself absolutely-and let Lord Milner mind his own business. For my part I propose to consult my people and my country, not Lord Milner and those who are trying to bring us under their wing and influence, and to break down the constitutional rights of this country. There is where I stand on Lord Milner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Please do not "sit" on him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Section 132 of the British North America Act has been receiving interpretations in this country for nearly fifty years, and we must read the section in the light of that interpretation. This new status which we are supposed to have acquired is something that has developed within the last few years. How it developed we do not know. There was no amendment of the British North America Act; there was no different interpretation by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of our rights under it. There was nothing to bring it about, unless it was this happy meeting between the Minister of Justice and Lord Milner. Possibly that was the beginning of those new conditions under which we are not to be governed by what is done by the King. If any member of this (House says that a treaty made by the King is binding on us in Canada, he is held up to ridicule; his construction is held to be a most unfortunate one. But it is absolutely within tl e power of the King in Council or of the King by himself to make a treaty which 13 binding upon the whole Empire, and we, as a part of that Empire, are bound by its [Mr. McKenzie.!
terms, unless it is provided in the treaty that there is no constitutional obligation on us, or that so far as we are concerned the treaty involves simply a matter of policy on the part of the King and his Council.
The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) took me very severely to task the other day because I was so exceedingly dull that I could not see the difference between constitutional right and legal constitutional right. Well, if I am still called upon to make such a nice distinction as that, I am still dull and stupid. As I understand it, every constitutional right which is binding and upon which we can base any structure, must be a legal constitutional right. For nearly fifty years it was thought in England that it was the legal right of the House of Commons only to deal with money Bills; that the House of Lords had nothing to do with them. But it was not a legal right which the House of Commons had been exercising and enjoying; it was merely a usage. Constitutional usage is one thing; constitutional right is another. Constitutional usage evidently does not mean very much. It did not mean very much to the House of Lords when they thought it proper to take a course which was at variance with nearly fifty years' constitutional usage by throwing out Lloyd George's budget because it did not agree with their ideas. It is not safe, therefore, to rely upon constitutional usage; the only basis upon which a sound structure can be erected is a constitutional legal right as established and affirmed. If we are called upon to sign treaties as an integral part of the British Empire, that is merely constitutional usage; it is not constitutional right. It is a usage from which the King in Council can break away at any time.
I am willing to leave to the interpretation of the best legal minds in the country the meaning of section 132 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows :
The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing: the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries, arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.
That certainly contemplates the Empire which was in existence in 1867, and it was not intended at that time that Canada was a distinct and separate nation. It was not contended that Australia or New Zealand were separate nations. It meant nothing else than that the British Empire as it existed at that time, vested with

the power of making treaties. When the British Empire as it existed at that time entered into a treaty, we as a part of the Empire had the power to implement that treaty in such a way as was necessary to carry out our part of it. If it has since developed that we are called into council in the making 6f these treaties, that does not in any way change section 132. I say that when we are called upon to implement, by furnishing money and appointing officers, a treaty which we are priding ourselves upon making apart from the British Empire, there is no constitutional basis for our act. The Minister of Justice says that I said that we were at once bound by any treaty which Great Britain would make, and that we had nothing to say about it.
I said nothing of the kind; I put my interpretation upon that section. I have, and I ought to have, great regard for the experience of the Minister of Justice and his knowledge of the construction of a statute, and I expected that he would give us some construction of that section different from and more illuminating than mine, and that he would find in it some basis of jurisdiction for the Bill that is now before Parliament. All he did give was the statement that my interpretation was most unfortunate. Perhaps it was, but he should have given us one that was not most unfortunate. So far he has not done so. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has pointed out,-1 think very properly, that we should know what officers we are to appoint and what monetary obligations this country is assuming in passing this Bill. I can readily understand that the Minister of Justice has not given it very much thought, because it was not drafted in this country. I pointed out before that it was just word for word the English Act, and the British Government, or whatever minister had charge of that Act, gave some explanation and had some knowledge of what it meant. With us, this is simply a copy without any real explanation of what it means. An Act which might very well apply in Great Britain might not apply with us. In Great Britain there is no provincial jurisdiction, there is the one Parliament, with full, unlimited and ample jurisdiction over the territory which they profess to govern. We have a limited jurisdiction within a written constitution, and an Act of Parliament which might be quite in order in the Parliament of Great Britain might be restricted here and require some explanation. That is why I wanted the minister to tell us what our powers are under section 132, but he
thought proper not to give that information except to state that my understanding of it was most unfortunate. Until, however, I hear from the minister to the contrary, or until he gives his full explanation as he may be assisted by Lord Milner, I will stand by what I said.


William Stevens Fielding: As regards subsection (3) of section 1, the minister has said-and I quite agree in that view-that this subsection does not in itself appropriate any money. That is quite correct, but it distinctly takes account of the fact that we shall have to spend some money, and it practically obligates us to vote the money later on. We always have the freedom to say " No " when we like. My suggestion is that, perhaps, the minister has formed some impression of the extent of the financial obligation that this country will assume under this clause. I would not expect him to give us any details; but this is a very serious subject; we are going into a very large enterprise, and it is not unreasonable to ask, before we give that power to the minister, that we should have some general idea of what it involves in the way of expenditure. I do not contend that this votes any money, but the country would, I am sure, be pleased if the minister would give us now some idea of the probable obligation that we shall be asked later on to implement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not foresee that out of the execution of this Treaty there should grow anything in the nature of a permanent financial obligation, but to carry on the operations such as I have described will, no doubt, cost something. For instance, such officer and officials as we may employ in the liquidation of these businesses and so forth will all require to be remunerated, and incidental to the liquidation and distribution there no doubt will be expenses to be met. It would be difficult to speak as to the exact amount, but I should not anticipate that it was going to involve any very large expenditure, nor anything in the nature of a permanent obligation, because under the operations to which I have referred, we shall be liquidating this property which, with the information that I have as to the amount of property there is in this country of German Nationals, represents something between $30,000,000 and $40,000,000, if I am correctly informed, and I do not anticipate that this would result in creating a pecuniary obligation. But no doubt we shall, from time to time, require votes to enable us to carry on this opera-

tion. Beyond that I do not quite see that I can indicate any anticipated financial obligation that is to result to us from our giving effect to the provisions of the Treaty. 1 do not recall that there is in the Treaty any provision, the execution of which could create a financial obligation on our part towards any outside country, nor create anything in the nature of a substantial financial obligation on our part. I cannot, at the moment, think of any. What was had in mind was the necessary expenses for administering the different offices that will have to be created.


Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to know from the President of the Council (Mr. RowelH whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that General Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa, a few days ago, when he introduced into the House resolutions with respect to the Treaty, is reported to have stated that he was asking the House to ratify the Treaty, not to approve it. In as much as General Smuts was present at the Conference, it would be interesting to know whether his views are similar to those of our delegates who were present.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might point out that it is a trifle risky to take a cablegram of that kind as having contained the exact words that General Smuts used. All that I can say in answer is that I would be amazed if General Smuts had asked the Parliament of South Africa to ratify the Treaty. General Smuts is a very distinguished constitutional lawyer.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not more so that the Minister of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, if it be possible to be more so, he is more so, and I would be astonished if he spoke of his Parliament ratifying the Treaty. While there may be differences of opinion as to what advice the Ring ought to take or as -to what action ought to be taken by legislative bodies prior to the ratification of the Treaty by the King, I am sure every body is agreed-I think even the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) would agree on that-that it is . the King that ratifies the Treaty. I would rather assume that the cablegram did not carry the exact words than suppose that General Smuts made a proposition to Parliament to ratify the Treaty. I know that people in conversation say: We are going to ratify the Treaty or we are not going to ratify the Treaty, but when we come to speak accurately in Parliament, we speak of approving the Treaty.


Samuel William Jacobs: The question was upon
the very words of ratification and approval, and while I am speaking from memory and while, although I have the London Morning Post before me, I cannot put my finger on the item, it stated, if my memory is correct, that he was asking for the ratification and not merely foi>*the approval of the Treaty. Those are the words.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can offer no explanation on that subject.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite sure from
the information that has come to us that the press despatch is inaccurate. We have official information from the Imperial Government that the Parliament of the Union of South Africa has approved the Treaty, also that the Parliament of New Zealand has approved the Treaty. At the time that communication was sent, they were still awaiting the approval of the Parliament of Australia; they had received the message from us that the Parliament of Canada had approved the Treaty.
When the approval of the Parliament of Australia is received, His Majesty upon the advice of his constitutional advisers will be in a position to ratify the Treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: Without the consent of India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no doubt the consent of India will be evidenced in whatever way is considered proper and constitutional.


Samuel William Jacobs: By whom, the Hindus or Downing Street?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This Bill, I think, has a deeper significance than might appear at first sight, because there are clauses in the Interpretation Act which carry into effect the provisions of a statute, even though it has been repealed. One might not think that such provisions would be found in the Interpretation Act, hut it is a fact. Of course, the word "interpretation" signifies that the Act is to perform some such service as is performed by a dictionary, either the ordinary or the legal dictionary, giving the proper use and significance of words or terms, but the Interpretation

Act goes further than that. Section 19, for instance, provides:
Where any Act or enactment is repealed, or where any regulation Is revoked, then, unless the contrary intention appears, such repeal or revocation shall not, save as in this section otherwise provided, affect the previous operation of any Act.
There are further provisions. I have only had an opportunity of glancing over the Bill, and I trust that when the minister comes to apply its provisions to the very many Orders in Council that have been passed during the war, he will consider well what the effect will be. I think we should know to which Orders in Council the force and effect of the Interpretation Act will be applied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill proposes to apply the same rules in interpreting Orders in Council which Parliament has adopted as being suitable and proper rules for the interpretation of statutes, except, as the Bill provides, in cases where " any such provision is inconsistent with the intent or object of such Order or regulation, or would give to any word, expression or clause thereof an interpretation repugnant to the subject matter or the context, or is in any such Order or regulation declared not applicable thereto."
We have found by experience, not only with regard to Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act, but with regard to Orders in Council generally, that one is very apt to draft them assuming that the words in them will have the full meaning which the Interpretation Act attaches to those same words in the statutes, and it seemed to us desirable that we should not be bound in every Order in Council to start out (by saying " In this Order in Council, so-and-so means so-and-so ", but rather that in interpreting the Orders in Council we should apply the same rules which Parliament enacted, and which have stood the test of time, as 'being the proper rules for the interpretation of statutes. We had different instances where we were not able to apply the rule of the Interpretation Act in interpreting an Order in Council. We certainly had always contemplated applying that Act to the Orders in Council.	.
I have difficulty in seizing whether the hon. leader of the Opposition really intends to suggest that there is some reason why it would be undesirable that the particular section of the Interpretation Act which he read should be made to apply to Orders in



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Council. If I followed it correctly, it is the section which has to do with the effect of repealing provisions. If I recollect correctly the provision is in substance that the mere repeal of a previous law shall not be interpreted as meaning the revival of some law that may have been repealed by the previous law, unless the context shows that that was the intention. If that was the section the hon. gentleman read, I do not clearly grasp why it would be objectionable to apply that rule to Orders in Council, if that was what he intended to suggest. It seems to me a good general rule as applied to the statutes, and ,a good general rule as applied to Orders in 'Council. If some -other effect-it would be an exceptional effect- is sought to be attached to a Tepeal, it is simple enough to provide for it, but I can vouch of my own experience that on a number of occasions it was found highly inconvenient that we were not in a position to interpret Orders in Council generally by the rules' applicable for the interpretation of statutes.
There is no particular Order in Council in view in connection with the matter. We did pass an Order in Council under, the War Measures Act, which is about to lapse, making the provisions-of the Interpretation Act applicable to Orders in Council; and we found 'that of very great advantage. It simplified not only the interpretation of Orders in Council, but the drafting of them, because where you had a rule of interpretation you were relieved in many instances of putting in interpretation clauses.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will try to make my objection more clear. If the Interpretation Act is to be used merely as a dictionary, and I say that advisedly, to ascertain the force and effect of any words in an Order in Council, I have no objection to that, but most of these Orders in Council which were passed during the war have legislative effect only for a certain period. The effect of applying the Interpretation Act, as I understand it, will be to extend the effect of these Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act, and that is what I want to provide against.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that is a possible result of this legislation, I am quite willing when we are in Committee to insert a clause to the effect that nothing in this Act shall have the effect of maintaining in foree any Order in Council, passed under the War Measures Act, if you wish specifically to mention that Act, which but for this Act would have lapsed.
EDITION	,	,

I do not say that the hon. gentleman may not be right and I wrong, but I do not yet see how it can be said that if the provisions of the Interpretation Act are made to apply to Orders in Council, you are running the risk that the Orders in (Council, when /their legal effect |is exhausted, will be thereby revived. However, if there is any such danger I shall be glad to guard against it. I am not quite sure whether I correctly followed the section which the hon. gentleman read, but if I did I must confess that I have a difficulty in seeing anything in that section that would create the danger he apprehends. If there is such a danger, I shall be more than glad, as I say, to negative it by a provision in this Bill itself when we go into Committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be satisfied if *the minister puts that short clause in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was going to suggest to the minister that the Bill might remain in Committee until we have had an opportunity of consulting the Interpretation Act. I did not know this matter was coming up this afternoon, but I had in mind all the time that the difficulty might arise. I therefore suggest that the Bill be allowed to remain in Committee.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall gladly consent. Indeed, I shall be pleased to have my attention called to any effect such as is suggested, and perhaps it might be well that both sides should have an opportunity to consider the point. With that view I move that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Arthur L. Sifton (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection. Act.
He said: The other day when, this Bill was up, I gave .a short explanation and it is unnecessary to deal with it at length now. It is simply an amendment to the

Act that was passed a few years ago by which people were required to get permission or authority to build wharves upon or bridges over navigable streams. There was no provision, whereby any action could be taken in case such structures were made without permission. The present Bill is simply to provide that we may tear down obstructions to navigable streams in case they are, or have been, built without -legal authority.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on. the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section. 1-section of Act respecting removal of unauthorized works to apply to *works built before 24th May, 1918:
Henri Sévérin Béland: That would affect existing rights. It has a retroactive effect.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: There would not be any existing right because, if people have built they have had no right to do so. I do not know of any cases to which it would apply hut if there are any cases they would not be existing rights; they would be existing wrongs.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are assumed rights. At that time there was no law which provided they should get permission from the Government.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: There has been a law for a great many years.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That required permission?
Mr. iSIFTON: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to bring to the notice of the minister a very hard case in my own county-I think it occurred before there was any prohibition-of a man building a wharf in- front of his own property. A gentleman, in. my county built a very respectable wharf close to a lobster factory which he owned, and that wharf was used without any trouble for a great many years. But a few years ago the Government sent a dredge to try to deepen the channel of the navigable harbour in front of his property. Not intentionally, I believe, the dredging operations tore away the supports of the wharf and completely destroyed it. By reason of the deepening of the water by dredging operations, it was impossible to rebuild 'or support the wharf any further. The owner brought an action in the Exchequer Court for damages, hut the judge decided that under a construction of the Act governing the Exchequer Court, as long as the

damage was not done on the work-that is the damage was not done by the dredge on the job that it was performing-the Exchequer Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. The judge reached the conclusion that he could afford no remedy.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That is a pretty fine distinction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Since then, Parliament amended the Act. I think that if my friend had brought his action after Parliament amended the Act giving a right to damages caused by a dredge of that kind, whether upon the work or not, he would have been entitled to be compensated by the court. But in view of the conditions existing at that time, his property was destroyed and he received no consideration. I always had it in mind, if ever the opportunity presented itself, to bring the matter to the notice of the Department of Public Works. I think, under the circumstances, it would be a fair subject for consideration to ascertain whether or not, in the goodness of his heart, the minister could do something for the man whose property, built when there was no prohibition against such building, was destroyed entirely through no fault of his,


Jacques Bureau: I see that section 2 provides, in addition .to the existing section 9 of the statute that:
Any work which is or heretofore has been built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water whereof the site has been approved by the Governor in Council, and which is so placed and maintained in accordance with plans or regulations approved or made by the Governor in Council pursuant to the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, shall be deemed to be and to have been duly authorized, and shall not be deemed to obstruct or to interfere or to have interfered with navigation or to be subject to abatement or removal or to give rise to any cause of action upon the ground that it unlawfully obstructs or interferes with navigation or any public right of navigation.
i I do not object, to the first clause because I understand that before erecting any of the works mentioned in the Act On navigable waters, you must get t)he permission of the Governor in Council and he must approve of the location and plans. In certain cases the approval was asked, but there were difficulties that arose in consequence of which the approval could not be got until the work had, been done. Then the Department of Public Works rightly said: We will not approve of a work that is done or of a location which has been built upon. This was extended last year or the year before
33i
to electric power wires crossing rivers. It was important to extend the wires, and they had to be constructed without approval in order to avoid great loss. The first clause would seem to apply to things of this kind, but the second says that if anything exists to-day that is an obstruction we declare it not to be such. May I ask the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Justice if there is any particular case in regard to whicth they want to avoid litigation, or has the department any litigation in mind in asking Parliament to enact this clause?
Mr. SlIF'TON:	There is nothing that I
have heard of.


Jacques Bureau: Then, what is the object of the clause? The statute says that if anything becomes a nuisance, it may become the subject of discussion whether it should be removed or not. Here you say it shall not 'be considered as such.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: That clause is for the purpose of avoiding lawsuits. If any work has been approved it shall not ibe interfered with.


Jacques Bureau: That is the law as it
stands now?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: No; it has been questioned in the court.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to ask the minister for a little light on clause X. Would he kindly explain the significance of the date fixed by this clause, the 24th May, 1919?	,


Mr SIFTON:: That refers to the last
amendment that was passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is, another point
upon which I wish to ask for an explanation. I understand, of course, that the original Act provided that any person desiring to construct a wharf, building, or any obstruction, on any navigable stream or harbour should first secure permission to do so. Many persons apply for and secure Crown land grants, or leases, of water front property in various harbours in the Dominion, and when applying for these leases or Crown grants are required to submit a plan of the wharf or building they desire to place on it and to show what use they intend to make of the property. Upon their securing a Crown grant or lease many of these applicants consider that they have secured approval of the structure, or whatever obstruction they are about to put upon the property.
In most cases it was wharves and harbours. Now wha't I wish to ask the minis-

ter is this: Is it the intention of the Government to so apply this power given in this clause as, for instance., to remove, arbitrarily remove, a structure placed on water front property under such conditions? I submit to ham that the power is given in the clause and I think we ought to have a declaration from the Government as to its intention in that regard, because I do not think the Government wisheisi to use a power like that without precedent. Let me add, before I sit down, one other argument for the particuluar case of persons who acted in good faith. It is this:	In every
harbour in Canada there has been for many years either a harbour commission or else a harbour master who has charge of such matters as these and who must have known that these wharves or buildings were being constructed. Has it not been the duty of such a commission, or such an official, to look into the right of the placing of such a structure and see to it that the necessary powers existed under the Navigable Waters Act? In other words, while the person might have been innocently violating the law, or ignorantly-using that word perhaps more advisedly-has not the official of the Government perhaps been guilty of [DOT] neglect at the same time? I submit, in view of that 'consideration, that we should certainly be very careful in enforcing a clause which gives such a very drastic power as this. I would like to hear from the minister, or from the Government, as to its views on the point.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: Certainly if I happen to
be at the head of the department there will be no such arbitrary exercise of power as the hon. member infers. It would be quite possible for many obstructions to navigable streams to be built-possibly not in large cities but over navigable streams and in navigable waters-without any Government official knowing anything of it for years after. It certainly would not be the policy of any Government I would think, and certainly not the policy of the department so long as I was at its head, to exercise power arbitrarily in regard to the removal of obstructions of that kind unless there was absolute interference with navigation or with improvements on the stream.


Jacques Bureau: This section says the
work shall not be removable if proper authority for it exists under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
.
Mr. SIFTON.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) was speaking of the other clause in the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: There is another thing
with respect to these structures on navigable waters. If you purpose putting up a structure within a harbour you must apply, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to the Minister of Public Works for authority to do so, and you must also apply to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for permission to use that particular part of the harbour, or get the location which you desire approved' of by the Government. I forget the particular section of the statute which provides that the Minister of Marine shall give his approval. Now suppose that any of the regulations referred to have .not been complied with and that some corporation or some person is hurt-, or has suffered prejudice and wants to remove that prejudice, then what? Technically, under the section, the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been complied with, the notice required has been given, the plans and the location have been submitted to the Minister of Public Works, and everything has gone through Council. But the parties have not secured any authority from the Minister of Marine. In that event this clause would prevent any recourse which might be exercised by the party injured. In the case of a structure in a harbour you have to go to both the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: The same application goes to both in practice.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no, there have to be two applications. You have only to give one notice but you have to make two applications. You have got to do a lot of negotiating with the Department of Marine and Fisheries before you can get a corner or a lot to set up a structure in a harbour.
Mr. SIFT'ON: The Minister of Public Works does not sign the 'authority until that has been done.
Mr. BUREAU": I am speaking, of a case where there has been approval from- the Minister of Public Works without getting a lease from the Minister of Marine. I know of one caise anyway where that occurred, through error or otherwise. Would this clause legalize such a proceeding in the event of any parties wanting to take advantage of the fact that all the conditions of the statute had not. been complied [DOT] with;


Mir. SI FT  ON@: I would not think so.
Section .agreed to.
On section 2-approved works not to be deemed obstructions to navigation or to be liable to removal, etc.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to get a fair idea as to whether the minister has any policy in dealing with structures of this kind, because I aim sure he will find that there are many cases in Canada of people having built small wharves upon what 'they , considered their own property. In the harbours along the Atlantic coiast there is such a thing as people getting waiter grants, with which .practice the minister is no doubt familiar. These people get those waiter grants in many cases from the local government, and the courts have held that as a perfectly good title while the holding of it does not interfere with 'harbour rights or the requirements of navigation. In many oases, people holding such waiter lots, believing that it was their own property and their own land'-except of course where the lots were covered by water-have built wharves and constructed buildings on the wharves and are carrying on a fishing or lobster business or a general trade on these wharves'. Now it would be a great hardship if some officer who- did not really understand the. full effect of the situation were to destroy those properties. I would like to urge upon the minister that the greatest possible precaution should be taken before any interference occurs and care taken - to see that at least as little harm as possible is done by reason of the change in the law.
Mr. MeMASTER: It is with difficulty that those who are not seated' upon the front benches of the Chamber are able to follow the discussion of a Bill of this sort, conducted as it is in the kindly and conversational tone which obtains to-night. If I might juist interject this remark, Mr. Chairman-for the last two sessions I have been making a sort of inverted bailiff of unyiself by shouting "louder" from day to day, from w'eek to week, and from month to month, but if I happen to be absent from the Chamber for a sitting, or even a few hours, I find the front benchers have slipped back into the habit of carrying on the discussion in a conversational tone which-and I speak now seriously-precludes any member outside 'a possible radius of about twenty feet, from understanding, taking part in, or enjoying the debate.	-
Section 2 of this Bill would seem to prevent the department from ordering a change
in any public work of this nature once it has been officially approved. That seems to me to be a dangerous provision. Suppose the Department of Public Works approves a bridge across a navigable stream, and' in the course of a few years a change in the' nature of the vessels using that stream-makes that public work an impediment t* navigation, this section would seem to provide that once the department has approved such a public work, that is the end of it, the department cannot do anything. Surely that would not be a sound position for a department of the Government to-place itself in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) says. There, is across a portion of the harbour of Vancouver, known as False creek, a very old bridge which was erected twenty-four or [DOT]twenty-five years ago and which is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is a frame or pile trestle bridge, with a very narrow draw. The pier in the draw goes diagonally across the channel and the bridge has been a menace to navigation for many years. Appeal after appeal has been made to the Public Works Department asking that the removal of this bridge be ordered. But it was discovered that while no official or formal approval of the structure was given, many years ago some deputy minister gave the assurance that the plans were O.K., and on that point the company rests its claim that the bridge should remain. Now, the member for Brome points out that under this clause- and if he is correct, the point is a very important one-such a work would be declared to be quite properly there. In recent years; a shipbuilding yard has been built above this bridge and every time a ship is-launched and sent to sea-about ten have been sent from that yard during the last two years-they have to take a span out of the bridge, the draw being too narrow to let the ships go through. This clause may put the Department of Public Works, which has been struggling unsuccessfully with the problem for seven or eight years, absolutely out of court. I suggest that the minister allow this matter to stand until he lias had an opportunity of consulting his deputy, looking into this particular case, and ascertaining whether or not the enactment of this legislation would prevent the department from dealing with the matter to which I have been referred-a matter which has been urgently pressed upon it for many years.


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: This section has reference only to any work which has been formally approved by the department. Certainly, after the department has formally approved of a work, it should not proceed subsequently to tear it down. If any work is believed to be a source of danger to the community it would have to be dealt with as such, under other legislation than- this. This Bill is simply to provide that once the formal approval has been given this department or nobody else can interfere and say that the structure is not a legal one.


Jacques Bureau: The point made by the member for Brome is one which ought to be decided. I will give the minister a concrete case. Suppose he has built a bridge, with the approval of the department, over the St. Lawrence, the St. Maurice, or any navigable river, and through changes in navigation it is found that the bridge is too low.-The navigation company whose vessels are on the river says to you: We are going to submit new plans to you for your bridge, the location of which you have approved; we want to raise the floor of the bridge twenty or thirty feet in order that our ships may be enabled to pass-or, if it is a transmission line-we want to raise the wire towers. Under this Bill nothing coulu oe done in a case of that kind; nobody could secure the acceptance of such a proposal, even though the parties to be benefited undertook to meet the whole of the expense involved in making the change. Therefore the public interest is not served. Tne public interest- should always have precedence over private interest. If it is in the public interest that the style of a bridge should be changed in order to meet nefv navigation conuiuons, in order to provide for the free movement of vessels whose stacks or masts have been made higher, or which have been equipped with the wireless system, why should it be provided under section 9A of the Navigable Waters Protection Act that nobody shall have the right to touch that bridge?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: It does not say that.


Jacques Bureau: It says that it cannoi be interfered with by any one. By this BiL1 such a case as I have mentioned is placed outside the jurisdiction of the courts or any one else, even outside the realm of private contracts between individuals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 2, respecting Thanksgiving 'Day-Mr. Ped-low-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Thanksgiving Day:
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, the committee had adopted an amendment replacing the words " second Monday " in the third line of clause 1 with the word "eleventh." Shall the clause carry?


Charles Murphy: When this Bill was in committee, it was allowed to remain in committee at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), because he said it would be desirable to elicit public opinion with regard to the matter. That gave some lion, members, including myself, the idea that this Bill would not come up so soon as it has done. May I inquire if public opinion has been elicited and, if so, in what direction has it been expressed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill, of course, is
not under my control nor under the control of the Government. The Bill was introduced by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow), and he is entitled to proceed with it. I made the suggestion to him, and I would like to repeat it now-of course, I cannot force it-that it would be a desirable thing that the Bill should remain where it is, in committee, for such a reasonable period of time as might allow of the expression of public opinion on the subject. But, of course, that is only my view on something that would be desirable, and I have no power to insist upon the hon. gentleman's accepting my suggestion. I may say that I had not anticipated that we would reach the Bill again as soon as we have reached it, but the House with very considerable expedition to-day went through the business we were ready to put before it, with the result that the Bill has come back again. While I still would renew my suggestion to the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill, I do not feel I have any right to insist that he shall accept it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have no desire to press the matter unduly in view of the expressed opinion of the leader of the House, an opinion which he has expressed before today. But in view of the fact that this Bill has practically been before the country for six months, and in view of the further fact that a few days ago, notwithstanding that

this Bill, to deal with the subject, was on the Order Paper, a date for Thanksgiving Day was unofficially announced through the press, there seems to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding and one can easily realize that-through the country.
I have a press despatch-I have not it with me at the moment-from St. Catherines stating that the people there were preparing for observing Thanksgiving day with the idea in mind that it would be decided by this House that Thanksgiving day would take place on Armistice day, in November.. Naturally, when this date was announced, although unofficially, through the press, they were in a quandary, or, to speak in common phraseology, they felt themselves up against it, that is to say, they had to hurry up the preparations for that event. Yesterday, it was reported in the press that it was practically decided by this House to observe Armistice day, November 11, as Thanksgiving day. Although this Bill has come around sooner than was anticipated when we were discussing it last night, yet, in view of the unsettled opinion that obtains in the country regarding the proposition, I think it would be better 'that we should deal with the matter to a'finish to-night and state whether we are going to observe this great event, Armistice day, as a national holiday, and couple with it Thanksgiving day, or whether we are going to abandon the proposition altogether.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have not heard from the Minister of Justice as to the method by which he purposes ascertaining public opinion. Coming as I do from Ontario, I might point out for his information, that some years ago an agitation arose there which resulted' in changing Thanksgiving day, which usually fell on Thursday, to Monday, for the reason that the change benefited a large class, not only commercial travellers, as the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) pointed out, but school teachers and students throughout the country who desired to spend that holiday at their homes, .and who would thereby have Saturday, Sunday and Monday as a week-end. I was rather impressed by the arguments of the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) in giving weight to the representations made by the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada, a very representative body of intelligent public opinion, and a body which is organized and which knows what its members desire. I should like to know in what other way than through
kindred organizations is public opinion going to be gathered.


Mr. DUFF:: Appoint a commission.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not apprehend that there will be a public clamour on the part of any individuals throughout the country, and the only expressions of opinion we are apt to get will come from organized bodies.
If the Minister of Justice is depending upon the newspapers, I am not quite so sure whether the press has taken sufficient interest in this discussion in the House to worry itself about it. If the press takes any interest, I have no doubt but that there would be divergent views, and as regards the press, I always think, anyway, that editorial comment is just the opinion of one man who sits at the editorial desk and who, after all, does not carry much more weight than any man on the street.
I am very strongly inclined to the .view that the representations made by the Commercial Travellers' Association as to the great benefit that comes to the great number through holding the Thanksgiving Day on a Monday, ought to have the serious consideration of the Government. The question is one that ought to be decided soon, and I do not see any reason why we should not deal with the public opinion that has already been expressed. I have heard no great public opinion against the proposition. The only argument I have heard is that, the war having come to an end by an armistice upon the 11th day of November, that day is set apart and fixed in the public mind as a day of great deliverance from the horrors of war.
While from the historic point of view it might be considered a mistake to commemorate the signing of the Armistice upon any other day than the 11th of November, the* second Monday in November must always come very close to that date, and for many, many years to come the 11th of November will never be forgotten in the minds of the people as a day of great deliverance for which thanks should be offered up. Consequently, I would say that the second Monday in November, falling as it always, will near the 11th, will focus that day sufficiently in the people's mind to enable us to consolidate our thanksgiving for the signing of the Armistice with our thanksgiving for all other things for which we should be thankful, and the public mind will seize on that day as the anniversary of the close of the greatest war the world has ever known.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My suggestion was not with reference to this particular question

or whether it should be the 11th of November or the second Monday in November. While we did not come to any vote on the subject, I may say for the hon. gentleman's information that my own sympathy would be rather with the idea of making it the second Monday of November, as originally suggested. My suggestion had to do with the Bill as a whole. I asked that it stand in committee, not because I was going to elicit any public opinion, but simply for the reason that, as this was a change from what had been a long-established practice, and while, as I think I mentioned, public opinion so far as it was put before us was favourable to the change, I thought it would do no harm if the Bill stood for a short period of time so that opportunity might be afforded to people interested either to add additional support or to set forth their views against the proposal. Having made that explanation, I want to say again that I am not at all in the attitude of insisting upon that suggestion. The committee, of course, is at perfect liberty to_deal with the matter, and to value that suggestion at what it is worth. I have no desire whatever to impose that idea upon the committee, nor upon the House, nor upon the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill to whom I made it.
Mr. DAVIlS: I was not present when the Bill was discussed before, but if we decide on the 11th of November then every fifth, or sixth, or seventh year there would be no holiday, as the 11th will fall on the Sabbath day. I do not know whether that view has been presented to the House, but it is an additional reason to my mind why we should choose a movable day, let us say, the nearest Monday to the 11th of November.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 1 rise for the purpose of regularizing this, discussion, and moving the re-consideration of the amendment proposed yesterday, I think it was, substituting the second Monday in November for the fixed date of November 11. I make that motion, seconded by the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs), and I trust that all members will agree that we should have this matter reopened, because I believe there are very many members of this House who are thoroughly convinced that it would be wise to commemorate the armistice by having a holiday on or about that date, and that the Monday in the week gives the greatest opportunity for celebration and interferes the ' least with the economic life of the country.


John Wesley Edwards: It was not my privilege .to be present when the discussion took place on this Bill the other day, and I 
should like to giive expression to my views. First of all, I think it was a happy thought on the part of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) to couple Thanksgiving Day with what we might call Armistice Day. We have been accustomed to the setting apart by proclamation of the Government one day in each year on which the people of Canada generally gave thanks for the many blessings, they had enjoyed throughout the year. I think every one will agree that there has never been an. occasion in the history of this country when we had such reason, for genuine thanksgiving as on the day the armistice was signed putting an end to the great war. I think it would be a very grave mistake to commemorate any other day than .the 11th of November. If we are going to suit our own convenience in regard to these holidays, if we who stayed at home during this terrible war cannot put ourselves out a little bit to celebrate the end of the war, what does it mean? It simply means that so far as giving^ real thanks is concerned, your thanksgiving is a farce. If you are going to suit individual' convenience in these holidays, let us pass a law here, and fix all these holidays on a Monday. What about the first of July? Do you want us to celebrate that on the first Monday in July?


Ernest Lapointe: What about the 12th of July?


John Wesley Edwards: I am sorry to say that there are a great many members of this House and a great many people outside who do not appreciate that glorious day as they should. I have no serious misgivings that you will interfere with the 12th of July. We will keep the 12th of July on the 12t.h of July, and you wall not oblige us to keep it on the nearest, Monday or any other day.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman know that the Battle of the Boyne was fought on the first of July?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know that;
and I do not know that my hon. friend knows it. It makes no difference on what day it was fought, the celebration is held on the 12th of July.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is to suit your convenience.


John Wesley Edwards: Coming back to the
point-, the armistice was signed, I believe, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of year. In all seriousness, I think it would be a very grave mistake to depart from that day. If we intend

to honour that day-and the idea of the hon. member for South Renfrew undoubtedly was that the people of Canada should honour it, for that, I presume, is his reason for wanting to couple it with Thanksgiving -I think the principle is eminently wise and I cordially agree with it. But to observe the day on the second Monday of November because that Monday should happen to be the one nearest the 11 th of the month would, in my opinion, be a serious and .an unfortunate impropriety* If it is desirable to have Thanksgiving Day on a Monday, then let us follow the established custom of the past and allow the Government to appoint the day in October or any other convenient month so long as it is a Monday. If, however, you want to honour Armistice Day and the great ideas for which it stands, honour it on the proper day, the 11th of November; but do not observe it five or six days before or after the actual day that sees the anniversary of the great event which means so much to us.


Samuel Francis Glass: In the consideration of this question one fact that strikes me as being of great importance has so far been apparently overlooked. In the great war, the peaceful conclusion of which we purpose to celebrate on Armistice Day, our brethren to the south of us joined us in a noble . effort to vindicate the right. Possibly the Government of the United States will within a reasonable time be considering this very subject that is now before this Parliament, and in view of the fact that our Government has already fixed the day for Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the year 1919, I do not see that there is at present any great urgency in settling this question just yet. I agree with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), and personally I feel that no day would be as appropriate, sentimentally at least, as the 11th of November for the celebration, of the armistice. But if we desire to learn public opinion as conveyed through the medium of the Commercial Travellers' Association,
I may say that the choice has been strongly in favour of the second Monday. As has already been pointed out by an hon. member, for very many years in Canada Thursday was invariably selected as Thanksgiving Day; but representations have been forcibly, urged by the Commercial Travellers' Association and their organizations, supplemented I believe by expressions of opinion from Boards of Trade, Chambers of Commerce, wholesale houses and other bodies, to the effect that it is a distinct convenience
to the commercial travelling community and to the interests which they represent to have the day of thanksgiving on Monday. Probably the United States, which no doubt will fix a day for celebration of the armistice, may select the second Monday. On the other hand, they may select the 11th of November. Be that as it may, I submit, without any suggestion that we should follow in the footsteps of our southern friends or be guided by any action of theirs, that there is a great moral and a useful sentiment in the brotherhood of these two nations, and the holiday would appear to me to be a suitable occasion for the interchange of courtesies and visits if we could arrange our celebration for the same day.
I respectfully suggest, therefore, as Thanksgiving Day has already been fixed for this year, and in deference to the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, that this matter be allowed to stand for the time being, and possibly before the session is concluded it may be found desirable to defer further consideration of it to another session. If we could arrange a common day for observance of the anniversary of the Armistice by Canada and the United States it would conduce to an increased amity between two great peoples, and it would be a matter of mighty sentiment to have an entire continent returning thanks to God simultaneously for .deliverance from great tribulation, and for the conclusion of a peace which we all trust will be lasting. The Armistice was declared on the eleventh of November, and sentiment if nothing else would demand the observance of the event on that day. But notwithstanding that fact there is a great body of public opinion which- cannot be fully expressed in this House, and I really think we should not be too premature in dealing with this matter. T repeat my suggestion that we leave the question in abeyance for the time being, and before the end of the session something may occur to urge the desirability of leaving it over to another session.


William Foster Cockshutt: As one who has taken some interest in this matter I think the proceeding to-night is extraordinary. I was not present when the discussion began, but I think the debate is quite unusual. The Bill has been approved in all its clauses, and I think even the title or preamble was passed and the Bill was ready to be reported. I asked the Minister of Justice at the time if this matter would be taken up again as regards the difference between the 11th of November and the second Monday, and he

assured me that it would not. At least, that is how I understood him. I therefore cannot see why we are now asked to retrace our steps, having come to a definite decision that the 11th of November should ,be the date. There is no doubt that the House decided that point, and the majority in favour of it would have been large had a standing vote been taken. While not wishing to take advantage of that fact, I certainly strongly object to the motion of the member for Brome to open up the question and refer it back again to the House, when the decision was as absolute as it was.


William Findlay Maclean: I think it is well to have a holiday in connection with thanksgiving. If the League of Nations means anything it will have considerable work to do hereafter, and one of the first matters that will demand its attention- and it is one which is already under consideration in Europe-is the modification of our. calendar so that the months will begin always on the same day and each quarter have the same number of days. The result will be a great improvement in ithe conduct of business and in the observance of public holidays. As regards the suggestion that we should have the same day as the United States for observing the great event which will hereafter be the occasion of a national holiday, I believe That before five years have passed the League of Nations will have completed a modification of the calendar, and that public holidays will always come on the same day. Under those circumstances, if Monday should be regarded as the most favourable day for observing a holiday, there would be no difficulty in fixing it as a .permanent institution. \v hat-ever we may do now, however, I think that we shall find within the next five years that one of the great questions before the League of Nations will be the revision of the calendar, providing facilities along the Tines suggested to-night, so that public holidays will always fall on the same day of the week.


Edmond Proulx: I think we may pass this Bill and if the League of Nations sees fit to change the calendar if will foe time enough then for us to alter our law accordingly". In regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) that Thanksgiving Day should be observed on the second Monday, it would be proper enough to have it on the seoond Monday. It would be much more convenient for the .people an general. Last Friday 'the matter oanne up before the In-

dus'trial Conference which was a very representative body of employers and employees. That conference decided unanimously in favour of the second Monday an November. I am in favour of the second Monday in November and I will support the motion of the hon. member for Brome.


Peter McGibbon: 
Avard Longley Davidson: I have a suggestion to make which, I am sure, will appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. There is a feeling in this country that we are having too many holidays, and the suggestion I would make would be that we fix the annual Thanksgiving Day on the 12th of July and thus combine the two.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before putting the question: " Shall the clause as amended be carried?" I must correct the impression which appears to have been created by the remarks of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). The committee has been considering the clause as amended and not a motion to reconsider the amendment.

Under the rules of the House, it is impossible to reconsider an amendment. The -only way an amendment can be reconsidered is upon a motion that it be rescinded, and that motion would have to be preceded' by a notice or made with the unanimous consent Of the committee. Bourinot, at page 329, says:
Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and -contradictory decisions would he sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
May, at page 267, says:
An amendment was made to a resolution reported from a Committee of the Whole House authorizing the financial provisions embodied in a Bill. Subsequently the Government desired to rescind this amendment and proposed to make a motion with that object before the consideration of the resolution, as amended, was resumed. Objection was taken to this mode of procedure, but the Speaker pointed out that, the amendment having been made, the House could not reconsider its decision on the further consideration of the resolution.
The last paTt of paragraph 4 of rule 13 reads as follows: :
The Buies of the House shall he observed in the Committee so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
The only motion before the Committee is: " That clause 1 as amended be adopted."


Avard Longley Davidson: I have a very clear recollection of what took place. It seems to me that there is no doubt but that the clause was ajnended. It was declared by you carried. The preamble was carried, the title was carried and the only thing that remained was the motion to report the Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: The sense of the Committee was taken upon the amendment after the question had been put by the Chairman and the amendment was adopted. While the customary questions: " Shall the clause carry?" " Shall the preamble carry?" " Shall the title carry?" were being rapidly put by the Chairman, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) rose in his place and suggested that the Bill be left in committee for further consideration in order that the voice of public opinion might be heard and considered. It was surely not the intention of .the Committee that the general public should express an opinion concerning the title of the Bill, and when the hon. the Minister of Justice moved that the Committee rise -and report progress, entry was made and it is so recorded in Hansard, that the amendment had been carried and that
the clause as amended remained before the Committee for further consideration.


William Foster Cockshutt: Probably you will recall the Teinark which I made. I think this was agreed and I asked the minister whether the question as to the second Monday or the 11th would be reopened and I understood him to say that it would not be reopened.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He would have no authority to say that.


Georges Henri Boivin: It has not been reopened, but the clause as amended has been further considered.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I intended to say, and what I understood I had said, was that the Bill might remain in committee in the condition which it had then reached. The amendment had been carried at that time.
I did not undertake to guarantee in advance what the Committee might do or what the committee was entitled to do, but at all events the Chairman has ruled in the sense which the hon. gentleman would desire.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before dealing with the matter along the lines that have been suggested, that is to say, to leave it in committee, I would again make the request that the whole matter shall be brought to a conclusion to-night, and for the reasons already stated by me in the early part of the discussion. 1 shall not enter into a general discussion because I have already covered the Bill thoroughly. All the points that have been raised to-night by hon. members who have spoken, including those who were not present when the Bill was under consideration before, have been- fully covered by me already, as they will find if they read Hansard. I have a communication from the secretary of the National Industrial Conference which, if you will -allow me, I would like ito put on Hansard. It is- as follows: Ottawa, September 22, 1919.
Dear Sir,-I have been directed by the National Industrial Conference to communicate to you the information that the subject matter of your proposed Bill in Parliament to make the second Monday in November a Dominion holiday was discussed by the Conference on Friday last, and that all the opinions expressed were favourable to its adoption. A copy of the report of the proceeding and discussions of the National Industrial Conference for Friday last is enclosed herewith. Tour attention is directed to pages 179-180 of this report.
Tours truly,
Gerald H. Brown,
Secretary National Industrial Conference. Isaac E. Pedlow, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.

I have received other communications, all endorsing the principle of the Bill, but I will not weary the House by reading them. It is now for the House to decide whether it will endorse the day or the date in connection with this matter. I can assure the House that it was in deference to requests received by me not only from the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada, but also from many industrial associations, such as the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, and from schools and colleges throughout the Dominion, in favour of the adoption of the second Monday in November, that I made the change. However, the decision is not in my hands but rests with the House.


Mr.   BBLAND@: It would be open to any hon. member, when the Bill -is reported and presented for third reading, to move to refer it back to Committee of the Whole with certain instructions.


Alphonse Verville: What is the amendment?


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment adopted last night is that the words "second Monday " in the sixth line of the Bill be replaced by the words " eleventh day." The question now before the Committee is: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to-yeas 34, nays 23.
Bill reported as amended.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion ,of Mr. Jacobs for the second reading of Bill No. 9 to amend the House of Commons Act, and to provide that polling days at elections shall be public holidays.
Avard Longley Davidson: When this Bill was before the
House at a previous sitting I had the honour to move the adjournment of the debate. It seems to me almost a pity that the Bill should contain three separate and distinct principles as I feel that some of these principles are good and some of them are bad; some of them might receive the support of members, whereas the remainder might evoke their opposition. The Bill, as I understand it, provides for three radical, or at least very distinct and separate changes in the election law. The second of these-I am not taking up the provisions consecutively-contemplates that any member who is returned for two or more

electoral districts shall make a selection, within thirty days, of which of such electoral districts he will serve. When last I addressed the House on this subject I mentioned that there was but one member in the House who had the honour to represent two separate constituencies at the present time, and that he, of course, had a very personal interest in this Bill, and I thought it well that the Bill should not be advanced until that hon. member was in his seat. I am very glad that the hon. gentleman in question is present to-night, because I believe his opinion on this question will be worthy of consideration. I must say, however, that I am inclined to agree [DOT]with this provision of the Bill. I do not believe that any member of Parliament- no'matter how clever he may be, no matter how distinguished, no matter what powers of speech or endurance in debate he may possess-is entitled to represent more than one constituency. If the principle of allowing a member to represent more than one seat were carried out you might just as logically permit him to represent 235 constituencies and let him run the whole show. I am sure I would object to that even in the case of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) who represents the constituencies of Maisonneuve and Gaspe.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What constituency did the hon. member first mention; I could not catch it?


Avard Longley Davidson: If the hon. gentleman will refer td the list of members he will be able to find the constituency in question and give it the correct French accent. I repeat, there is some merit in the principle that no member should be allowed to represent more than one constituency at the same time, but it occurs to me that perhaps legislation is not altogether necessary in order to accomplish such a reform. If my hon. friend who is the sponsor of this Bill and for whose statesmanship I have a very high opinion


Ernest Lapointe: Ah, that's the word.


Avard Longley Davidson: If he had conferred with the hon. member for Gaspe and Maisonneuve, and had pointed out to him the anomaly of representing two constituencies at the same time, I am quite sure the latter hon. gentleman would have yielded to his suggestion and no legislation upon this question would have been necessary. That is one amendment that is proposed by the Bill.

It is provided by section 1 that within sixty days after the receipt by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of the warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member of the House of Commons, such writ shall be issued. Now, I can see certain objections to that provision. If the Governor in Council were absolutely bound by any such legislative provision as that, an election might have to be brought on in some constituency at an undesirable or unreasonable time. I will give you a case in point. A vacancy in the representation of Glengarry and Stormont unfortunately occurred some months ago. The Government did not feel like bringing on an election in that constituency while the soldiers were overseas and unable to cast their votes, and they very wisely exercised the discretion which they are enabled to exercise under the law as it stands at the present time, by arranging that the election in this case be held after the return of the soldiers from France and at a time when the most worthy electors in that constituency would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the representation.


Samuel William Jacobs: How was it that the election in Lanark was brought on within a few weeks after the seat was declared vacant?


Ernest Lapointe: The Government was not so wise as all that.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am not in the confidence of the Government to the extent of being able to say why that was done, but I have no doubt that there were good and sufficient reasons.


Ernest Lapointe: The point is not
well made.


Avard Longley Davidson: Under the law as it
stands at present the Government are responsible to the people for any decision they make; if they leave a constituency without representation for ian unreasonable length of time, they must ultimately suffer at the hands of the people. While the Ross Government was in power in Nova Scotia, I think it was the constituency of Renfrew that was left vacant for an unreasonable length of time, without any possible excuse, ae I understand it.
Some hon. MEMERS:	Nova Scotia?


Avard Longley Davidson: Ontario. Did I say
" Nova Scotia "?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Avard Longley Davidson: If the hon. gentleman has any point of order to make, I shall be glad if he will state it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: My point of order is that Renfrew is not in Nova Scotia. Further, I have been looking for "Messinnee" in the official list of constituencies, but I cannot find it.


Avard Longley Davidson: If that is the hon.
gentleman's idea of a point of order, I am afraid that his mentality is in a somewhat disordered condition.
I was going on to say that when an election was finally brought on in the constituency of Renfrew, the people of that riding indicated their disapproval by returning a candidate hostile to the Government which was responsible for the delay. That, after all, ?eem= to me to be the real remedy. If you leave the law as it is, the Government can consider all the circumstances and fix the day of polling at a convenient and proper time. If it fails to do that, it will receive the condemnation of the constituency concerned, when at length the people have had an opportunity of expressing their views.
The other provision of the Bill is that election day shall be a public holiday. I am entirely opposed to that provision. It has been argued that it election day were a public holiday, the facilities for electors to vote would be greater; more voters would be able to go to the polls, and a larger poll would be held. I do not believe that that would be the result. As a matter of fact, under the present system elections ara usually held on a Monday, for the accommodation of commercial travellers and ethers who may be away from home. If under the proposed new system a Monday was chosen as election day and it was a public holiday, a great many electors would be tempted to go off on a week-end holiday and not return until the evening of the election day, so that there would be even greater difficulty in getting voters to the polls on a holiday of that kind than there would be if there was no holiday. So far as my observation has gone, employers invariably give their employees an opportunity to vote. That privilege is never denied to employees by employers in my province; nor, I believe, is it denied generally throughout Canada. I believe that the labouring men of this country would resent the idea that they should not make .the slight sacrifice involved in the loss of time required of them in connection with their casting their vote. I believe also that employers would resent

the suggestion that-they should be obliged to give their employees a holiday simply in order that they might exercise what they regard as a sacred trust. There are enough public-spirited labouring men in this country who will vote without having a holiday;
I believe there is no general demand for this proposed change in the present system. For these reasons it seems to me that the provision is an unwise one. There is some degree of merit in the Bill, and my only regret is that it contains such diverse and distinctly different provisions.
Mr. DOHERTY; Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House deals with two quite distinct matters. Two of its sections have for their purpose to fix specific .periods within which vacancies occurring in the representation in this House shall be filled. There is also a provision for a public holiday on election day. It is perhaps difficult, therefore, to speak of any one principle as being the principle of the Bill.
I assume that it might be considered that the principle of its first two provisions is, broadly stated, that there should be a defined or an ascertainable period within which vacancies must be filled. I quite recognize that there is a great deal to be said for that proposal. I am not prepared to say that the precise limit fixed by the Bill is necessarily the proper limit, or that the cause of the vacancy is a matter not to be considered when the date upon which the election should be held is being determined. .
But if that result can be arrived at, subject to proper conditions, there is a great deal to be said in support of the proposal that it would be an improvement if we had some fixed period of time, perhaps not necessarily the period fixed by this Bill, or some determined method by which the period during which the seat may remain vacant might be terminated. As I said on rising, one can hardly speak of any one thing as being the principle of this Bill. It is a Bill that might very properly and that should rightly receive consideration at the hands of the Privileges and Elections Committee. We had this whole matter of the Elections Bill, and if I mistake not, in particular, a suggested provision for a public holiday on election day, 'before the House for consideration upon the report of a special committee-I think it was in 1915-dealing with the question of an amendment to the Elections Act. I do not want to speak positively, but my recollection is that the sense of the House at that time was rather against our having an entire holiday on election day. Perhaps everybody would

agree on the principle that underlies that proposal, that is to say, that people should have sufficient free time to do their voting; it is a question of detail whether a whole day is necessary or not. Taking that view of the Bill, and recognizing that there is merit in the proposal, without wanting to commit myself absolutely to that proposal or to the principle, at all events as it is sought to be applied-leaving that an open question-I would be disposed to assent to the Bill having its second reading with a view to its being referred to the Privileges and Elections Committee as, I understand that would be acceptable to the promoter of the Bill. I certainly think it is a matter that ought to have the consideration of a committee, and the Privileges and Elections Committee seems to be the most suitable body.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not intend to discuss this matter at length, but I want to express my disappointment at the course taken by the hon. gentleman who has seen fit to introduce this measure. The hon. gentleman has not, in one particular at least, gone as far as his courage should have, taken him. He apparently has no objection to a member of this House representing more than one constituency at the same time. In that respect, the hon. gentleman gives his consent to the disfranchising of one constituency.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the hon. gentleman in what way does the hon. member not object?


John Wesley Edwards: There is in this House one hon. member who, at the present time, represents two constituencies, who was elected for two constituencies in the province of Quebec. So far as I know lie has not elected for which one of those he will sit. He has, therefore deprived the people of one of those constituencies, I do not know which one, of having a representative in this House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Quite right.


John Wesley Edwards: Quite right? Very well.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I tell the hon. gentleman that he objects as much as my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman claims that my hon. friend who introduced this Bill dees not object to an hon. member sitting for two constituencies. He never said that, no more than the hon. gentleman did.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend does not seem to appreciate the point which I am endeavouring to make.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps not.


John Wesley Edwards: That is my fault for
not putting it in clearer language. The point I make is that when the hon. member who has introduced this Bill makes provision whereby a man who is elected for more than one constituency has, within a certain time, to specify which it is he is elected for, he does not go as far as he should. By the provisions of this Bill he gives his consent to a man's being elected for more than one constituency for a time at least; he gives his consent to the disfranchising of that constituency for a time at least.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see my hon. friend's
point.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
should go to this length, to make provision in his Bill that no member in this House shall run for more than one constituency in one election. For instance, how can the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux)-I am not going to name his other constituency


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, do.


John Wesley Edwards: -because I realize the fact that there are hon. gentlemen on the other side whose education has been neglected as much as mine has, like for instance the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) who does not know when the name is	properly
pronounced. He might take me to task if I called it " Maisoneff," or " Maisonoove," or some other name. Hon. gentlemen, however, know to what constituency I refer. How can, the hon. member for Gaspe, who is also the member for that other constituency which I will not name, and who is a gentleman of great eloquence, great force in argument, get up and in his usual forceful manner support a Bill of this kind? If he does he condemns himself, because, if he says the hon. member for Georges Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs)-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Pretty good.


John Wesley Edwards: -I do not know whether I have the accent on that right, too-is correct in saying that a member who is elected for two constituencies should, within thirty days, specify which seat he wants to sit for, then the hon. gentleman is condemned because of the fact that he has represented -or misrepresented, as some of us may think at times-two constituencies in this .tiouse ever since 1917. We cannot have the benefit of the eloquence of the hon. member for Gaspe and that other constituency which
begins , with " M," because of the peculiar position in which he is placed. If the hon. member will just change the second suggested amendment by making it read:
No member shall be a candidate for more than one constituency in any election

I will support that part of his Bill, at all events, most heartily, and I believe it will receive the approval generally of the people of this country. But the hon. gentleman, for some reason or other, is not prepared to go that far.
As regards the holiday, what reasons can be advanced why there should be a public holiday on election day? It does not take a man a whole day to cast his vote. Provision is made, I think, for the labourer to have a couple of hours in the day in order to poll his vote, and I suppose his pay goes on for those two hours. Would you force the employer of labour to pay his employee for the whole day when he could poll his vote in ten minutes or half an 'hour? Would that be fair? If you would not force the employer to do that, would you force the labourer to do without bis pay for the whole day when he need lose only half an 'hour or one hour of his time at the outside? It will work an injustice to the employer or to the employee whichever way you arrange it. 1 see no reason for proclaiming election day a holiday. I also object to the other feature to which I have drawn attention, and if these two objection's are well founded there is not much left of the Bill. I think the Bill as arranged is inopportune at the present time. I hope, however, that the hon. member will follow it up, and if he does not I can assure him that at another session I intend to introduce a Bill along the lines I have mentioned providing that no man shall be allowed to be a candidate for more than one constituency in the same election.


Samuel Francis Glass: The hon. member for Fromtenac (Mr. Edwards) has expressed the thoughts that -were engaging my own mind just as he arose to speak. I would not go so far as to criticise the hon. member who represents the constituencies, of Maisonneuve and Gaspe, but I do criticise the pernicious principle which allows a man under any circumstances to be a candidate for two seats at the one time. Even in a municipal government no man is allowed to run for school trustee and also for alderman at the same time. He must select in what capacity he chooses to represent the people. I think that the prin-

ciple of representing two constituencies imposes an injustice on the constituency. One of those constituencies must be unrepresented during the term of Parliament, or else the expense is imposed on the county of holding another election. I trust that this matter will receive the serious consideration of the House, and if iit be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, I trust they will submit a recommendation to this House for removing this evil that has existed ior a long time in this country'. If a candidate is going to stand for election to the House of Commons, I think there should be a means by which he would have to declare what is his intent, and his deposit should be paid .previous to nomination day, 60 that it will be impossible for one candidate to receive a nomination for two constituencies on the same day. There is absolutely nothing in justice, right or equity to justify the pernicious principle by which *a man is allowed even to contest two constituencies for the same House.
We have often discussed in this House the question of making election day a holiday; and there has been a difference of opinion. Some years ago the Municipal Act provided that the first Monday should be the date for the municipal elections; but certain cities had powers conferred on them by the Provincial Government to select New Year's Day instead. The arguments urged strongly at that time for making polling day a holiday was that commercial travellers and others would thereby be enabled to take part in the election, but the very reverse of what was anticipated has resulted. There was a very large shrinkage in the vote polled, and to-day in the city of Toronto, London, and other cities in the province of Ontario where municipal elections are held on a holiday there is a decided shrinkage in the vote polled, which is not in the interest of good government. Owing to the lack of interest in municipal elections, which should be a matter of concern to the citizens, men of mediocrity get elected to important positions in the municipal service.
I agree with the hon. member who said that this measure had points in it that were of value. However he did not say much on what he thought was of value. I agree that some definite limit should be fixed within which an election should be held after a seat has become vacant. Whether it should be sixty days or longer I am not prepared to state, but that is a matter which the Committee on Privileges and Elections,

if it was referred to them, could decide. I repeat, that the mere fact 'that the principle has been followed by the Dominion and Provincial Governments for many years past of allowing a member to represent two constituencies does not make that principle right. No constituency should be unrepresented for years, or even for too many months, and legislation against this pernicious principle should be enacted.
As the Minister of Justice has said, there are points of interest presented in this Bill, and I trust that they will receive proper consideration. I trust that if the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) introduces a similar Bill later on he will provide an amendment absolutely to prevent the possibility of any candidate contesting two seats for this Parliament in one election.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a point I have not *
heard mentioned in the debate which I think would be worthy of the attention of the Committee, if the suggestion of the Minister of Justice is to be carried out. There are eight, unhappily, now nine, vacancies in this Parliament. Under this Bill now before the House we would be obliged to have these elections within sixty days of the date of the vacancy, but they would not all take place together. The Government might still pick and choose for itself. Now in our general elections we have accepted the principle of simultaneous polling. I would suggest for the consideration of the Committee that they should endeavour to find words the effect of which would be that where two or more vacancies exist at the same time, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the elections shall be held together. As far as possible we should have simultaneous polling, and no Government of either party should have the right to pick and choose, bringing on an election that might be helpful at one time, and another one later on. The House will generally agree that if we are asking for changes along these lines, that question deserves careful consideration.


William Foster Cockshutt: It appears to me that there is a point that has not been discussed with regard to the question of dual representation. We know that very often protests are entered and it might be very convenient for a gentleman to retire from a constituency in which his election was being protested.


Samuel William Jacobs: Provision is being made for that.


William Foster Cockshutt: Protests frequently drag out one or two years and that is why on many occasions members who have been willing to retire from one of their constituencies have not been permitted to do so. While the matter is pending in court and the validity of the election is in peril a member is not allowed to retire even if he is willing to do so, and on some occasions seats have been held in that way for one or two years after an election. I would further point out that sixty days is a very short notice. In the ease of by-elections in Ontario, and I presume it is the same in most of the other provinces, the lists are not by any means ready. In a country district it is a very serious matter to prepare an electoral list. It may not have been got ready for one or two years prior to the vacancy and it is absurd to think that an election could be held within sixty days and. a proper list prepared for the particular constituency in such great haste. I submit these suggestions to my hon. friend, asking him if he has taken them into consideration, and if he does not think that the Bill should be modified in the direction I have indicated in both these respects. For-myself I agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that no candidate should be per>
mitted to run for more than one constituency. I cannot remember it having been done in Ontario.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is my hon. friend aware that it is the custom in England?


William Foster Cockshutt: I believe it is. I
am not saying that it is not a time-honoured custom, but we are reformers sometimes even if we are called Tories or strong Conservatives, and I am a reformer to that extent. I believe that if an abuse exists, and I think it does exist, whereby a constituency can be disfranchised for a year or a term of years, it should not be	permitted	in any province, and
I say that with all deference to my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux), who is .an excellent member of the House; for if any man can represent two constituencies I presume the hon. gentleman can do so as -well as any one else. He carries great weight and is a man of breadth and ability. I am not disparaging his ability to represent two constituencies, but I think it is an entirely wrong principle, and if the Bill were amended in accordance with the suggestion of the member for Frontenac, at the same time having in view the points I have mentioned, I would have no serious objection to it, .although I have not considered it in all its details as closely as I should like to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There seems to be some confusion in connection with the constituency represented by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe. I do not see how the hon. member can legally hold two seats. Rule 79 says:
All members who are returned for two or more electoral districts shall make their election for which of the districts they will serve, within twenty days after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for either district.
The hon. gentleman can therefore hold only one seat unless there was a protest against his holding either. It is interesting to know whether or not a protest was entered against the hon. member in respect of either Maisonneuve or Gaspe. The hon. gentleman would seem to be more interested in this question than any one else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not more interested than any one else in this matter. I wish to obey the law and I have always obeyed it. I was the happy victim of circumstances at the last general election in the fact that I was elected for two constituencies. I must say that personally I do not think that any member of the House should monopolize two seats. I adhere to the principle of my hon. friend's Bill, for which I shall vote. But sometimes in an election party exigencies here a* in England make it necessary that a man should be a candidate for two constituencies. The law, however, is very wise. My hon. friend has just read one of the rules of the House providing that twenty days after the election a member who has been returned for , two constituencies must decide which of .them he elects to represent in the House, unless he is protested. Mr. Speaker, I would not have sat for both seats last session had I not been protested at the last election. There is a protest against 'my election in the constituency of Maisonneuve, and I am awaiting the result of that protest before electing for which constituency I shall sit in the House. I may say, however, that during the last Parliament our late lamented friend the ex-member for Charlevoix-Montmorency sat for both the county of Charlevoix and Montmorency, and there iwas no protest. I remember asking him at the time how he could sit for both seats without being subject to the consequences of the law. He told me at the time that he had taken the



advice of the Minister of Justice-I do not know whether he referred to my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) or to some one in the Department of Justice-and he said that, protest or no protest, there was no sanction to that rule. For my part, I have more regard for the sanctity of the rules of the House, and when a rule says that within a certain period the member who happens to represent two constituencies must elect which he shall sit for, I consider there is an obligation, at least a moral obligation, on him to obey that rule, and I stand ready to obey it as soon as the protest against my election in the county of Maisonneuve has been disposed of. In all sincerity, however, I say that although it is a great honour to represent two constituencies, I do not believe the principle is democratic. We should give each constituency in the' country the opportunity of having its own representative, and though a member may be able to serve the interests of two constituencies, the principle is undemocratic and should not prevail. The Bill introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) will therefore have my support.
Hon. Mr. (BROTHERS: Has the protest referred to by my hon. friend been disposed of yet?


Rodolphe Lemieux: ino.


Mr. OROTHERS:: It is nearly two years since the election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is not two years; it is only eighteen months.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg leave to make a statement in regard to what the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) has said. There must have been some misunderstanding between the late distinguished member to whom my hon. friend referred and himself as to the statement that was made. I certainly was not consulted on the question by the exmember for Charlevoix-Montmorency.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think he said the
Department of Justice; I do not think he said the Minister of Justice. Perhaps that was not the intention of the then sitting member for Charlevoix.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no recollection
of having heard of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am disposed to accept
the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that this Bill should go before the Privileges and Elections Committee. That committee, selected by the Government from both sides of the House, is particularly fitted to deal with this important Bill, I feel sure that

the committee will be favourable to the passing of this measure by the House.
I am sure we must all appreciate the delicacy of our good friend the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) in halting this debate on Thursday last in order to have the view of the hon. member .for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). I did not think it was in him, and I am sure that the opportunity given us of learning of his goodness of heart is something that we all appreciate particularly as it caused him to be somewhat severely castigated by the Montreal Gazette a day or two ago. I quote from the Gazette-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in quoting any newspaper report reflecting upon the motives or statements of any member of this House.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is no reference to any member of this House. It has reference to the policy of the Government. Inferentially, it may reflect upon the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). I quote''from the Montreal Gazette of yesterday:
The subject of the division of Thursday was the Bill of Mr. Jacobs to require the prompt filling by by-elections of vacancies occurring in the House of Commons, and the stopping of the abuse of members elected for two constituencies holding both seats through a Parliamentary term and depriving a section of the electorate of their proper voice in the decision of national issues. It should not have been the occasion of a party division, and the generalship that permitted one was' at fault.
I do not wish to make any comment.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. gentleman blame me for the attitude taken by the other side when they made it a party question and voted against my motion?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am merely referring to
the fact that the hon. gentleman who happens to be a whip on the other side of the House, .should have taken the action that he did in raising a question at the time, bringing about this comment from the Montreal Gazette which probably knows more *about the affairs of hon. gentlemen on the other side than I do.
Mr. DAVIDSON. It is a rebuke to those on the other side of the House.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member for
Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) stated he would support the Bill if it contained a clause to the effect that no. candidate should present himself for more than one seat. He seems to think that if he cannot get a whole loaf he is not going to be satisfied

with half. The rule which I have incorporated in my Bill in regard to candidates presenting themselves for more than one seat is the rule in England and my object in incorporating it in this measure was to bring it in line with the English law. The English Parliament has been functioning for six or seven hundred years and I do not think you could have a better pattern than the English system. When we fall away from the rule laid down by the Mother of Parliaments we always get ourselves into trouble. That is the case with the matter now under review. In Ontario there is a provision whereby practically automatic elections for the legislature must take place. I have not seen the Act myself but I am told that there is a provision that when two members give notice to the Speaker, signed by their own hand that a seat is vacant, it is the duty of the Speaker to take cognizance of it and cause the writ to issue forthwith. I am inclined to think that for the present we ought to be satisfied to permit candidates to present themselves for .more than one seat because there is always a danger that a candidate, no matter how good he may be, may be without honour in his own county, and for that reason we ought to permit him to try his chances in more than one division. So soon as he has a seat, so soon as he is elected in one constituency his duty is to see that some body else is provided with the seat which he himself cannot use.


Samuel Francis Glass: If the principle which the hon. gentleman enunciated be right as regards running for two constituencies, why would it not be as right for a candidate to run for fifty constituencies?


Samuel William Jacobs: The principle is the same and when' he obtains one seat he gives the other forty-nine to other people who can use them. I am rather inclined to think that the attack made upon my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe by some of the members of the House is due to the fact that they cannot pronounce the word " Maisonneuve" as it should be pronounced, and they think that if he elects to sit for Gaspe it will make it more convenient all round.
With regard to the last clause of my Bill which has been subjected to a good deal of criticism, when the Bill goes before the Privileges and Elections Committee I will be prepared to amend it in a way which will suit the committee or I may ask that it be struck out altogether. As I said in introducing the Bill, I am not wedded to that particular section. I do not think it
34i
is as important as the other provisions of the Bill. I think it would be preferable that the voter should go to the poll untrammelled and unencumbered by the aid of his boss or employer. It sometimes makes for independence in the matter of voting, but perhaps we have not yet arrived at the stage in our development when a consideration of that kind weighs with members of the House. At any rate, the matter can be discussed and dealt with when it goes before the Privileges and Elections Committee. I feel that when it comes back to the House from that committee we will have something substantive upon which we can act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the Bill was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, before making the motion to adjourn the House, I would ask leave to premise it by another motion. There was among the members of this House, I think, a very general feeling that the House had taken no action to express the sentiment which it entertained in regard to the loss we have sustained by the death of our colleague and confrere, the late Hon. Frank Cochrane.
It is a matter of regret, I am sure, to all of us that, the funeral not taking place in this city, it is not possible for us to attend that ceremony and pay that last tribute of respect to our departed friend. But it has been suggested to me that as that is impossible, it would be a fitting thing that this House .suspend its sitting at 'the hour at which the funeral is to take place to-morrow in Toronto. Recognizing the sentiment that underlie.' the desire for that action, a sentiment which I am sure is shared by us all, I beg now to move that when this House adjourns this evening it stand adjourned until four o'clock to-morrow afternoon. In this way we shall refrain from carrying on the business of the House for the period of time during which the funeral ceremony will take place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 24, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Four o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Major-General MEWBURN: I beg to lay on the table of the House return to an Order of the House passed last session in connection with a motion similar to a motion ,of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) standing on the Order Paper to-day.

George Green Foster: With the consent of the House, I should like to move that we proceed now to Government Orders. There are two - Bills standing there for third reading, and as the Senate is in session and, I think, has not very much work to do, this would facilitate passing up to the other House the two measures for their discussion and approval there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House proceeded to Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of .Tus-tice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 3 for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other powers.
He said: I ask leave to make, a statement in connection with this Bill. I feel that I ought to do so because I want to acknowledge that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) yesterday was right and I was mistaken in the interpretation I put upon the provision of the Bill with regard to the appointments that would be made under it. Upon reflection I quite realize that an appointment of the kind the hon. member mentioned, that is, the appointment of a representative to a conference of the League of Nations, if occasion arose for that,-would be an appointment that would be provided for by this Bill. If I understood rightly, we agreed it was proper that should be so, but at the moment my mind was too closely centred on what I 'might call the domestic feature of the matter, and I fell into the error of giving that interpretation. I think it is only fair to the hon. gentleman and in order to avoid any misunderstanding in the future, that I should make that statement.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. L. Sifton (Minister of Public Works), Bill No. 11, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, was read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House returned to the order " Motions."

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received a . notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the Electoral District of Timiskaming, by the decease of the Honourable Francis Cochrane, the sitting member.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make cut a new Writ of Election for the said Electoral District.



THE PEACE TREATY.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On the 10th
September, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) asked for the production of correspondence with the Government of the United Kingdom concerning the attendance of representatives of Canada at the conference and concerning the proceedings for the approval of the Peace Treaty. A telegram was received yesterday from the United Kingdom authorities consenting to the publication of the correspondence and I beg in consequence to lay upon the Table a copy of that correspondence. I have had prepared for the leader of the Opposition an additional copy which I . shall be glad to hand to him.



NATURALIZATION ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Naturalization Act, 1919.
Charles Murphy: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This amendment, which is a very minor one, will affect only the province of Ontario. It gives the court of General Sessions of the Peace of Ontario power to entertain applications for naturalization. For the past fifty years that court has been the chief court which has dealt with naturalization matters, but in the Act passed last session we gave the

county court exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. This is to remedy that .and to include in the list of courts of' Ontario which can entertain applications of naturalization the Court of General Sessions of the Peace.	*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Are all persons who were in the employ of the Government on the 1st of April, 1918, entitled to the full amount of the war bonus granted by the Government?
2.	What are the conditions required in respect to those persons who were employed on the Government steamers of the various departments to entitle them to the full amount of their bonus?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	All employees of the Government are
entitled [DOT] to bonus, with the exception of: Married employees receiving $3,000 and over. Single employees receiving $1,800 and over. Employees under 18 years of age, unmarried or not sole support of dependents. Employees not giving their full time to their duties. Employees receiving prevailing rates of pay.	,
2.	Employees engaged on Government steamships, if not receiving prevailing rates, are entitled to bonus, providing they do not belong to the Royal Canadian Naval Service, or enlisted men on military service.
The above has reference to the Cost of Living Bonus payable from April 1, 1919 to March 31, 1920.
. ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL DREDGES.
*	Mr. CARDIN:
In dredging the channel of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec, how many diredges were in service during the seasons of navigation in 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918?
Major-General MEWBURN:	1911, 11
dredges; 1912, 12 dredges; 1913, 13 dredges; 1914, 15 dredges; 1915, 15 dredges; 1916, 15 dredges; 1917, 11 dredges; 1918, 5 dredges.


SOREL SHIPBUILDING YARDS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. CARDIN:
How many persons were employed in the Government shipbuilding yards at St. Joseph de Sorel, during the month of August, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1919?
Major-General	MEWBURN:	During
August, 1911, 798 persons; during August, 1912, 601 persons; during August, 1913, 724 persons; during August, 1919, 355 persons.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish):: 1.	How many fines have been collected in Nova Scotia during the year 1918 for infractions of regulations relating to the lobster fisheries ?
2.	What was the gross amount collected?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No fines
were collected although considerable, lobster gear was seized for being illegally used, the owners or operators of which were unknown.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion (Sir Sam Hughes):
For a copy of (a) Circular, supposed of German inspiration, containing ten suggestions, surreptitiously distributed among the Canadian troops about the time of the battle of St. Julien, deprecating, the Canadian rifie. (b) Reports by Colonel Primsmall, a British officer, showing comparative and competitive tests between the Canadian rifle and the British (improved) Lee-Enfield rifle, both using the defective ammunition and also good ammunition, (c) Any other reports or authentic data comparing the two rifles in regard to rapidity of fire, accuracy of fire, endurance, jamming, etc. (d) Reports showing various brands of ammunition supplied by the British to their own troops and to the Canadians, also marking which were defective, irregular in size and with cases too highly annealed or were otherwise unsafe or unfit for use. (e) Reports of evidence giving i**stances where splendid troops of the British Service armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle suffered disaster through jamming of the Lee-Enfield rifle owing to bad ammunition, (f) Reports showing that ammunition of every nation, both in the allied and enemy service, at times caused jamming through defects or dirt, (g) Reports of the withdrawal from service by order of the British authority of the defective brands of ammunition. (h) Evidence as to the finding among the Canadian troops armed with the Canadian rifle of thousands of the defective ammunition mixed with the good ammunition long after the order to withdraw the defective ammunition, and the absence of any defective ammunition in the Canadian battalions armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle. (i) Report by Colonel Embury, now Brigadier-General Embury, and officers of the 28th Canadian Battalion, of the finding of brands of the defective ammunition mixed with the good ammunition the morning that splendid battalion distinguished itself when a mine was blown up under them. (j) The reasons assigned by the, then, Minister of Militia on finding that many of the Canadian soldiers were honestly and innocently prejudiced against the Canadian rifle owing to enemy reports whispered against it, and his determination not to ask any man, under such circumstances to carry a rifle in which he had not the fullest confidence. (k) Evidence showing the unauthorized action of certain parties in England in hardening parts of the bolt action of the Canadian rifle to extreme brittleness, thus
[Stage Direction]
ruining the rifle after these rifles had left Canada in perfect condition.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence):	I have today laid
on the Table a return to an order of the House made in connection with a similar motion last session, and it gives all the information requested by this motion so far as it is.available to the Department of Militia and Defence.
Samuel Hughes: I should like the
motion to stand until I have had an opportunity of looking over the return.
Motion stands.


HOUSING ACCOMMODATION AND FUEL SUPPLIED TO THE CANADIAN TROOPS.
Samuel Hughes: For a return showing: (a) The quantities of coal and other fuel per man per day supplied to the Canadian soldiers during December, January and February, 1918-19.	(b) The character
of the housing of the soldiers in each case, i.e., was it in wooden huts or in tents? Were there floors in these places? Were the cracks in the floors covered? Had the men cots, or were they obliged to lie on the floor? How many blankets were supplied per man? (e) What was the nature of the stove or heating apparatus furnished? (d) What were the sewage and sanitary plans and conditions in these camps? (e) How were complaints on the part of the officers and men treated or disposed of?
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): This motion appeared on the Order Paper last session. It refers to the quantities of coal and other fuel per man per day supplied to the Canadian soldiers during December, January, and February, 1918-19. I would ask the hon. member to make it clear whether this has reference to Canada or Overseas.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the meantime the
motion stands.
Motion stands.


ALLEGED MANIPULATION OF SOLDIER VOTES.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Therefore, for the purposes of my argument and for the full presentation of this matter, I shall take it for granted that the telegram is authentic, that it -was sent, and that there is no denial of it.
Now the whole question is as-to the proper interpretation to be placed upon it, and the meaning that is to be assigned to its contents. If it is true that the message was sent, then inevitably we desire to know why it was sent and what was the purpose of it. If it was a proper legitimate transaction why were we treated to a secret code? If it was lawful for the Minister of the Interior, under the Act, to say to the Prime Minister: "You will gather up a thousand soldier votes in England or France and assign them to different constituencies in my province of Manitoba;"-if that was perfectly legitimate and there was nothing to conceal about it, one naturally would suppose that the telegram could be sent in plain English; since there was no mystery connected with it. But it is suggested to one's mind that when the message is clothed in these unusual and mysterious terms there is really something about it which the Minister of Interior is anxious that ordinary men shall know nothing about, and that he wants it to be understood only by the Prime Minister and those who would be concerned in carrying out the instructions contained in it. Now, it is true Sir that when the Military Voters' Act was going through the House in 1917 it was very strenuously pointed out by members on this side and members who are to-day sitting on the Government side of the House, that the measure was intended for this very purpose, that it was a piece of machinery that was created for no other purpose than this, and that for that reason therefore it should not be countenanced by Parliament. We were informed then that the intention was perfectly legitimate and that everything was to be entirely open and above board. Now, however, we find that the prophecies which were made when the Act was before the House have been fulfilled and that the fears of the Opposition have unfortunately been realized. If it is lawful under the Act for the Government to have absolute control of non-resident soldiers' votes, then, under such an interpretation of the statute, I should say that the Government is responsible for a piece of election machinery which is in utter defiance of the Constitution and the rights of the Canadian people. If ti e ministers of the Crown take the ground that the contents of this telegram, and the conduct to be followed in consequence of the instructions conveyed by the message, are 
both justifiable, I say that the Government is responsible for insidious legislation. Secondly, I make the statement that if on the contrary the law is not open to that construction-and I certainly believe it is not -then the conduct of the' Government in tampering with the soldier's votes is not only censurable, but constitutes a political crime against the freedom and the constitutional rights of the people of Canada. It is in that light, Sir, and in the belief that the telegram is not open to the construction which the minister will no doubt put upon it that I wish to devote some attention to this motion. This is perhaps an unfortunate occasion on which to introduce this subject; but gentlemen on this side of the House have no selection of their days. They have to be content with the days as they come to them and according as the rules of the House afford them opportunity. It is different with the Government. They can put their motions and Bills just where it suits their convenience. It is suggested to me that I should not take very much time this afternoon in discussing this subject in view of the fact that the House, under the rule, adjourns at six o'clock. Well, Mr. Speaker,
I have no desire to encroach upon the time of the House beyond doing what is absolutely necessary for the proper presentation in my case.
But I do say, Sir, that it is open to the Government to bring this up again at any time-to bring it up to-morrow if they like -if my taking more than half the time between my commencement and six o'clock should be regarded by them as unfair. If ever I won any success in politics, or at the bar, or anywhere else, it was never by taking an undue advantage of an opponent.
I have no skill in that line and I have no intention of attempting to take an advantage of any person by reason of any time that I may take in trying to discuss this matter this afternoon. If I should be regarded as trespassing upon the time which my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) may think should belong to him, I shall be very sorry. All I can say is that I will get along just, as quickly as possible.
What is the law 'that we are dealing with? What is the law under which the" minister justifies this telegram? I am not saying that he is going to justify the telegram. I am not saying that he is going to admit that he sent it at all. I do not know what his answer may be. This is not like a case in court where the pleadings are filed and you know to a great extent what the answer of the other side is. It is the privilege and right of hon. members themselves, as re-

ceivers and senders of this message, to bold their tongues entirely, to speak or not to speak at all, but up to the time that they will speak we have no means of knowing what the answer may be. But taking it fox, granted that they are going to justify this telegram, I wish to point out what the section of the Act is under which they were acting.
I think it will not be disputed or controverted when I say that the right to the franchise, and the use of the franchise by any individual, is one of tire most sacred and dearly prized possessions of a British subject and that any interference with that right is an offence of the gravest character.
I must say further, Sir, that as I understand the exercise of the franchise by any individual, it is a judicial act. Lawyers will have no difficulty in knowing what is meant by an executive act as distinguished, from a judicial act. The magistrate signs a summons ; that is an executive act. The man who is sued appears before him and he gives judgment against him; that is a judicial act. So, there is a difference between an executive act and a judicial act. I submit, Sir, that the man who goes to the polling booth and marks his ballot is not performing a mechanical, executive act, but lie is performing a judicial act. He is exercising his judgment as to the way in Which he shall vole and he is exercising his judgment upon the Government for or against which he is voting He is passing judgment on the concerns of the country in which he is entitled to exercise the ! rights1 of citizenship. Therefore I submit that when that man is going to exercise the right of voting he must do so by the proper exercise of his own judgment, that it should not be in the power of any other party to say to that man, or woman: " This way you shall vote," or: " This way you shall not vote, and you have nothing to say about it beyond the mere mechanical act of marking your ballot." The section to which I wish * to refer is section 3 of chapter 34 of the Act of 1917, which is called " The Military Voters' Act" Section 3 reads as follows:
(1) Every military elector shall he qualified and entitled to vote at a general election.
1 If he can state the electoral district wherein he last continuously resided during at least four months of the twelve months immediately preceding his appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service, or so particularly specify a place or places within an electoral district whereat during such period of time he so resided that such electoral district can therefrom be ascertained, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or to be ascertained, and his vote shall be applied thereto.
(3)	If he cannot state or so specify an electoral district or place wherein he has so resided for the time and within the period mentioned in subsection two but can state an electoral district or so specify a place within Canada wherein he has at any other time resided, he shall be deemed an elector of the electoral district so stated or made ascertainable and his vote shall be applied thereto.	,
(4)	If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
This last subsection. 4 is the one that is right in point in connection with the matter that we are discussing. A person who had never lived in Canada, but who was made an elector under this section, although he could not name any spol in Canada which he knew, was permitted to designate some part of Canada where he wanted to deposit his ballot, which place he might indicate.
I will read that subsection again:
If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
It is rather a hard proposition that men who know nothing about this country, who have never seen this country, who have never lived in it, who, in so far as we know, are absolutely ignorant of our institutions, who know nothing about the right to the exercise of the franchise, or what it is exercised for, should step in and interfere with our affairs. But if those men have such knowledge of this country as will enable them to exercise that rignt intelligently, it is not so very bad after all. But if a group of people of that kind, running up into the thousands, who have never lived in this country, who know nothing about our institutions, are put in the hands of the Government, or in the hands of anybody else-I do not care whether it is in the hands of the Government or in the hands of one party or another-and they have power to place them, just like so many sheep in any yard in which they wish to drive them, I submit, Sir, that it is a most extraordinary thing and a condition that no civilized people should tolerate for one minute.
Yet that was the condition that existed and it was under a condition of that kind and in regard to men of that class than uiis telegram was sent.
Will you suppose, or will any intelligent man in this House suppose, that this was the first intimation the Prime Minister had that this telegram was coming? Will anybody suppose that a man of the intelligence of the Prime Minister of this country could

be approached, even by one of his colleagues, and told to do a thing of this kind unless it was pre-arranged and understood that this thing was on and that it could be done? I submit, .therefore, that I am justified in stating in this motion that there was a pre-arranged and preconceived scheme by which this thing was to be done. Otherwise the telegram would not be put in the bare, bold, blunt manner in which it was put, except of course that it was in code.
Before I forget it, I wish to say that it was hinted in the interview of the Minister of' the Interior that this telegram was stolen. Let me assure you, Sir, that as far as I am concerned, or as far as anybody getting this information from me is concerned, the telegram was not stolen but was passed out of the inner court of my hon. friend's party in the city of Winnipeg and placed in the hands of those who brought it here; and if it is necessary, the finger-marks of those who were handling it, and every evidence of originality in connection with the whole business, can be produced and privately shown to my hon. friend at any time that he wants to see it. So that as far as I am concerned


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman show it now?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have not got it now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Great comfort.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some hon. gentlemen seem to laugh at that idea. Do they think, Sir, that it would be a proper thing for me to carry around on my person evidence of that kind ?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nothing of the kind. If my hon. friend wants to see it, if hon. gentlemen opposite want to see the whole truth let them constitute a proper court-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: and ask for its production. It will be produced, Sir; the man who sent the telegram, and the man who delivered the code and the interpretation into our possession, will be produced, and then we will be able to tell where this thing came from. It would be a pity indeed that I would be going around peddling this thing from house to house. Nothing of the kind -it is in proper custody and will be produced at the proper place.

Now, Sir, I have already argued that in my judgment such a condition of things should not- exist and I now wish to point out that the grouping of men or voters into any counties to which they do not belong is a violation of the rights of the people of this country. Why is this country divided into ridings, counties, and subdivisions? Why would not the people of the whole of Canada vote for a certain group of men at large and send members at large to the House oi Commons if there was no purpose in creating subdivisions and counties? The idea was that a certain group of men in certain places would have, the privilege of being represented in this House, and for that purpose the Constitution provides, as set forth in section 51 of the British North America Act, as follows:
On the completion of the census in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent decennial census, representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada, from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
1.	Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members;
2.	There shall be assigned to each of the other provinces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number of sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained) :
3.	In the computation of the number of members for a province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number.
There is another subsection dealing with this matter, but I have quoted this section in order to show that the Constitution provides for the subdividing of the country or for giving a representative-or a vote in this House to a set number of people. The unit of representation at the last re-adjustment (was 30,819. That is every group of 30,819 individuals in Canada are entitled to a representative in this House; in other words that for every five thousand, or thereabouts of voters, there will be a representative. I think it is a fair statement to make that before women were given the right to vote and when this Act was made there would be only one in every -six of the population who had a vote. Therefore, when the British North America Act. was enacted, every five thousand electors were supposed to have a voice in this House through a member of Parliament. Are you going to destroy that unit by giving the electoral qualification to men all over the world who have

no interest in Canada at all? If so, when a group of men in any constituency in the Dominion wash to express their views by sending a man of their own choice to Parliament, you can always defeat that idea by gathering some of your cohorts from different parts of the country and throwing them into that constituency, and so defeating the will and wish of the people. That, Sir, is evidently the purpose of the Military Voters' Act, and that is the purpose of this telegram-at least- that is the effect of the telegram if I am to believe its contents and the instructions that were given under it. In this way the will and wish of the people and their constitutional rights can be defeated.
I am how going to quote some observations made in this House some years ago by a very distinguished Conservative, a gentleman who was for many years a member of Parliament, I refer to Sir Edmund Osier. That gentleman, who is well known and much respected in the Dominion and in this House, speaking here in 1900-and his words will be found at page 5508 and 5511 of the Hansard of that session, said:
I claim that if there has been fraud to the extent of only one ballot, that affected the whole election no matter even if the gentleman elected had 400 ballots of a majority in his favour. I say that the man who sits here representing that constituency is sitting here fraudulently	There is a greater dishonesty than stealing money from the treasury of the country-the dishonesty of stealing the franchise from the people. This country can stand the stealing of millions of money, humiliating and degrading -as that may be; but this country cannot stand the slighest attempt on the part of the Government or of any man to shield electoral corruption.
That is the view that was held by a leading Conservative, a view which no doubt he holds to-day; and when he expressed that view in the House, sitting then in Opposition as he was, I am sure it received the acclamation of the hon. gentlemen who sat around him on the Opposition side, which was then the Conservative Opposition.
Sir Edmund Osier is no longer a member of the House, but this principle which he enunciated is just as true now as it was then, and if there is any attempt to interfere with the law so as to thwart the will of the people the atmosphere should be made so hot that no Oovernment and no man attempting such a thing could live for one day in our democratic country.


Michael Clark: Might I ask my hon. friend if he gave the date of that quotation?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have only the year, Mr. Speaker. The quotation is from page
5509 of Hansard for 1900. Speaking at the same time I assume, for it is the same year, at page 5186 I find the Right Hon. the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier is reported to have said:
But such is the sanctity of the ballot, such is the sanctity of the rights of the -people which they must exercise, whenever they are called upon at the polls, that though, in my opinion, speaking here in behalf of the Government, the case made out in regard to Brockville is more than weak, still the government will not offer any objection to the case also being referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
That was the view taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time, and it is the view that every honest man and high-minded statesman would take. I was not in the House of Commons then, and do not know what was done, but there are hon. gentlemen here who may remember what followed as a result of that debate. It is clear, however, from the statement of the then Prime Minister that although he regarded the case as weak he would not allow anything to be shielded ; on the contrary, everything would have to be presented in open court before the tribunal which would deal with it. That is what we are asking for to-day. I am not saying that anybody is guilty, I am only saying that there is a prima facie case here, and it looks as if there was " something rotten in the state of Denmark."
Now, Sir, I may be asked: What evidence have you got-? Well, I have here a statement- made by a presiding officer who held office under this Government in England at the time and took the vote, and in that statement he says-I am not going to give his name-But if a court is constituted to investigate this matter he will appear before it and tell everything he knows. It- appears to me that if he will stand by his statement he will make out a case to the hilt.
This man says that he voted seven hundred voters in one day-seven hundred men passed through his hands in one day and deposited their ballots in the ballot box. I have rehearsed the preliminaries that must be gone through by an officer of swearing the voter, asking him five or six questions, writing out a certificate, giving him the ballot, receiving it back and putting it in the box. I submit, Sir, that the most- expert man could not do all those things in less than five minutes, and if an officer under the circumstances voted- a man every five minutes he would be doing well. If this man in one day voted seven hundred voters he worked a full day of fifty-nine hours and some minutes.


John Allister Currie: The men filled those papers out themselves, and all the presiding officer had to do was to swear them as they passed by him. He did not have to fill out the papers; the soldiers could all write for themselves.
Mr. MeKENZIE: I can only tell my hon. friend what the law is. This is the law, and I have to take it in preference to any statement made by any hon. gentleman, no matter what his information may be.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are safer.
Mr. MeKENZIE: This is what the law provides:
A sufficient even number of Special Returning Officers, and the same number of clerks, of whom one clerk shall he assigned to each Special Returning Officer to assist him in the performance of his duties. Such officers and clerks shall perform, at the places to which they respectively may be assigned upon appointment, the duties of counting, recording and returning the votes polled under this Part	
The ballot-fpaper shall be marked in the presence of the Deputy Presiding Officer and deputy scrutineers present, or military electors acting in their stead, but in such manner as not to disclose to them or to any other person any marking thereon. The voter shall fold the ballot, ice it in the envelope, securely close the same and hand it to the Deputy Presiding Officer, who shall then and there, in the presence of the voter and deputy scrutineers present, or military electors acting in their stead, place it in the ballot-box.
But before that is done:
The voter shall answer under oath, before the Deputy Presiding Officer, the questions set forth in the certificate which is form B in the Schedule. Such certificate shall be endorsed on the envelopes referred to in section five of this part.
These are the questions which must be answered before the deputy presiding officer. First of all, the man is sworn. We know the procedure. The man presents himself at the table to vote, and he is put upon his oath. The presiding officer then produces this certificate and asks him:
1.	What is your name?
2.	What is your rank?	What is your
number?
In what force or service are you?
4.	Are you a British subject?	Have
you previously voted at this election?
5.	Were you in Canada when you were appointed. enlisted, enrolled or called out in active service?
6.	Specify the names of the place or places in Canada (giving streets and numbers where possible) whereat you last continuously resided during at least four months of the twelve months immediately preceding your appointment, enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service?
7.	State if you can the electoral district wherein such place or places in which you so resided are situate?
Electoral district		. ~	
Province	

8.	If you cannot specify as required by question No. 6, or state as required by question No. 7, then state in what electoral district or place within Canada (giving street and number where possible) you have resided at any other time than is referred to in question No. 6.
9.	If none of your answers to questions Nos. 6, 7, and 8, specify or state as required thereby, to what electoral district do you desire your vote to be applied?
Then the certificate is certified by the returning officer:
I certify that the above named military elector did this day make to me under oath the preceding set forth answers to the preceding set forth questions.
After this procedure is gone through the man votes. That those things could he done in advance or varied in any way, except as the law provides, shows of course that the law was not being carried out. I submit, Sir, if this officer, who is now in the Government service in this city, is making a proper statement, that in voting seven hundred men in one day he did that which was absolutely physically impossible if the law was complied with, and it shows that what we have been told is absolutely right, that the legal procedure was not followed, and that the votes were put in sheaves and packages and divided up just as it suited the exigencies of the case. This officer was told what was alleged, and he said:
"It's all true." .... "I know all about it." "I filled out all the envelopes for the ballots, the men simply swore to the statements on the envelopes being correct. I voted 700 in one day. . . . Mostly the men did not know where they were voting." .... "I had my instructions, we all had our instructions from
headquarters."	 "What we should
do was laid out fully by the orders of the Returning Officer. It was all cooked and dried that the Liberals should not get one soldier's vote. That was our instructions." " I can tell you a thousand things you don't know." "We got instructions every day from Ottawa as to where the votes were to be placed, and I have all the documents to prove what I am saying." .... "I knew the men were making false affidavits, but they were doing what their superior officers had instructed them to do." ...	" All that we did was upon
the best legal advice in the Dominion." .... "We held a good many organization meetings (at which all the regiments were represented) about where the votes were to be fraudulently placed, and all the Deputy Presiding Officers and poll clerks were specially schooled as to how the vote was to be taken and how it was to be allotted from each battalion to the Government candidates in the different constituencies, lists of which were given to us at the organization meetings." "Our Padre had been appointed Deputy Presiding Officer, but he would not stand for work which we had arranged, so I was put in his place." .... "I saw it all through, and I would like to know the name of a Deputy Presiding Officer who

did not do just as I did." "Of course, it was fraud, but we only carried out instructions."
. . . . "Yes, I have lots of documents to prove all I am saying. I keep them as souvenirs. I will produce them if there is a Parliamentary inquiry.'1 .... "The War Times Election Act was framed so as to allow the soldiers' votes to be manipulated in this way." .... "If I am called by a committee, I will tell the whole truth."


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the name?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That, Sir, is a statement made by a presiding officer who lives in this city, who is in the employ of this Government, who is at their bidding at any time that they may call upon him to give testimony as regards the manner in which the votes were manipulated on the other side of the water in connection with this election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If that be true, if that be the way in which this thing was done, if those men were not given any permit to exercise their 'God-given right of using their own brains and head and judgment as to how they should vote, surely this is not a matter that is going to be tolerated by the people of Canada and by hon. members in this House. We are asking only that this question should be fully and properly investigated and the truth made clear to the people of Canada. I do not know that it is necessary that I should make any comments now upon the views that were expressed in Parliament when this Military Voters' Act was passed. But I think I should point out some observations made by some hon. gentlemen who still have seats here and who would seem even then to have had some knowledge of what was going to be done. I find that the hon. member for Westmorland, N.B., said:
Mr. Copp: I would give every British subject the freedom that any citizen of this country is entitled to.
Mr. Morphy: Except the right to vote.
Mr. Copp:	My hon. friend is wrong there.
Take the case suggested by the hon. member for St. John, of a British subject who has enlisted in our forces after residing in the United States for a number of years. Now, although that man knows nothing about Canadian politics, he * is to be given the right to vote. Then subsection 3 of section 3 says: If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall he deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate. He may not know a single candidate or a single electoral district in all Canada; so how can he intelligently indicate what district his vote shall be applied to?
Mr. Morphy: It will be done for him.
He will not be called upon to exercise any judgment; he will not be called upon to. know anything; he will be only a mere pawn 'on the chess board, and he will be told what to do.
Mr. Copp: By whom?
Mr. Morphy:	Don't ask me.
Don't ask me, says the good member for Perth, North. He would not disclose any secrets; he would not give away any of the machinery; but this slipped out of him, as much as to say to the hon. member for Westmorland: Do not worry; this thing is all arranged. As this officer said: "It was all cooked and dried," and the Government could not very well afford to keep my good friend from Perth altogether on the outside of this thing. He was too important a man. He knew what it was, but he would not tell. He said: Do not ask me,
I know all about it, but I will not tell. That goes to show that this was not a new scheme; that it had been well known for a long time. The hon. member for St. John at that time, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley, is a gentleman whose word must be received with a great deal of acceptance and weight by this Government, because they thought he wag good enough and deserving enough to be made a representative of the King in the province of New Brunswick. This Government, with all the wisdom and experience they had in a general way and the express and definite knowledge they had of this hon. gentleman who is now Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, thought he was the only man who should be given that appointment. Therefore, what the Hon. Mr. Pugsley said on that occasion must not and cannot be sneered at by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. He said:
Mr. Pugsiey:	If the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) is not going to resume his remarks, I would say that, in my judgment, the Minister of Justice ought to withdraw this provision to which exception has been taken. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) made the statement before recess that he would not suggest that the minister had any ulterior motives, but I am prepared to say that if the minister, after his attention has been called to the injustice which may be done by continuing this provision in the Bill, insists upon its being continued there, he must not object if we suspect him of having ulterior motives and of having designed this Bill in order that unfair practice may be exercised and unfair advantage obtained in an election.
Further on he says:
What can be done under this provision? A Canadian soldier who has gone to the front is limited in his choice of a constituency to that particular constituency in which he has resided. He has one vote and one choice. The American

soldier, the man who is not a resident of Canada, who may happen to be a British subject, no matter in what country he may have resided, who has joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, not necessarily enlisting in Canada, possibly enlisting in the United States, or in England, possibly enlisting on this side, because if he enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, his expenses across the ocean would be paid and he would receive a higher rate of pay than if he went to England and enlisted in the Imperial Forces, is to have the choice of 230 odd constituencies in Canada in the casting of his vote. That is grossly unfair. It gives opportunity for fraud of the worst kind. It gives opportunity for men who may not have been residents of Canada to join together, to make up their minds perhaps under proper guidance, as to the constituencies in which their votes shall be cast, in which the contest will be close, in which the majority will be a narrow one, and thus, they may possibly control many constituencies in Canada in favour of the Government of the day. The Government, under this Bill, appoints its own presiding officers; with the choice of those presiding officers the leader of the Opposition has nothing to do. That, in my judgment, is wrong. It is contrary to fair and proper administration, and it would not be too much to say that, if the minister persists in continuing this provision in this measure, it is designedly intended to offer an opportunity to steal the election from the people of Canada.
That was the expressed opinion of Dr. Pugsley at that time. We are not obliged, however, to rest entirely on the opinion of such a man as Dr. Pugsley, high as that authority may be. When this Bill was going through, fortunately we had sitting on this side of the House the present senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) now a member of this Government. Hon. gentlemen sitting to your right, Mr. (Speaker, cannot sneer to-day at any statements made by that hon. member, because they regard him as one of their big men, and as a man who would always express, his opinion as the truth came to him. What did he say about this Bill, about the machinery that it was creating, and about its possible effects? He said:
The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) stated that this Bill does not involve the question of what Government should be in control of public affairs; nor is it important to consider which party is in power in this country. In that statement I am sure we can all agree with him. For the life of me I cannot see how it is possible for the membership of the House of Commons to divide on party lines upon a question of this kind. I regretted hearing one or two hon. gentlemen opposite rather insinuating that, because one does not agree with the principle of this Bill, therefore, he is discriminating against the Canadian soldier. That is an unfair suggestion to make, and, as far as I am concerned, I resent it altogether. Personally, I would not care if every soldier enlisted in the Canadian force was given the vote. It would matter little to me personally; personally it would matter little to any member of the House, but we are dealing with a piece of sub-
TMr McKenzie.]
stantive legislation "which has to do with the franchise. The franchise has alwoys been in all countries a question of citizenship. We ^should settle this Bill upon some principle. "There - is no desire on the part of any hon. merriber on this side of the House to do an injustice to anybody who is fighting in the Canadian forces to-day. It is rather unpleasant to make any suggestion in the way of an amendment to the Bill which gives anybody an opportunity of making any insinuation. I do so simply because I believe the principle involved in the particular section which we are discussing is unsound. The member for Annapolis justifies his position by reference to the Franchise Act of Nova Scotia wherein it is provided that ownership of real estate carries the right to the franchise on the part of any British subject. That will only carry the hon. gentleman a certain distance because in most of the provinces of Canada residence in addition to ownership of real estate is necessary to qualification to vote. So, my hon. friend does not get very far with the argument, because the majority of the provinces require residence as well as real estate property qualifications. I doubt very much if England would follow our example, if they were enacting legislation of this character. Take the aviation service ; I am told that in the Royal Naval Air Service sixty-five per cent of the men are Canadian born. It is quite proper that "we should provide a method by which they could exercise the franchise at the first election, but I doubt if the British Parliament would give them the franchise simply because they constitute a large portion of that force.
Now I coma to the part of his speech that I wish to emphasize:
I think the suggestion in the Bill is fundamentally wrong, and it is for that Teason I oppose it. It is true, as the Minister of Justice says, that there are only a few men in the whole Canadian force who will be affected by the Bill, and by that reasoning possibly we might forego our objection, as little harm would come if they were allowed to vote. But there is a principle involved.
A little further on he says:
I want to protest against this legislation. 1 say it is in principle abominable, as were the motives which prompted its introduction. The whole thing is outrageous and unnecessary, and, besides, it is a cruel exercise of the powers of
the majority of this Parliament	
We shall a-ppeal to the people-
Here is where the good Liberalism of my quondam friend came to the fore.
We. shall appeal to the people of my province against this iniquitous legislation. I feel sure that they will not approve the miserable partisan course pursued by some members of the House in seeking at this stage to introduce an amendment into what is already a very cumbersome piece of legislation, the War-Time Election Act-an action taken purely for base political and partisan purposes. We will take our appeal, Mr. Speaker, from this House to Philippi, and we will meet hon. gentlemen there on this issue.	_
The only trouble is that my good friend worked Philippi off the map before the election. Those are the views of two of the

most reliable hon. gentlemen that we had on this side of the House at that date. One of them was taken into the bosom of the Government and given the highest position they could offer him. He was made Lieutenant Governor, and I presume that if the Government had had the power they would have made him Governor General. Not having that power they did the next best thing. They held him up to the good citizens of New Brunswick saying " Here is a man that the good populace of New Brunswick will delight to honour; we have made him Governor."
Although he received his gift at their hands, that was his opinion of their actions; and having accepted him as a man of such high standing they cannot very well now ignore the truth of his statement. On the other hand, we have the views of our good friend the member for Halifax, who is now a member of the Government. These are his statements and his views then, and they are his views to-day if he would care to express them and to find out where Phillippi is.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other observations which I feel should be made but time does not permit me * to express thgm. My case, however, is. that such a power as appears to have been exercised by the Government in this connection was improper. I contend that it is a violation of every principle of civil government in this country and should not have been exercised. It is absurd to pretend that we enjoy responsible government when the Government of the day assume the right to dictate to free men just how they shall vote and where, and how many votes shall be taken here or there, altogether regardless of qualifications or legal procedure. This, I say, is a mockery and is absolutely subversive of all the traditions of responsible government. I think, Sir, that both you and the country as well as every hon. member in this House will fully realize that I am justified in bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament, and if this Act- allows a condition of this kind to exist, then it should be absolutely abolished. Are we to be told that an independent parliament such as this will have on the statute books an Act that places in the hands of the Prime Minister and two or three of his followers, or even one of them, the power to instruct their own officials as to how they shall act under circumstances of this kind, when there are certain constitutional and regular methods to be followed? Is a minister to direct the officials of the Government in this manner-their own commanders and officers and every one under their thumb and control, officers who were preaching to these men only the Sunday before the election in such terms as these: ''Gentlemen, we do not want 99 per cent of your votes; we want 100 per cent"? That was the exhortation of generals, colonels and others from the top to the bottom, and for the poor man who might attempt to exercise his own right, there was a place to which he would be consigned, and of which fact he was well aware. Such a condition should not exist in any country, far less should it prevail in the free air of Canada. I am not taking the case for granted. I am putting the matter as it stands. This telegram has but one meaning, which is that there was an arrangement by which any minister could sehd word to the Prime Minister who would set the machinery in motion to enable men to be elected by the switching of ballots from one place to another.
Now, Sir, I have put my case before the House. I do not know whether the facts are exactly as I present them; I take no responsibility. I give such facts as I have, and I say to the Government and to the members of this House that I am informed on the most reliable authority that abundance of the very best proof can be advanced to show a committee of this House and to show to the country that the soldiers had no voice or word in the casting of votes, and no opportunity of pronouncing their own judgment, but did exactly as the Government directed and as suited the convenience and the designs of the Government in their support of their own friends. My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and it is to the effect that a committee of the House be appointed and such inquiry be made in connection with the . subject matter of this telegram and everything involved in it as the committee may deem advisable, to the end that this matter may be thoroughly investigated and such remedy applied as will prevent the recurrence in the future of such conduct as has been disclosed, which interferes with the rights of the people and puts an unfortunate blotch upon the good name of the country.


Right Hon.   S@: I am not intervening in the substance of the debate, but circumstances over which we have no control limit the time at our disposal this afternoon. Both sides of the House were quite willing that we should honour our respected and beloved colleague and co-mem-

her, and we were therefore late in meeting. It'is only fair that as much time should be given to the reply as has been taken in the presentment of the case, and my suggestion is that, as we do not meet to-night, [DOT] when it comes to six o'clock the Speaker may have the liberty of permitting the time to be exceeded to a reasonable extent to allow my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) to finish his reply.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suggest that it would he better to adjourn now, and resume the subject to-morrow. The discussion by my hon. friend and myself will not have exhausted the subject.


George Green Foster: In that event only part of the case will go before the public.


Arthur Meighen: One of the last remarks of the leader of the Opposition was an expression of regret that unfortunately time did not permit him to give to the House a great deal more information than he had imparted. Well, if there was anything in the world in relation to this motion which he ought to have said, it is a great pity he did not say it, because he occupied an 'hour and a quarter in saying a lot of things that had no relevancy whatever to the motion, chiefly in rehashing a debate of two years >ago on the merits of the Military Voters' Bill. He read a letter from a man whose name he refused to divulge; he read and re-read whatever he could find around him, but he never uttered a sentence to indicate, much less to prove, that there was the slightest semblance of dishonour or impropriety in anything alleged about myself in this motion. The hon. gentleman knows that there was not, and I will tell 'him why. I say he knows. He knows that if he could establish a charge there is a right and proper method by which he could bring that charge before the House. He knows that there is a proper method of levelling an accusation against a minister of the Crown or a member of the House, a method by which he would place his own seat and 'honour in jeopardy, but that method he very cannily refuses to follow.
Prior to the opening of the House to-day I addressed to the hon. member the following letter, which I had delivered to him:
September 24, 1919.
D. D. Mackenzie, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Mackenzie,-You stated on Monday that you purposed going on this afternoon (Wednesday) with your motion regarding myself, I have no objection at all to your going on to-
[S:r George Foster.]
day, or any other day, but as you are aware, the House rises at six, and does not sit in the evening on Wednesday, and should the debate not be concluded at six o'clock, the subject might not be again reached this session. I therefore recost that you arrange your speech so as to divide the time equally between us, as any other course, you will quite realize, would be quite unfair to me.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Arthur Meighen.
In reply, I received an intimation through the Whip that he would not accede to this request. Pie stated that he would require an hour and a half to present his case and that he would not defer the motion unless I would personally request him across the floor of the House to do so. In relation to a motion of this character I would never make a personal request. I am ready to answer such a motion at any time. He has chosen to go on; has taken an hour and a quarter and left me 30 minutes.
I have said to the hon. member that if he believes that there was any conduct on my part that was inconsistent with the highest principles of honour and propriety, he knows the course which is open to him. That course is known to him as w'ell as it is to me, and if he follows it in this debate or ixf-morrow o*r any other time this session; if he makes his charges and alleges dishonour, stating specifically what was improper, he need not ask for an investigation; T will attend to that myself.
Pie comes before us and quotes a telegram which he alleges was sent. He remarked at the close of his speech that he did not know whether the facts that he was presenting were right or not, hut that he was presenting all the facts he had. No doubt he was: But he did not present any facts. He did not even present the telegram. He had not it with him and he has not it with him now. He says that I admitted writing the telegram. I admitted no such thing. I said immediately I heard of the message what I say now-I have no recollection of the telegram whatever. The message might have been sent; it might have been sent by me; it is a message which might have been sent by any honest man. U is not a message of the character *that I will refer to as I proceed with my address for I shal' quote, as I proceed, messages that could only have issued out of malevolence and mendacity.
Whether it was sent or not, I do not know. I do not think it was sent by me for the reason that I would not likely address that message to the Prime Minister. The matters regarding which the wire appears to have been sent, while quite proper, were

matters that necessarily could not have been attended to by the Prime Minister.
But if a man, however vaguely or obliquely alleges wrong-doing, surely the onus is on him to produce the facts; surely it is on him to establish the truth of his allegations ; surely it is on him to produce the proof. The time for a prima facie case is now-now. Where is the prima facie case? Upon what does it rest? Will any hon. gen-tlemarf answer me? There is no telegram; there is no signature. Upon what does it rest? I have no reply from hon. gentlemen opposite. If that telegram were produced and if there is anything wrong with it, it would be a prima facie case if my signature is there. Still more this telegram, were it actually produced to the world, would be no prima facie case at all for the reason there is nothing wrong with it whatever. The hon. gentleman himself has proceeded for most of his speech on the assumption that there was nothing wrong because he said this telegram intimates what was intended by the Act, and what is within the meaning and intent of the Act. If it is within the meaning and intent of the Act how is it wrong? He says that the Act is wrong- I say it is not, but that it is not the question now.
Furthermore, I say this on behalf of the Prime Minister who is not able to be here -although that is a matter of no immediate consequence because, I assure the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister is not bothering his head about the subject at all -the Prime Minister never received the message. He has had made a most careful and thorough search and he says that it never was received. If it ever existed, it may have been sent by some one under the authority of the general committee-I do not know. If it was sent by the organization, then I have no desire to repudiate the message-none whatsoever.
I said in the statement I made shortly after the notice of it was issued in the press, at the time of the Liberal Convention, that I had no recollection of it but that its terms were quite in accordance with propriety and that the only thing in the way of turpitude about it was its theft. The hon. gentleman says to-day that he is not the thief. I never suspected that he was. He says that the message was purloined out of the committee rooms-I understood him to say so-at the time of the contest; in other words that the thief, instead of being a bandit, was a sneak. That is all the difference. There is a thief somewhere close back in the chain of possession
and the hon. gentleman is now his descendant in title.
The hon. gentleman read the law on this subject. He read it twice; why, I do not know. The law states-to paraphrase it, to hurry and not to delay the House-that there was a certain class of soldiers who, in the last contest, had the right to choose the constituencies in which they should vote. They were those who being British subjects had not resided for any four months of the year preceding enrolment in a particular county and who besides had never at any time lived in Canada. If a man had resided for four months or more in any electoral district, there his vote could count and nowhere else. If he could not specify an electoral district wherein he had resided for the time mentioned but could specify a place in a certain constituency in which he had at any time resided, his vote could count in that constituency and nowhere else.
If he was a British subject and had at no time resided in this country, there was no place to which Parliament could with propriety allot his vote and the only way to give him the franchise was to permit him to select his constituency. Will hon. gentlemen suggest any other way of giving that soldier the franchise? Did hon. gentlemen suggest any other way in the session of 1917?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understood the hon. gentleman to ask a question and I desire to reply to it. I have been reading the discussion in Hansard. The suggestion was made that the men should be allowed to vote in the counties in which they had enlisted. There was an objection made to that and that was the suggestion which was made.


Arthur Meighen: The hon,. gentleman
was not in the house at the time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But I can read Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: That suggestion received practically no support at all. It would have flooded with these votes the points of enlistment that had no special claim whatever. By flooding single constituencies the men would have been virtually disfranchised.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There were objections to it.


Arthur Meighen: There were insurmountable objections. There was no method by which Parliament could with propriety allot that vote other than to leave the choice



to that small class of soldiers themselves. I was not the sponsor for the Military Voters' Act in the House. The Act was introduced and carried through the House under the superintendence specially of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), but I do remember something about this section. I remember that it did not finally stand in the form in which it was introduced because, by means of a conference with the other side of the House, an effort was made to reduce the class and confine its members to the narrowest limit possible. The section as it was finally passed was the result of that conference at which representatives of the other side of the House were present. Although afterwards some did object in the House to its terms, they did not seriously propose any other method by which Parliament could accord these men a vote. Parliament was confronted, I say, with the alternative of having them select their constituency or disfranchising them altogether.
Who is there who will stand up and say that British subjects who had sufficient interest in this country to come and join our armies and fight had not some right to say what should be the Government of this country during the war? The leader of the Opposition stands up this afternoon and says that these men had no interest in Canada, that they did not know anything about Canada, and* intimates that they should not have been given the right to vote. He was very anxious in 1917 that the right to vote should be given to a lot of other people in this country. He was most anxious that the right to vote should be given to those who stood at the other end of the thermometer of patriotism, and he insisted on their full right, and what many thought was more than their full right, in that regard.
But I ask this House seriously to consider who had the greater interest in this country, the greater right to a voice in the determination of its government and policy -those on the one hand who had lately come from amongst the enemies of the Empire, those who bore in their hearts and in their blood sympathy for the enemies of Canada, those who could not possibly disavow that enemy sympathy, who could not in nature get rid of it, those who necessarily were not supporting us in our struggle, as were the rest of the population, or, on the other hand, those who were fighting and suffering for us on the fields of battle?

Had there been a method by which those men who had not lived in Canada but were none the less British subjects and fighting in our army, could have been alloted to a constituency fairly or reasonably or with propriety, that would have been better, that would have been far better. But there was no method, and the two alternatives were these: To disfranchise them altogether or to give them a vote in this manner. Their numbef it is very hard to estimate. I have asked the opinion of him who had to do with the election chiefly, of the general returning officer, and the estimate he makes is that there were about from ten to twelve thousand persons, men who enlisted mostly in the United States, who were British subjects and enrolled in the Canadian Army, but who had not resided in Canada and who consequently came within the terms of section 3 of the Military Voters' Act and were known as voters at large.
Now, with that explanation of the law, let us examine the telegram which the hon. gentleman refers to and which he alleges exists. It is dated November 30:
Would like one thousand soldier votes at large-*
The hon. gentleman did not emphasize those words "votes at large"-that is to say, votes of the class of those who voted under section 3, or rather under subclause 9 of section 3 of the Military Voters' Act, for no others can be " voters at large."


Ernest Lapointe: Of course.


Arthur Meighen: Of those: One thousand for the province of Manitoba and the division, the suggested division, follows. Now, why would that telegram be sent? Let us inquire for a moment. The desire of those men who had not resided in Canada, say ten to twelve thousand in number, would be on the day of polling to cast their ballots where they would be most effective.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) especially applauds. I will refer to the effect of that sentence on his election just in a very few moments. They would naturally desire, and legitimately, lawfully, and properly desire, to cast their votes where they would be most effective; and it would be the manifest duty of any party organization, be it opposition or be it government, to be in a position to inform them where those votes could most effectively be cast.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. They did not take much interest in informing the soldier where his vote would be most effective. That would not be of very much concern to them in the last contest, and they very well knew it. But, if it had been another class of the population who voted at large, instead of that class of soldiers; had it been the slacker vote of this country-
Some hon. MEMBERS; Shame.


Arthur Meighen: Had it been


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.	.


Arthur Meighen: Had it been the votes of those who were seeking to evade their duty, then hon. gentlemen opposite would have had more interest in seeing to it that those votes were effective.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Shame.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I understand by the Rules of this House that no hon. member has the right to accuse any other hon. member, or any body of hon. gentlemen, of unworthy motives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I say that the words of the Minister of the Interior impute unworthy motives in connection, with political matters to the whole of His Majesty's loyal Opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I resent that. I claim that it is out of order and I confidently look to the Chair to support me in that contention.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is perfectly true that it is not competent for any hon. member to impute dishonourable motives to any other hon. member or group of hon. members. I regret to say that the first portion of the remarks which were made by the Minister of the Interior were
35i
not heard by myself for reasons which the House will recognize. The second part of the minister's remarks, as I gathered their purport, did not impute motives. As I understand, they were an interpretation of the effect of a certain attitude taken by hon. members. If, as the minister proceeds, any unworthy motives are .attributed to hon. members, I shall be the first to call hiri to order.
Some hon MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I was proceeding to
say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Give them another crack.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite laughed when I asserted that it was right and proper that soldiers, "voters at large within the meaning of the section referred to, should have information as to where-iheir votes should be most effective. Thar: was provided for by the Act and it was strictly withm its terms. That was equally open to both sides; and if the other side 'vffe not as interested in securing that information as we were that is their fault and not ours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Consequently the telegram requests that, as regards those votes at large in so far as an organization can fairly and legitimately secure it . . . and there is not a sentence, there is not an intimation, there is not a reference, however remote, to anything illegit'mate or wrong . . . those are the constituencies, and that the extent, in which those votes could be most effectively cast. What is there about ballot-switching there? What did the hon. gentleman mean when he mentioned ballot-switching? Will he stand up in this House and charge that I had any connection with ballot-switching, however remote, however oblique, however indirect?


An hon. MEMBER:: Speak now.


Arthur Meighen: Consequently, the telegram is quite proper. He says he thought this thing would have been attended ro sooner, and he tells me that a speech was made at the time the telegram was read- that a speech was made at that time which he says was slanderous, and he thought I would have taken action in the courts. Well, I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that I really have never read that speech. The telegram was brought to my attention and I made reference in reply


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Wait a moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Mr.   MASTER@: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members might give me credit that I would not propose any drawing back from the-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. Minister of
the Interior yielded the floor to the hon. member for Brome, and I presume he wishes to make some reference to its being six o'clock. We might grant the hon. member the courtesy of hearing what he has to say.
Mr. MdMASTER:	I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to say that I would ask that this arrangement be made-when the Minister of the Interior finishes his remarks I will ask you, Sir, to allow me to adjourn the debate. I would not like this debate to proceed and have the very able speech of the Minister of the Interior go out without my having an opportunity to reply-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -And Mr. Speaker, I think it should be understood between both sides of the House that an opportunity will be given this session for the resumption of the debate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member
(Mr. Meighen) desire to conclude his speech?


Arthur Meighen: I have just a few remarks to make andi I shall leave the matter with the Chair. It will be seen from the letter I read that responsibility for going on to-day under these circumstances, and for using more than three-fourths of the time, was taken by the leader of the Opposition. I understood from an intimation I received from the Acting Prime Minister that he (Mr. McKenzie) acceded to my going on until I had occupied the same time as he had. If he does not accede' to that, and if he insists on the rules of the House being followed and adjournment take place now at six o'clock, then I do not think I have any right to ask to proceed or to ask for a vote; I think we should be unanimous or not proceed. I therefore must ask my hon. friend to take the responsibility.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I told my hon. friend I was going on to-day, but I sent word to
him by a Whip that if he would move to put this matter off until Monday I would consent. The matter was entirely under his control, and he was under no disadvantage there. All I want now is an understanding that there will be a right to adjourn this debate when my hon. friend is through, and that we shall resume it at such time as the Government may wish to give us the privilege.


Arthur Meighen: * That is not the poinf^-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is now actually six
o'clock and under the rules I would be obliged automatically to adjourn the House. As a matter of courtesy heretofore, it has been the practice to let a member finish his speech. If any objection is taken we must of course adjourn.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I take no objection.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the minister
Should finish his speech and take his own time, if the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) who is leading the House can give us an assurance that at a later stage the Government will see that an opportunity is provided for proper consideration of the matter. I think that would settle the difficulty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the House adjourns
now this debate automatically comes on as the first order of business to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: On the understanding
that there is no objection, I will proceed.
I was outlining the general scheme of the Military Voters' Act. I said that Mr. Foley, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, remained in possession of his powers and office and exercised them, which exercise involved the decision of all questions of law in relation to the taking of the vote, and that a general supervising power over presiding officers was given to the general returning officer appointed by the Governor in Council. That returning officer was Mr. W. F. O'Connor, who was appointed on the recommendation of myself as Secretary of State at that time. The Act also provided for a number of special returning officers and clerks, and that one half of those, namely one for each poll, should be appointed on the nomination of the leader of the Opposition.
The Act also provided for the appointment of six scrutineers, three of whom were to be on the nomination of the leader of the Opposition and three on the nomination of the leader of the Government. Therefore, the Act in its appointive terms was bilateral; it provided for fairness in

a degree that had never been provided for in any Election Act at any previous time. A representative of the Opposition was intended to be, and, I believe, was at all places where votes were cast-a representative not only as a returning officer, but as a scrutineer or deputy scrutineer, because such could be appointed by each scrutineer, and a representative of the Opposition was present at the counting of the ballots at every point. The scrutineers appointed by the Government were Mr. Orde for Canada, Colonel A. T. Thompson for England, and I think it was Colonel Gibson for France. The scrutineers appointed on the recommendation of Sir Wilfrid Laurier were Mr. Hearn for Canada, Mr. W. T. R. Preston for England, and M. Langlois for France. The Mr. Preston who signs the advertisement to which I will refer was the scrutineer named by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to act as head scrutineer for Great Britain. This Mr. Preston, in acting as head scrutineer, evidently felt it was part of his duty and right to publish appeals of all characters and colours for votes for the Opposition, and for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on any ground that happened to come into his head. He certainly made use of his time as chief propagandist for the Opposition, while he was on the pay-list, as regards expenses at all events, of the people of this country. The advertisement from which I read first is headed:
To the Canadian Overseas Forces

Fellow Citizens of Canada.
In the body of it appears this:
The floating vote can name the constituency in which it desires to vote, and consists of-[DOT]
What?
1.	Soldiers who may not know the name of their constituency.
Absolutely wrong, and known by Mr. Preston to be wrong. Soldiers who knew any place-not necessarily the name of a constituency-bad to vote wherever that place was.
2.	Soldiers who were not domiciled, before enlisting, long enough in Canada to he entitled to vote.
Wholly, .diametrically wrong. No soldier had to be domiciled in Canada long enough ito have acquired the right to' vote. All' he bad to have done was to have lived in Canada at any time, at .any place1, and if so he was not in the "voters at large" class at all; he bad to vote wherever he had

lived. I draw the attention of the House particularly to the third clasts:
3.	The thousands of American citizens who have been given the franchise.
Not one American citizen wtas given the franchise. So the floating vote, that is, voters at large who were entitled to choose their constituencies were described by Mr. Preston, the official nominee of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in that election, as consisting of three divisions, not one of which divisions was correct, all of which descriptions were wrong 'and grossly wrong, all of which were deceitful and very deceitful. The statement never should have been made by him anyway as scrutineer, and it resulted or helped to result in the deception and disfranchisement of 'thousands of soldiers overseas!. In every official notice that Mr. Preston got- and he had many- of them before he issued that manifesto^-there was described to him specifically the class of those who were entitled to choose their loonstituenoiesi 'and none other than whom was entitled so to choose. He knew 'the law before he left this country; months before he left this country; it was passed in the clearest possible language; Mr. O'Connor, as general returning officer, time and again issued various official instructions for his benefit and for the benefit of all concerned in the election, 'and in every one of those he described in the plainest terms those who had the right to choose their constituencies and those who bad not. I have before me some of those publications. This is one, which is in ioi^je type, and which is about two feet by four feet. I read from it as follows:
The vote of a voter will be applied to the place in Canada where he was last resident for four continuous months of the last year of the residence in Canada immediately preceding his enlistment. If he has not been so resident during any four months, he may apply the vote to any place in Canada where he has at any time resided, and if he has not been resident in Canada at all he may apply the vote to some Electoral District in Canada which he will select.
The very same intimation is given in another pamphlet which I hold in my hand, which pamphlet Mr. Preston must have had, and in any event he had read and knew the law. It was his business to read and to know it, and no one has the slightest doubt that he did know it and that what he published in his advertisement was incorrect and deceitful. I hold in my hand another pamphlet and still another, all published for his information, and in the face of that, he erected himself into the post of chief propagandist for the Opposition and carried on a campaign that was intended

to mislead the military voter, that did mislead him, and that contributed to lose for him the franchise to the extent of about
50,000	votes.
It was stated by the Secretary of State ' last session that in England and Canada alone 36,000 soldiers had endeavoured to choose their constituencies when, as a matter of fact and on their oath, they were not entitled to do so, and Mr. O'Connor is my authority for the statement that, taking France with England and Canada, there had to be rejected or destroyed at least a total of 50,000 of those votes.
Those men were led and to a degree deliberately led to believe they had the right to choose their constituencies. I do not think this was done on the part of hon. members of this House who opposed the Government at that time-with the idea that the men would lose their franchise. That was not what they set out to do; what they set out to do was to discredit the Administration by representing the Act as in effect what it was not in effect at all, an attempt to give every soldier a right to vote at large. In an attempt to discredit the Administration, hon. gentlemen themselves became responsible for the circulation of this impression, for the deepening thereof, and for the consequent disfranchisement of those men.
I said I would refer to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy). I do not think that the hon. member would be in this House to-day if men had not been so misled. I will give my reason for that. I could not establish definitely but I believe this: that there were many, who had a right to vote in the constituency of Provencher and Who had no right to vote anywhere else, who attempted to vote in constituencies nearby, notably in the constituency of Springfield, and Who by such attempt, lost their votes entirely. They were .soldiers; they might, of course, have voted for the hon. member for Provencher. I do not think .a large proportion of them would, because I understand that 90 to 95 per cent of the soldiers' vote went against the Opposition. But there was in the constituency of Springfield no less a number than 532 soldiers' votes rejected for the reason that I have described. In the constituency of Provencher the hon. member's majority was only 185. Now I do not attribute the slightest wrongdoing-


Mr. MOLLOY:: One hundred and eighty-five after the soldier vote was counted.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but the hon. member did not have very much soldier vote either fox or against him. The soldier vote in his county was only 364, whereas in Springfield it was 1,064. I do not think it is fair to assume there were 1,064 soldiers from Springfield, and only 364 from the constituency of the hon. member.


Edmond Proulx: The minister must remember that he asked for an allotment for Springfield.


Arthur Meighen: And also for Provencher. But I do not seem to get much thanks from the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy). So here were these men to the number of 532 who lost their votes in Springfield alone, and who in my judgment had they voted rightly, had they not been misled by this propaganda, would have voted in Provencher against the hon. member and we would not now have the enjoyment of his presence in this House.
Now, to conclude. I do not know what the finger marks are to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) refers. I do not know anything about the finger marks, the earmarks, or anything else. I know what the intent of that telegram would be. I know that no wrong whatever was thought of or perpetrated that had the remotest connection with the Government, nor I believe with any officer of the Government, at all events so far as I have observed or so far as it has been reported to me. Mr. O'Connor was the general returning officer, and if there was wrong-doing it was on the part of him or some one responsible to him. Mr. O'Connor's character was certified to in this House three months after the election by the late right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, referring to his conduct, said that in his opinion he was an able, fair and public-spirited servant of the country and was incapable of doing what he knew to be wrong. I am informed-I say it while the hon. gentleman is opposite me now-that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) after the election himself complimented Mr. O'Connor on the absolute fairness with which it had been conducted throughout. I am also informed that Mr. Mackenzie King, who in the clash of competing ambitions has lately been shifted or tossed or elevated, whatever you may call it, to the post of leadership-of outside leader of the outside party in this country-Mr. McKenzie King also bore like testimony to the fairness with which Mr. O'Connor conducted the election. I am informed further, that the Liberal or-

ganizer for the province of Quebec has cheerfully paid the general returning officer the same compliment. Even the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) expressed in the circumstances his amazement that an election could be so honestly and so fairly conducted, and declared that in his belief he must have been living in dreamland and that the world of reality had passed away. There is no question as to the impartiality, the strict impartiality throughout, with which the work of the general returning officer-and that was the vital	work-was	conducted by Mr. O'Connor. My information is, and hon. gentlemen will contradict me if I am wrong, that there has not been laid to his door one single charge or even a grievance or complaint on the part of any hon. gentleman in this House. Not one hon. gentleman opposite has laid at his door even a complaint or a grievance. Every day Mr. O'Connor was in receipt of telegrams for advice and decisions, which he promptly gave, and gave with the greatest care and freedom from bias from beginning to end. As to the officers under him, selected half by the one side and half by the other, I have not heard-and I ask hon. gentlemen to contradict me if I am wrong-a charge or accusation of impropriety levelled at a single one of those special returning officers since this Parliament opened two years ago. There have been charges that soldiers perjured themselves, and that officers suborned the perjury. They were made with a great degree of recklessness in the session before last, but even then there was no charge of impropriety against any one acting as an officer under the Crown in the election, and the charges of perjury and subornation of perjury made by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) rwere investigated by a judge of a high court of this country and were declared unfounded from beginning to end. Has the hon. leader of the Opposition to-day brought forward any new evidence of wrong-doing? Has he even alleged that an officer under the Department of the Secretary of State, or any other department having to do with the conduct of the election, committed an act of impropriety or of dishonour? He has not.	,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the man?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I read his statement.


Arthur Meighen: Who is he?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You will find out.


Arthur Meighen: Was he a Special Returning Officer?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He was. He was a Returning Officer receiving the votes of soldiers and putting them in the ballot boxes.


Arthur Meighen: Named by the Governor in Council?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Appointed by your Government.


Arthur Meighen: And he says himself he did wrong?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He says so.


Arthur Meighen: He ought to be ashamed of it. Let him send the letter to us and show us he did wrong and he will be punished. I thought he was alleging that somebody else did wrong. I did not know he was proclaiming his own dishonour, and then handing his letter to the leader of the Opposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He was an officer of
this Government and doing their work, as he alleged.


Arthur Meighen: Was he recommended by the leader of the Opposition?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: It will be very interesting after this information in these answers tp get finally the name of this man-the only man, whom they refuse to disclose, but who they suggest was an officer of the Crown; a Special Returning Officer, or at all events, a Returning Officer, who did wrong and who is his own accuser.
Such was the statutory organization by which the election actually was carried on. Such is the absence of complaint or charge at this time. And in the face of all that, the hon. leader of the Opposition, while he does not in my judgment believe it, still wants to get newspaper circulation for the idea that there was some terrible deep-dyed plot to switch the vote of the soldiers in this country. I do not know who was to switch them. Was the Prime Minister to switch them? Was Mr. O'Connor to switch them? Were the Special Returning Officers to switch them, watched as they were by their opponents at every point? And this telegram-this telegram that he has not here-he says is the evidence of the switching.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wonder that the hon. gentleman does not take the courageous course and stand up and make a charge.

But whatever his course lacks in courage it makes up in discretion. There is in this whhle thing no charge, no accusation. There is nothing but an attenuated, an oblique, safety-first insinuation. There is nothing in this whole resolution but a fragile, circuitous, yellow-tinted innuendo that mocks and discredits the very name of parliamentary controversy.
It is idle for me to suggest what should be done with this motion. I think it has already served the only purpose which the hon. gentleman intended, namely, to appeal to whatever class in our country there may be of such bitter partisanship or profound ignorance that their prejudice or suspicion can be easily aroused and their animosity easily inflamed. That purpose, I suppose, it has served, and I am quite sure it can serve no other.
At 6.25 p.m. the House adjourned.
Thursday, September 25, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What amount has the Government decided to expend for repairs and improvements in connection with the Railway Station at Levis?
2.	When will such repairs and improvements be completed, and what amount has already been expended therefor?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$125,000.	.
2.	It is anticipated building will be completed by December 15, if no further delays occur on account of lack of material. Expended to date, $10,000.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS OPERATION.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that Canadian National Railway trains on the Ottawa-Mont-real subdivision of that railway are obliged to run backwards in and out of the Central station at Ottawa for a distance of almost two miles?
2.	If so, is this considered a dangerous practice?
3.	When will arrangements be made to render this practice unnecessary?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. The Canadian Pacific Railway, as well as the Canadian National Railways, run some of their trains into the Central Station at Ottawa backwards.
2.	This practice is in vogue on railways in the United States as well as in Canada. Usual precautions taken by railways under similar circumstances are followed in these cases.
3.	It is impossible to state definitely when changes will be undertaken.
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF ORIENTALS. Mr. VERVILLE:
Inasmuch as in British Columbia there are hundreds of Orientals who have never by provincial law been accorded the franchise, and to whom it is not in that province considered advisable to concede the franchise,
1. Is it the intention of the Government to register and to concede the franchise to Chinese, Japanese, and Hindus, in that province provided they are naturalized, and in defiance of considerable opinion in that province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The answer will be found in the Bill to amend the Dominion By-Elections Act, introduced by the'Solicitor General, and now standing for second reading on the Order Paper.


THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What was the gross debt of Canada on August 1, 1919?
2.	What was the net debt of Canada on the
same date?	.
3.	What was the amount of annual interest payable on the debt of Canada on August 1, 1919?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	$2,907,667,041.50.
2.	$1,670,263,691.52.
3.	Estimates 1919-20 provide for payment of interest on public debt at $102,767,625.94.


INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Does the Government intend to have printed in French the report of the proceedings of the Industrial Conference, held last week in the Senate Chamber?
2.	If so, will the members of the House of Commons be able to soon obtain copies thereof?
Hon, Mr. MACLEAN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Ye's.


FIRE IN NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING BASEMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon, CHARLES MURPHY (Russell): The papers have announced a fire in the basement of the new Parliament Building a few days ago. May I inquire if the cause of the fire has been ascertained, and whether the damage done will likely delay the com-
[Stage Direction]
pletion of the 'building, or retard its occupancy by members of this House and the Senate next session?
Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I do not think occupancy will be retarded by the fire, but it may be retarded because of other reasons. Inquiry as being made in regard to the cause of the fire.


DOUBLE INCOME TAX.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I observed in this morning's Citizen the following item:
Call No Witnesses Double Income Tax.
London, jSept. 24 (Reuter despatch).-Sir James QVEeston, representing India, G. H. Knibbs, Australia; W. L. Griffith, Canada, and Jas. Burns, South Africa, attended a meeting of the royal sub-committee on income tax which is considering the question of a double income tax within the Empire.
I would ask what this -means. I have never heard of it before.


George Green Foster: The meaning is quite clear, I think, in view of the controversy which has been going on- for some time as to the collection of a double tax on incomes from people living in London, for instance, and having interests in Australia or some of the other Overseas Dominions. At present, they are taxed in both countries, and for some time the matter has been the subject of controversy and of representation. An attempt is now being made by a conference between the Imperial authorities and representatives from the Overseas Dominions to devise some plan by which the hardships which certainly exist in the double income tax may, if possible, be modified, mitigated, or avoided.


Samuel Hughes: Why not include the United States and foreign countries?


George Green Foster: We have a good deal of difficulty looking after our own family.	*


THE PEACE TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice was
kind enough yesterday, in response to an inquiry of mine, to bring down some correspondence between the Canadian and Imperial Governments touching the Peace

Conference and the Peace Treaty. May I ask if he is in a position to assure me that all the correspondence is included in "the documents brought down?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am confident that it is. The intention was to include it all, but I will make inquiry whether there possibly is anything else.


BOARD OF COMMERCE,-THE PRICE OF MILK.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Donald Sutherland: I notice the following item in the press this morning, with reference to a meeting in Toronto of the Fair Price Committee, on which there is a representative of the Board of Commerce, to decide upon the price of milk.
The producers were set on a minimum of $3.10 per eight gallon can and the consumers $2.75. It is thought that probably $3 per eight gallon can is the final price suggestion forwarded to Ottawa.
Can the Government inform the House whether this matter has been settled?


George Green Foster: As far as I know the Government has no special information with reference to this matter. The Board of Commerce is carrying on its investigations under its statutory powers, and when it comes to conclusions I suppose there will be a report giving information as to what they have done. The Government has no special information with reference to this particular matter.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the fact that this is a question seriously affecting the county from which I come and an industry which aggregates $5,000,000 per annum, and as the time has arrived for fixing the price of milk for the next month, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the House with a view to discussing this matter, which I consider of very great and urgent importance.


George Green Foster: I do not want to interfere with the rights of my hon. friend, or with his desire to bring this matter up for discussion. I would suggest, however, that he might, if he thinks it advisable, defer his motion for a day or so. Communication is being had by the Government with the Board of Commerce, and with the facts before us we shall be in a better position to discuss the matter,

if my hon. friend should then think it necessary to pursue it further.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the minister's statement I shall withdraw the motion. The minister will remember that I brought the matter up on Tuesday, but I have received no reply to my inquiry.


George Green Foster: I had no intention of being discourteous to my hon. friend in not giving him a reply, but the matter slipped my memory.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not to be understood that this undertaking that the matter may be brought up in a day or so is to the effect that it may be brought up under Rule 39, because, while the hon. gentleman has not handed to me his motion in writing I have very grave doubts whether the subject is of such a nature that it would come within the letter or the spirit of that rule.


THANKSGIVING DAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew) moved the third reading of Bill No. 2, respecting Thanksgiving Day.
Mr. A. R. MoMASTER (Brome): I beg to move in amendment:
That the said Bill he not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instruction to amend clause 1 of the said Bill by striking out the words " eleventh day " in the third line of the said clause, and substituting therefor the words 44 second Monday.*4
The House divided' on the proposed
amendment	of Mr. McMaster.
 YEAS. Messieurs
Arohambault:	, Lavigueur,
Argue,	Leger,
Baldwin,	Maclean (Halifax),
Blair,	McGibbon ( Argenteuil),
Boivin,	McIntosh,
Bourassa,	McKenzie,
Bureau,	McMaster,
Burnham,	Marcile (Bagot),
Cahill,	Mayrand,
Calder,	Mewburn,
Cardin,	Michaud,
Casgrain,	Molloy,
Chisholm,	Morphy,
Clark (Red	Deer), Mowat,
Copp,	Murphy,
Cronyn,	Myers,
d'Anjou,	Pacaud,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Denis,	Parent,
Desaulnlers,	Peck,
Duff,	Pedlow,
Ethier,	Pelletier,
Euler,	# Proulx,
Fafard,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Fielding,
Fournier,
Gauthier,
Gauvreeu,
Gervais,
Green,
Griesbach,
Halladay,
Hocken,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Hunt,
Johnston,
Kay,
Lafortune,
LanctSt,
Robb,
Ross,
Rowell,
Savard,
Seguin,
Sifton,
Sinclair
(Queens, P.E.I.), Tobin,
Trahan,
Truax, .
Turgeon,
Tweedie,
White (Victoria).-76.
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs Anderson,	Loggie,
Andrews,
Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Ball,
Bdland,
Best,
Bolton,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brien,
Cannon,
Caseelman,
Charters,
Clark (Bruce), Cockshutt,
Cooper,
Cowan,
Crothers,
Crowe,
Cruise,
Currie,
Davidson,
Demers,
Edwards,
Foster (Sir George), Foster (York),
Glass,
Guthrie,
Harrison,
Henders,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Long,
Mackie (Edmonton), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McGregor,
Mclsaac,
(Marshall,
Martin,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Nicholson
(Queens, P.E.I.), Nicholson (Algoma), Paul,
(Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Sheard,
Simpson,
Spinney,
Stacey,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Sutherland,
Thompson (Hastings), Wigmore,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wilson (Saskatoon).
-61.
Amendment 'agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boi-vin in the Chair.
On section 1-Thanksgiving Day to be held on the 11th day of November in each
year:	v
Mr. McMaster moved that the section be amended by inserting the word's "second Monday'' in place of the words "the eleventh day."
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 'The Chairman, Mr. Botvin, from the Committee of the Whole reports Bill No. 2 without amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: With amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Without amendment. I must take the report I receive from the

chairman of 'the committee 'that this Bill was reported without amendment.
On the question: Shall the Bill be read the third time?
Mr. STEELE .moved:
That Bill No. 2 be not now read the third time but that it toe read this day six months.


George Green Foster: Before this motion is put, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House a statement of exactly the question that we are to vote upon. The report made to the Speaker is that the Bill came back without amendment. If it came back without amendment there must be fixed the 11th day of November, if I understand it. Are we voting now to give the six months hoist to -a Bill which provides that Thanksgiving Day shall be on the 11th November, or on the second Monday in November?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Chair must accept the report which comes to it from the chairman of the committee which was to the effect that the Bill was reported from committee without amendment.


Jacques Bureau: How does the Bill read now?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Bill reads now that Thanksgiving Day be held on the second Monday in November. The question which is immediately now before the House is as to whether the Bill shall be read the third time to-day or this day six months. The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele).


ALLEGED MANIPULATION OF SOLDIER VOTES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) resumed the debate on the motion of Mr. McKenzie for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the alleged manipulation of soldier votes in the General Election of 1917. He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to resume the debate on the resolution presented to this House by the hon. member for Cape Breton, my first observation would he that the paternity of this

telegram is hardly denied. The Minister of the Interior states that he does not remember if he sent such a telegram, a telegram which when decoded reads as follows: Winnipeg, November 30, 1917.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that yourself and the House should take special note of the date, the 30th of November, 1917. The soldiers had begun voting on or about the 19th November, 1917, but on the 30th of November the Minister of the Interior sends a telegram. I say he sends a telegram; I believe it can be amply proved that he sent that telegram; he does not deny it, he merely says that he does not remember. The soldiers had been voting for some eleven days but, nevertheless, Sir Robert Borden, the Premier of this country, has directed to him this telegram:
Would like one thousand soldier votes at large for Manitoba, of which 3 O'O for Selkirk, balance divided between Provencher, Macdonald, and Springfield, or same proportion of division no matter what our allotment may be.
I wish the House to pay attention-I hope the country will pay attention-to those words " no matter what our allotment may be."
Charge Union Government Committee.
Arthur Meighen.
Not only does the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Speaker, not deny the paternity of the telegram, but he says that it is a perfectly proper and honourable telegram.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not only does he not deny that it is his child, but he says that it is a very fine child indeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MoMASTER: As a matter of fact, as the Minister of the Interior waxed more eloquent to the accompaniment of the plaudits of his partisans, I began to think that had he been a military man he should have had the M.C. or the D.S.O. for this telegram, and I am surprised that he has not been recommended for the O.B.E. for having written such a priceless piece of literature. Perhaps he would have obtained the O.B.E. for this telegram only the work done by the late member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), and others,' in this (House, prevented the honour being conferred upon him.


Jacques Bureau: It may come yet.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Now I will go this far with the Minister of the Interior-that under the Act certain non-resident soldiers
of Canada, soldiers who were in the Canadian army but who had no residence in Canada, could elect in what constituencies their votes should apply. I admit that the law so states; but I would bring to the attention of the House this fact:	Subsection 4 of section 3 of the Military Voters' Act, 1917, reads:
If hethat is the soldier-
-cannot because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electoral district as he may indicate.
What does the word "he"there stand for? It stands for the military voter non-resident in Canada. It stands neither for the Minister of the Interior nor the Prime Minister of this country. But the minister said the Government had a legal right to make such efforts as were necessary to see that these votes were applied by these soldiers in certain constituencies-"where," I believe his expression was, "their vote would do the most good." The .minister sees nothing dishonourable in that. I do.


Jacques Bureau: I should say so.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do. I thank Heaven-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thank Heaven that
the ethical training" which I have received regards that as dishonourable.


Jacques Bureau: There is the difference of standard between the two.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There may be a different standard; it certainly is not my standard. I state-and I do so knowing with what responsibility a member of this House says such a' thing as I propose to say-that the telegram and the admissions of the minister yesterday show there was a very widespread system of manipulation of votes for the purpose of defeating the will of the Canadian people. The votes would do good to whom? To the Unionist party. In whose control, Mr. Speaker, was the whole electoral machinery? In the control of the Government. I say that it involves not only a manipulation of votes, but it involves the honour of the minister; and if the Minister of the Interior, and if the Prime Minister of this country, whose sickness unfortunately keeps him from this Chamber, have got the appreciation of their high position-the due and proper appreciation of their high position-they will invite a full, complete and searching investigation in order that they may either be

shown innocent or shown guilty. I say, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case is made out; I say that it affects the constitutional rights of the people.
Now, does the telegram in itself indicate a widespread manipulation of votes? What do the words " no matter what our allotment may 'be " imply? Do they not imply that by an arrangement to which the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister were parties, there had been an allocation to certain constituencies where the votes would do most good of the ten thousand or twelve thousand votes of soldiers who had no residence in Canada? I say that there can be no other interpretation given to the document. I say that such action was illegal and improper, and that it touches the honour of our public men.
It involves a plan, Mr. Speaker, does it not? What could be this plan? Was it that when any one of these ten thousand soldiers -British subjects but not Canadian citizens -came to the poll a man was there representing the Government-a returning officer or some other person-who suggested to each soldier that he should place his vote in the county of Brome, for instance. Some of them did. I understand 600 to 700 votes were attempted to be cast in Brome, and about 160 of those soldiers did actually cast their votes in that county, not one of whom was a resident there. -Now, was that the plan?


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon.
member permit me a question? I hope he does not mean to imply that there were no soldiers at the front from Brome?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not. There were a great number of Brome boys who went to the front and some of them died for their country. But theirs were not the votes that were cast against the Liberal candidate in Brome; the votes so cast were those of men who never saw the county of Brome. That is what I object to. I charged the Unionist speakers on nomination day that they had made a law for the purpose of stealing the election.


Jacques Bureau: And they stole it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They did not in Brome.


Jacques Bureau: But they did elsewhere
in the country.
Mr. MoMASTER:	What was the plan?
At each of these polling places which were spread all over the camps in France, in England and in Canada, men were placed to indicate to this special class of soldiers just where their votes should be allotted.


John Hampden Burnham: If those soldiers wished to vote for the Government, and made inquiry, was it improper to say to them, "Well, vote in Nova 'Scotia or in Hastings county, Ontario."


Ernest Lapointe: Or in Peterboro.


John Hampden Burnham: Is there anything morally wrong in that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think it is absolutely wrong. I think for men in the employ of the Government, looking to this Government for military promotion, to have it in their power to say to a soldier, " I want you to vote for Shefford, for Brome, for Peterboro," or whatever constituency votes might be required for, was an absolute abuse of the law.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I remember, Mr. Speaker, years ago travelling from Edinburgh to London and meeting a man who had been election agent for a wealthy manufacturer in the north of England who had been running as a Liberal candidate. He told me that his client before the election made a tour through his works and asked his men to vote for him, but at the same time he told them their votes were their own, that they were free men, and that if they thought it right to vote against him it would make no difference to them so far as their promotion was concerned. That is the spirit the Government should have shown; and if an investigation is granted I will be able to prove there was an entire absence of that spirit, and that men were dragooned by regiments to vote for one candidate or another.
But there was another way in which this plan would work out-one which I do not like to suggest, but I have got to suggest it, because I think the other plan was too complicated. I think this is the way it was done: Men were told not to answer questions 6, 7, and 8, and then, after they had left the polling booth, the place where the vote was to be assigned was inserted by some person other than the voter. If that be true-and I believe on investigation that can be shown to be true-then that constituted one of the grossest electoral crimes and frauds ever perpetrated in any civilized country. I say it [DOT] degraded this country to the level of Mexico. How did Diaz keep himself in power? By disfranchising those portions of the population on which he could not rely for support and securing the votes of those with whom he had left the franchise.

Now, how was this plan made out? Was it by the Cabinet as a whole? Did His Majesty's Cabinet in Canada sit around a table and make an agreement as to how these unattached votes were to be distributed in their different counties?


Ernest Lapointe: Votes at large.


Andrew Ross McMaster: These votes at large have grown. In 1917 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) said they were not more than
5,000	or 10,000; yesterday the Minister of the Interior said there were from 10,000 to 12,000; they have grown a little. Did they sit around the table, Mr. Speaker, and parcel out these unattached votes, so much for one county and so much for another county; or did they have a committee of the Cabinet? This Cabinet, large as it is, is fond of committees. We have a Reconstruction Committee and other committees of the Cabinet. Did they have a war-time elections committee? Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if they had a war-time elections committee the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) was not a member of that committee, but the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) was.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear; he was the chairman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How could this scheme be worked out? It could only be worked out in two ways: By pressure upon the individual soldier, or by an organized tampering with the ballots after the envelopes had been signed by the soldiers. Those were the only two ways by which the result which we have seen could have been obtained when the votes came to be counted; because, Mr. Speaker, the proof is before our eyes. We have found that, for instance, a member of the Senate now who was then running in two constituencies had soldiers' votes placed to his credit by hundreds in each constituency. These things were not done a l'improviste; they were done following a preconcerted and preconceived plan. What would pressure on the individual soldier mean? It might not have been any great pressure, it would not need to be to secure these unattached votes. For instance, what difference would it make to a man from the West Indies what Government was in power? What would he know about Canadian affairs? If his sergeant, or lieutenant, or captain suggested to him that it was wise for him to vote for the Government and to have his vote placed in a certain county, no doubt he would act on the suggestion. But what flows from this?
It was obvious that this scheme, properly
worked, would make it possible for the Government to win the election-which they did. Indeed, it would be impossible for them to lose the election. If you apply
12,000	votes in the counties to which you wish to apply them, you* can put 120 votes in each of a hundred doubtful counties where the voting is nearly equal. Why, the carrying out of this scheme made the election a perfect farce.


Jacques Bureau: And a fraud.


Ernest Lapointe: A crime.


Andrew Ross McMaster: These fears were expressed by the Liberals when the Bill was under consideration. I wish to read to the House some of the statements which were made at that time and the reply to those statements made by the Minister of Justice. On page 4691 of Hansard of the year 1917 you will find these words, which I quote from the speech of Hon. Frank Oliver:
But there are other principles involved in a franchise Act besides the principle of providing for the casting of the vote. There are principles connected with ensuring that the vote shall he counted as it has been cast. There is the principle of the right of the several parties who are concerned in the voting to he sure that, first, the vote is cast secretly.
Now, let me pause for a moment. How could this scheme of bringing pressure to bear on individual soldiers be operated and, at the same time, the sanctity of the ballot and the secrecy of the ballot be recognized ? If soldiers were asked by commanding officers and others in authority over them to vote for certain candidates in certain counties, or to vote for the Government and apply their votes in certain counties, is it possible to imagine for an instant that the men making those demands did not see to it that the soldiers marked their ballots as they were desired to mark them? I continue the quotation:
Second, that it is cast without pressure ot fear or favour; and, third, that, having been so cast, it shall he counted as it was cast. I am unable to say whether these principles are provided for in the Bill, and I would say to the minister that I do not consider them details at all; I consider each one an essential principle. If they are not provided for in the Bill, there is a possibility that, instead of the privilege of the franchise being exercised as a right and a duty, the intention of the voter may be diverted from its proper purpose, and, instead of being of assistance in expressing the mind of the people of Canada, it may be a means of *nisd'-ctin- the minds of the people I can only hope that the minister, in the preparation of the Bill, has had these points in mind. I am not able to say whether they are properly safeguarded or not, as I have not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill and in any case

would not be able to form an opinion on these points without having the minister's explanation.
There is, however, one feature that I find in section 3 in which, following the suggestion of the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), I must say I cannot see an evidence of good faith on the part of the minister or the Government in the preparation of the iBill, and if this provision of which I speak is a fair sample of the Bill's provisions throughout, I would be compelled to take very strong exception to it and to say that it may have been that the fact that the Government did not have a majority in the Senate was a protection to the public interest in the passing of the other Bill; but that now that the Government has a majority in the Senate, it feels free to introduce such a measure as it pleases and as it thinks may best serve its purpose, whatever that purpose may be. The liberties and rights of the people of Canada are involved in this measure, and I can only take the provision of subsection 3 of section 3 as a deliberate and intentional and very serious and far-reaching attack upon the rights and privileges of the people of Canada in the expression of their vote. The provision of the section of which I speak is:
Then he proceeds to read the section, concluding with subsection 3, as follows:
(3) If he cannot, because of non-residence or otherwise, so state or specify, he shall be deemed an elector of, and his vote shall be applied to, such electorate district as he may indicate.
Now, let us see what the Minister of Justice said in regard to the fear expressed by Mr. Oliver on that occasion. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, said this:
In regard to the statement by the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), in which he was pleased to refer to certain motives on the part of those who are promoting this Bill, I do not hesitate to say that the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken in his imputatin. There is no desire to do anything, except, so far as may be found possible, to meet the very principles which he himself has laid down. If I did not think it necessary to elaborate those principles, it was because, upon the principles that ought to underlie this measure, there should be substantial agreement. On those principles I am not In disagreement with my hon. friend. The provisions meet what is required, viz.: that questions which arise are whether those the soldier,-I am speaking generally-should record his vote, and that proper safeguards should surround the taking of the vote.
That the soldier should be given an opportunity to record his vote no one will deny, but the gravamen of the charge against the Government is that the safeguards which should have surrounded the taking of the vote were absent, and that the very things which the Liberals feared would arise out of this law did arise out of it. The Minister of Justice repudiated at that time the idea that there would be any unfair or unsportsmanlike dealing with votes of the soldiers, and I give him credit 
for it. He was for years a member of the Bench at the Bar at which I practised; I know his reputation as an honourable and straightforward man, and when he made these assertions that the Liberals need have no fear of improper conduct on the part of their political adversaries, I believe he was stating what he thought was true. He said to the Ijiberals who were objecting at that time: "Have confidence in the Government; we will do ithe square and right thing; no pressure will -be brought to bear upon these men that one side could not use as well as the other." But what a contrast is that with the attitude of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Medghen). He says: We used this section foir all it was worth; we thought we had a perfect right to use it, under the four corners of the Act, and we did use it to put the voltes in the places where they would do the most good. Would the Minister of Justice have told the House of Commons in August, 1917, when he was promoting this Bill, that the Bill was framed with the idea of creating -a very large number of unattached votes -and -putting them in the constituencies where they would do 'the most good to the Government? No, he would not have said such a thing; he would have been 'ashamed to say such a thing. And had the Minister of 'the Interior got up in his seat in the House then-I did not have the pleasure and the honour o-f being -a member of the House at that time -'and told what the real object of this Bill was-'about creating 12,000 unattached votes that could be put where they would do the most good^the moral sense of the Canadian people would have revolted and the Bill would not have passed. The honour of ministers is involved when 'they put up an honest and sincere -man to say that the Bill is -all right, that its provisions will no-t be abused, and when two short years afterwards, another minister comes forward and say-s: "Oh, we had the right to influence these men who were in our employ; we had the right to influence these soldiers; we had the right to- bring to bear upon- them all the pressure and the power which military life gives one man over another. We had the right to do that and the right to manipulate the vote." Mr. Speaker, it is nothing mo-re or less than manipulation of votes. It is a manipulation- of voters, for it is a system of putting them, as it were, in Provencher, Springfield and other counties of that sort.
The Minister of the Interior next blamed the Liberals because many soldiers voted

in constituencies in which they had no_right to vote.
He said the Liberals spread the statement abroad that the men had the right to choose their constituencies, and that it permeated the military forces of this country. Could anything be more fantastical and fantastic? Think of it! Here are soldiers under the command of their commanding officer; the commanding officers report to the General; the General reports to the Minister of Militia; the men are paraded, I presume, once or twice a day very often; at all events, 'the machinery for communicating information from the top to the bottom of the army is in working order. 'Were the soldiers who filled the hearts of their compatriots who remained at home with pride at their glorious exploits so unintelligent that they could not understand the plain provisions of ! this Bill? Were their officers so lacking in intelligence that they could not explain to the men that they should only vote in a constituency in which they resided? After all, that is the natural place for a man to record his vote, or to have his vote recorded. It is ridiculous. What is the real explanation of the fact that 50,000 men had their ballot papers thrown out? Because they did not answer questions 6, 7, and 8, and I believe an investigation will show why these men did not answer questions 6, 7 and 8.
There was the usual charge by the Minister of the Interior of disloyalty against those who do not happen to agree with him. After all, you know, no real Liberal should object to being charged as unpatriotic by his opponents. The history of this country is a long, long tale of the abuse of the Reformers by the Tory party. Alexander Mackenzie was called a bad man, and Edward Blake was called a bad man; I think he was described as an annexationist, a separation-ist, or something of that sort. Sir Wilfrid Laurier-there were no words too bad for him in the last election. So let us not be discouraged, we who are Liberals. Gladstone and Bright were abused. Aye, the people have always stoned the prophets, but in days to come they have to follow what the prophets told them. After all, abuse of a political opponent, by calling him unpatriotic and disloyal, only shows a certain poverty of intellect or a certain bad quality of heart. Why is treason so severely punished? The punishments provided under the old law for treason were very severe. Why? Because, when the King who at that time not only reigned, but governed, was attacked there was a chance of disorder in the State. Who is the King now? Who are the governors of this country now. The 36
governors of this country are the people themselves with the ballot papers in their hands, and the real traitors are the men who lays impious hands upon the freedom of their exercise of the franchise.
Now I have little more to say. I take it that no one will be surprised when I assert what is within the common knowledge of every member of this House, that in the last election men's votes that should have gone to one county were applied to others.
I make that charge in the hearing of every member of this House who knows it to be true, and I can prove that charge if a committee is given us for the purpose.
Now what is the House going to do?_ The Government has a large majority if all those	who nominally	support it vote	for	it. Many	who
sit on the Government benches to-day have in the past borne the proud name of Liberal, and to them, Mr. 'Speaker, through you, I make this special appeal. It is always hard to attack and condemn a system of which one is a beneficiary. In days gone by, at the beginning of the last century the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Great Britain were composed almost entirely of land-owners, and they maintained Corn Laws which imposed by law starvation on the British people. They did so because they were the beneficiaries of the system; it increased their rents. Later on, when the great question of slavery was an issue before the American people, ministers of the Gospel in the Southern States were heard in their pulpits to maintain the righteousness of the wicked and iniquitous system of slavery. To-day there are men in this House who had soldiers' votes applied to their counties and counted for them which they know should have been applied to other counties. But what do I ask of you? I ask of 'the members of this House that they give a conscientious vote on this subject. If you believe that it is a righteous thing for a Government to pass a law creating 12,000 votes at large, and to take such means as may be necessary to apply those votes in the counties where they will do the most good, then vote against the resolution. If, on the other hand, you believe that the franchise is a sacred trust, that the greatest crime a man can commit against this country is to interfere with the free exercise of the franchise, if you believe that the honour of ministers is involved, then I say to you, vote in favour of the resolution.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend (Mr. McM.aster) resumed his



seat with the appeal on his lips to certain members of this House to give a conscientious vote. I rather felt touched by the appeal as the hon. member was looking at myself .at the moment. I venture, if I may without offence, to assure him that I purpose giving a conscientious vote and, in as few words as I may, the reasons for it. I fear that my hon. friend is so much under the influence of what I desire to avoid in this debate-very strong feelings-that he may be neither pleased at my assurance nor with my reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I want to look at what I conceive to be the broader aspects of the question with which we are dealing, and may I say that I think it unfortunate for Parliament, unfortunate for the party who sit to your left, and unfortunate for the country, that hon. gentlemen to your left have deemed it wise to bring forward this resolution of so purely party a kind in a session which was called for the specific purpose, and almost the only purpose, of ushering in the League of Nations by giving our seal to the Covenant and doing our part in the ratification of the Treaty of Peace.
I should like to be permitted, in the presence of two of those ministers who went to Paris, to say that if they lived twice as long as they have lived they would never in this world accomplish anything upon which the history of Canada will look back with such pride as the fact that it had ministers participating in an epochal event in the advancement of mankind to a higher civilization. I should be out of order if I uttered more than a sentence ttpon that subject. But what is it that we are doing at this session, and why do I regret that honourable gentlemen have brought the smallest of party politics into this House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Michael Clark: If I had any
doubt about the wisdom of that statement I would need only to refer to the scene of intense heat which arose yesterday, and which, in eleven years' experience in this House, I have never witnessed except w'hen men's passions were aroused on opposite sides on matters of purely party politics. Why do I regret that this motion has been introduced? I regret it, Sir, because I think it would have been well to allow this session to devote its time and attention to its main work, the great object for which it was convened. We have witnessed in the past, (and those of us who have read history are conversant with the fact,) that men have gradually passed from the tribal 
to the national stage of development, and in the conference that took place at Versailles we saw humanity take a definite step towards the international stage of human development, marking an absolutely epochal event in the history of the world.
For that reason I regret extremely, and I am sincere in the assertion, that this question should have been raised at this time. I .should like to think that I was uncharitable in charging party politics on this question. I should like to think that the object of every hon. gentleman to your left, Mr. Speaker, was prompted by a high national desire to establish political purity in this country. I know it is a most dangerous thing to touch on the question pf motives; it is a very dangerous venture, as my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) remarked yesterday. But I repeat, I should like to think that the objects of hon. gentlemen on this matter were the attainment of a better condition of electoral purity in Canada. In regard to any form of electoral impurity, I have observed that it makes an awful difference in a man's attitude whose ox is gored.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: I say it makes a vast difference to the average Canadian politician's attitude, yes, and I will say to the Canadian statesman's attitude, whose ox is gored. I fear, Sir, that I am historically correct when I say that the condition of mind of Canadian statesmen has not been as advanced as one would have liked to see it on the question of electoral purity. On this subject, I might offer evidence, which I think would not :be controverted by any hon. gentleman on the benches to your left. There was an extremely corrupt byelection in the city of London, Ontario, not so many yeans ago, and I think men were sent to jail as a consequence. In any case, the impurity of the election was proved up to the hilt. Every one knew it, and of course (the ordinary party charges were brought in the debate on the Address in the succeeding session by the Conservative party who happened to be in Opposition at that time. Now, no less a person than the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier offered a contribution in reply to the charges that were made by the Opposition of that day, and he said: "Well, no great mistake oould be made if the Grits should undertake to fight the enemy with the devil's fire." I was comparatively a stranger in this country when I read that statement, but I must say it horrified me considerably. I 'think I understood Sir Wilfrid as well as most other

men; and I understood his attitude of mind when he said, on another occasion: "Thank God, I am no purist." I am no't now introducing these things to reflect on that hon. gentleman. We quote past statesmen not by way of reference' to themselves or thei-r personalities but in order to establish our positions in Parliament, and I claim that right. What do I try to prove by these quotations and the statement I made a moment agO'P It is this: I fear it is true that neither of the old parties- in this country has been over particular about the question of electoral purity, and I prove the fact by that quotation which will be found in Hansard of 1906 in regard to what was a most corrupt election. I was not in Parliament at the time but I read the debates and the matter has been in my memory ever since. I took the exact words from Hansard to-day. I think I have proved very conclusively and on the highest authority that, to say the least, there have been faults on both sides in regard to this question of ballot switching and other forms of electoral impurity. I am bound to say, however, that Sir Wilfrid qualified his statement by another. He said: " Bribery is bad, but ballot switching is ten times worse," and of course that would throw the august support of his memory and his views on the side of the Opposition in this debate, though I do not know exactly how he arrived at the precise moral or immoral pre-eminence of these two forms of electoral impurity. From some points of view, especially from the intellectual point of view, bribery or the buying of votes is worse than ballot switching. Morally they -are both bad, because men steal what does not belong to them and what ought to be sacred to those who have a right to it; and I trust that no one in this House thinks for a moment that I have any sympathy with electoral impurity in any form. But from an intellectual standpoint I differ from Sir Wilfrid's classification of the relative immorality of the men who are guilty of either of these forms of corruption. Both are blackguards, but the man who buys a vote is a fool, for very often he pays for what he does not receive; and therefore, intellectually at least, he is worse than the man who switches ballots. These are the statements which I think are sufficient to prove that I am on good ground when I say that there is considerable reason for suspecting that the motive of this debate is not one of public interest and public good, but that it is a party 36i
motive. That, therefore, is the first ground on which I shall vote against the motion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the hon. gentleman mind giving me the page of Hansard and the subject in connection with which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he was no purist?


Michael Clark: It was in the debate on the Address in the year 1906.
I have not the page, unfortunately, but it was in the debate on the Address in that year, and it was in regard to a byelection which had taken place in London. The debate, I am perfectly sure, is remembered by many hon. members who were in the House at that time.
Now, having stated some of the general grounds upon which I shall give my vote, I desire to come a little nearer to this specific case. Let me say, in the first place, that I shall very heartily vote with the Government upon this question because I think the Opposition has been unfortunate in the personality of the minister whom they have chosen for attack.
I came -into this House with my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. iMeighen). I have differed a good deal from him on many public questions. At a private dinner not many month* ago I expressed my extreme regret in his presence that he had been cast in a somewhat, narrow Tory mould and he took my joke and reproof both in very good spirit. I remember his first speech in this House, I have heard most of the speeches he has delivered since and 1 remember that on the occasion of his first speech, Sir Wilfrid Laurier followed him and, with his long experience, picked him out at once as a man of the highest ability. I have heard most of the speeches that the Minister of the Interior has delivered in this House and I will tell hon. gentlemen something about him. I never knew him in debate to stoop to hit 'below the belt; I never knew him in debate to make use of a personal remark; I never knew him in debate to argue his case except upon its merits, and these three statements being true, in so far as my recollection goes, I would be very chary at least about bringing any charge of dishonour against him. I do not need to say more along that line. No hon. gentleman in this House can successfully point to a case where he (Mr. Meighen) did not live up to that reputation. His private character, and his past actions in private and in public, are such as would make me extremely slow in singling him out as the particular minister against whom a charge of personal

[DOT]dishonour should be brought or in regard to which a committee should 'be asked to investigate certain public matters with a view of impugning his honour.
I regret, in this specific case to think that the Opposition have been unfortunate on general principles. They will not think much of my advice on party grounds but I think that on party grounds they have been unfortunate. I feel perfectly sure that on national grounds they have been unfortunate in taking a course which could only have one effect and that is of keeping up the war animosities. There is scarcely an hon. gentleman on the Opposition side of the House but who believes in his heart that these animosities should die, but they say: " We cannot allow them to die in regard to the Military Voters' Act; that is too valuable a piece of electioneering material." It must be hauled into' a convention where a platform is being constructed which should be of a constructive kind surely in this reconstruction period; it must be hauled into a brief session when we are dealing with the closing up of this great war tragedy and in addition it must be paraded and printed all over Canada as a part of the unscheduled portion of the platform which was laid down If I am doing my hon. friends wrong, if their motive is not a party one, if electoral purity is their motive I can tell them truly how they would have convinced me. In the August convention they borrowed, in framing their tariff plank, for instance, as much as they thought it wise, having regard to certain eastern interests, to borrow of the tariff platform of the Dominion Council of Agriculture. If when they did this they had also taken the plank of the Dominion Council of Agriculture as to the publication of the names of contributories to campaign expenses and in favour of more drastic measures against corrupt election practices, they would have stood where they could have called upon the farmers who work under the flag, the banner, and the auspices of the Dominion Council of Agriculture to join them. They could have given evidence that they were out for reconstruction, that they were out for a better world after this war had ended. But they did not do that.' Now they bring a charge against the Minister of the Interior in regard to a telegram, got in a very peculiar way apparently, in regard to the Military Voters' Act. I do not want to be uncharitable or unfair but I think I have gone far enough to show that I .am right in saying that this is a party move. That is another of the grounds upon- which I cannot support these hon. gentlemen in their 
demand for a committee to examine into this question.
We have heard a great deal of the sacredness of the right of the franchise. My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) has talked about it in the most impassioned terms. I wonder if he ever reflects that if Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George, and the Government of this country had been animated by the policy which guided hon. gentlemen' on your left, Mr. Speaker, in the Military Voters' Act, if these statesmen had all said: " Germany may win but we will not have conscription ", we would not have been celebrating peace in this country to-day. There is nothing so sure in this world as that if we had not gone in for conscription when they did, the Germans would have taken the channel ports. It is extremely probable that if neither President Wilson nor Lloyd George had gone in for conscription Germany would by this time have won the war and we should not have 'been- talking about the sacred right of the franchise with the Germans for our masters; we should be crawling before' the Hun whose boots we would have to polish. For my part, if I were on the Opposition benches and thought of the gravity of the times when the war time election was held, and of the gravity of the question of getting the last support for our boys at the front, instead of making party capital out of any aspect of the war time election I should be extending the thanksgiving day of my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) to thank God there was a Union Government in this country two years ago.
What is the matter with these hon. gentlemen in regard to the war time election? As a mere electoral occasion, it is past and gone. Were they not satisfied with the results of it? What were the results?
Not that Canada won the war, not that the Allies won the war; but the results of it to Canada were the breaking of the Hinden-burg line by the Canadian troops, and that these battalions were manned to the last man because the Union Government won the war-time elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Michael Clark: What would have happened if my hon. friends had won the election?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: What would have happened? At least we should not have had conscription. It may be argued we should have got the troops by other means.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: We should
previously have sent the German Emperor a message that we were not very anxious to get them by the only way he knew how to get them. I think it is a very supposititious case. What actually did happen, anyhow, is a matter of history. My hon. friends talk about the soldiers' votes, as if it were conceivable that any large number of soldiers under any other circumstances would wish to vote, when they were at the front, against their being sent the proper support. How would they have voted but the way they did? I wish hon. gentlemen to ask themselves that question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I asik the hon. member a question? Is it not true that the Australian army, when they came to vote on the question of conscription, only voted in favour of it by a relatively small majority?


Michael Clark: I have not the particulars as to how the Australian soldiers voted, but I have no doubt whatsoever how the Canadian soldiers voted. I know how they did vote. I am charitable enough to believe that in the large majority of cases they voted honestly, and they voted as only sane men could vote who were up against the hell they were up against and knew that they needed the last atom of Canadian strength, as well as the strength of the whole of the Allies, to win the war. Again I ask: How would they have voted? It is an endeavour on my part to put this thing in its proper place in history; it is not with the slightest desire to rake up these matters that I speak. I have been perfectly sincere in this House in advising amnesty; I have been perfectly sincere in this House, and elsewhere, in protesting against keeping up war-time animosities; and I propose to claim for myself, Mr. Speaker, that this furnishes a good ground for my voting against this amendment, which can have no other result than the keeping up of these war-time animosities and spreading them through our people's minds and lives to the great hurt of their efforts for what is the one paramount consideration which should be present to every one of us, and that is the building up and the reconstruction of our country.
Now I think the Opposition have been unfortunate on at least another ground, and that is in their argument. What was the argument of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition? I listened to his speech with the utmost care, as I did to my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster), who has just sat down, and I did not gather that either of these eminent lawyers charged that the action imputed in this telegram, or imputed by their resolution, was illegal. I did not gather that that was their charge. I did not gather that either of these legal luminaries charged that the action was illegal. Then their argument surely falls to the ground. What was the argument in the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition? He contended very vigorously, as he always does contend vigorously, for all the time that he needed in the debate, and how did he use his time? By reading a long extract from a speech of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) delivered in this House two years ago, and almost an equally long extract from a speech delivered at that time-Heaven save the mark-by the Hon. Dr. Pugsley. What does that prove? It. proves that so far as the case of the two-gentlemen who have already spoken in support of this Committee is concerned, they have no case upon which to charge illegality.. Whatever was done was done in accordance: with the law. What they did was really to attack an Act which was passed by this Parliament two years ago. That is what has happened in the debate up to now.
Well, surely there never was a more futile course taken by any hon. member in this House, and surely there never was a course taken that was less likely to prove a charge of dishonour against a minister of the Crown. The minister who supported, the War-time Elections Act two years ago may be right or wrong, but the majority of the House of Commons at that time passed' the measure into law; and I for one, while I have no apologies to make for political crookedness, no apologies for ballot switching, would say God speed the time when we have purer politics in Canada -purer electoral politics. I for one nevertheless would v say, that if in any degree the Military Voters' Act helped us to the point at which Canada stood shoulder to shoulder with the other Allies in bringing about the result which we see in the world to-day-if the Military Voters Act contributed in any 5 p.m. degree to give any one of the sixty thousand men who fell for Canada the consoling thought as he fell and died that his country was behind him to the last man and the last dollar,-while I would not palliate electoral crookedness I maintain that that at least is strong ground for saying that the future historian will probably write down the War-time Elections

Sipeaking of the banquet.
-excepting in so far as concerns canvassing, and of course I limited my examination to that.
This was said by the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Geoffrion. I quote further:
Mr. Archambault tells me that there is evidence which I can produce, and I suggest that by admitting those explanations as regards matters which have not been entrusted to your lordship, your lordship is either bound to only hear one side or to hear the evidence on both sides.
The Commissioner:	There is quite enough
in the commission to occupy me without going into that.
Mr. Geoffrion:	The only practical objection
I can see is that I am prevented from making the evidence and your lordship will hear the statement of only one party.
The Commissioner: I think you asked the witness if Mr. Rainville was not present?
Mr. Geoffrion:	I asked him if Mr. Rainville
was there. Mr. Archambault instructs me that he can prove the other element.
The Commissioner: As far as the commission is concerned, it does not matter whether the charge Is founded or unfounded, but I am not here to investigate the whole of Mr. Archam-bault's speech in the House of Commons. The Bill of charges may go farther than the commission.
Mr. MacNaughton, who was acting for the defence, said:
Do I understand that the commission only includes perjury and subornation of perjury?
The Commissioner: That is correct.
Mr. Geoffrion: And other conduct by which these men were induced to commit perjury?
The Commissioner:	I do not think you need
go any further into the question of that dinner.
I do not suppose any one could be induced to commit perjury by the mere fact of being invited to a dinner.
And so on. In his report, which I will read later, the Commissioner states that under the powers given to him by the Order in Council, the only accusations which he could investigate were those of perjury and subornation to perjury.
This, then, is what caused me to become firmly convinced that my first suspicion was well founded, and I proceeded to ascertain the meaning of the word "judiciously." I was precluded from bringing forward any proof or submitting any evidence with regard to the violation of the Military Voters' Act and the Dominion Elections Act or with regard to conspiracy. The inquiry being limited as I have stated, what could I do? Withdraw from the inquiry? Had I done that, my action would have been interpreted as an admission on my part that I was not in a position to prove the accusations that I had made. So, following the old adage that " half a loaf is better than no bread,"
I attended the inquiry.

I wish to say that I proved every accusation I made on the floor of this House regarding perjury and subornation of perjury, to which I was limited in the inquiry, against all the officers and men who were still in the country. It was impossible for me to adduce any evidence against those who were not in Canada, because section 9 of the Act precluded me from proceeding against any man to whom it was impossible to give notice and a copy of the accusation. I said I proved my accusation against every one. I wish to make one reservation and to offer an apology. Through a clerical error the name of Captain Campbell of Kingston was included instead of that of Captain Hazard in the list of officers against whom I made charges in the House of Commons. I noticed the error when I was supervising the charges for the inquiry, and I did not include Captain Campbell's name in the charge. However, attention was drawn to this fact during the inquiry, and I stated that the mistake had occurred through a clerical error, and right there I made an apology to Captain Campbell, and promised him I would make an apology on the floor of the House. No one regrets more than I that through no fault of mine such an error was made, and I wish unreservedly to withdraw any accusation I made against Captain Campbell. I do it as a gentleman should and so as to render full justice to Captain Campbell.
Coming back to the inquiry, the first accusation which I was allowed to prove was that certain officers and men had perjured themselves by falsely swearing that they could not say where they had resided before their enlistment, in order that they might cast their vote in Chambly and Ver-[DOT]cheres. When I sent my bill of charges to the Commissioner, which I had to do under section 9 of the Act, I made other accusations, which, as I said before, I was not allowed to prove, but which it may be interesting to give to the House and to put on Hansard. The accusations I made were these:
First, a general accusation is made against all the persons mentioned below of conspiring to violate The Dominion Elections Act, 1917, and the Military Voters Act, 1917, in order to cast their votes illegally and have their subordinates cast their votes illegally in favour of J. H. Rainville, Unionist Candidate in the last federal election in the county of Chambly-Ver-chSres, on the 17th of December, 1917, and classified accusations are made as below.
Lt. Col. W. W. Melville: Perjury, subornation to perjury, violation of King's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia in a general way, and especially sections 408, 409, 41-0, 418, 430, 438; violation of the Dominion Elections Act, 1917, and Military Voters Act, 1917, in a

general way and especially sections 252, 258, 269 ; authorizing under its authority the publication of a certain newspaper colled Knots and Lashings containing articles in violation of King's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia.
I may add that similar accusations were made against most officers of the barracks, and all these accusations were given to the Commissioner within the time required by law.
Now the first thing I had to prove in order to maintain my contention that the officers had committed perjury was that they had sworn to a statement which was false, and in order to get the best evidence I had to have the envelopes on which these statements were made. The inquiry started on the 12th of September, and although we had Mr. Chadwick, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, notified many days before the inquiry, when he came to St. Johns he testified that he could not find the ballots. After the inquiry had proceeded a few days the Commissioner decided that we would adjourn to Ottawa, in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. We came to Ottawa. We looked in practically all the boxes that were before our eyes but we could not find the ballots, until finally Mr. Geoffrion, the Crown Prosecutor and myself had to climb a ladder in the office, and in the last box in the last row of the highest shelf we found the mysterious box containing the envelopes for St. Johns barracks.
These ballots were peacefully resting there, protected from curious eyes and prying minds. After finding the envelopes we had a serious protest by the attorney for the defence, Mr. Surveyer, who spoke at great length and contended that it was illegal for us to look at the envelopes. His objection was ruled out and the envelopes were filed at the inquiry as exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. What did we find on the envelopes? On every envelope containing, as required by law, the sworn statement of the officer or man still in Canada who was named in my accusation, there appeared confirmation of every word of every accusation I made in the House of Commons. Every one of these officers swore that they could not say where they had resided in Canada before their enrolment, or at any time before they enlisted.-It is very easy for any hon. member to see these envelopes, as I presume they are still in the possession of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, having been filed as exhibits.
Furthermore, on page 20 of Sessional Paper 247 the Commissioner, in his report, referring to the accused admits the fact
that all these officers and men had chosen Chambly and Verch&res. There is not the slightest doubt as to the first part of the accusation of perjury, that is, that these men falsely swore they could not say where they had resided before enlistment and they chose Chambly and Vercheres to vote in.
Was this statement true or not, and did these men ever reside in Canada before enlistment? I have already given to the House the places where these officers resided at the time of their enlistment, and the information may be found in sessional paper No. 70 of the session of 1918. Now, to any tribunal desirous to render full justice this would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction for perjury. If an officer who has resided in Canada for a number of years-and in many cases these officers were born in Canada-cannot name any specific place where he has had a permanent residence at any time prior to his enlistment, he does, ipso facto, commit the grave crime of perjury. But there is an abundance of further proof. Major Norman Loring, an officer of the Department of Militia, custodian of the documentary evidence showing the declarations of the men, over their signatures, as to where they had resided and had enlisted, was examined, and his evidence is contained on pages 63-81 of the evidence taken on the inquiry. Let us briefly examine what he says. First of all he deals with one whom I may call the arch culprit, Colonel Melville, and at page 64 he says that Colonel Melville gave Floreneeville, N. B., as his residence in January, 1906. In 1906 Colonel Melville joined the army while he was residing at Floreneeville. He remained in the army until the war broke out, and I believe he is still a member of the forces and in the receipt of pay from the Government. We may now consider the others.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What about Colonel Melville? Did he vote?


Joseph Archambault: Yes, he voted and he swore that he could not say where he had resided. He could not specify any place in Canada where he had lived before enlistment. I will quote some of the evidence of Colonel Melville at a later stage, and in the meantime I shall proceed with Major Loring who had the signed documents of the officers and men, which documents he compared with sessional paper No. 70 of 1918:
Q. What about Major Keefer, Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa?-A. That is correct.


Ernest Lapointe: He does know that. Mr. ARCHAMBAULT: He happened to know that.
Q. Where did you live with your family before the war?-A. My family lived in Peel, New Brunswick.
Q. Were you living there when you joined the expeditionary force?-A. My family was.
Q. Is your family still there?-A. No.
By Mr. Geoff rion, (Continuing).
Q. During the four months immediately preceding your appointment on active service or calling out on active service where did you live?-Where was your	home?-A. I
was all over the province of New Brunswick.
My work took me all over the province.
Q. Military work?-A. No, civilian occupation.
By the Commissioner:
Q. What was your occupation?-A. I had charge of the outside service of the crown lands department of the province of New Brunswick.
By Mr. Geoff rion :
Q. And your family lived in New Brunswick? -A. Yes.
Q. Therefore these answers to questions 6 and 7 were not truthful?-A. Yes they are truthful.
Q. You were in a particular state of mind in which you could not say?-A. I do not even know now what "residence" is. I would hardly venture to tell where my residence is now.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Where did your family live before the war?-A. Peel, New Brunswick.
Q. You joined the Canadian army immediately after the outbreak of war in September 1914? -A. Yes, they lived in Peel, New Brunswick, then.
Q. And that had been your home for how long-three years?-A. I could not say exactly -some years previously.
Q. Three, four or five years?-A. No, ten and not five.
By Mr. Geoffrion:
Q. More than four?-A. I cannot give you
the exact date.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Did you ever have a home anywhere else? -A. Since I was married?
Q. Yes.-A. My family has always lived in New Brunswick.
So much for Colonel Melville. Let us come to another officer, the second in command-Major Keefer. First of all, he asked for the protection of the court before giving any answers. At page 162 of the evidence he said this:
In giving my evidence I think perhaps it is just that I should make a statement asking that I might have the protection of the court as I am mentioned in the charges.
The Commissioner: You will be fully protected in regard to any answer you may give according to the provisions of the statute.
I am now referring to the evidence of Major T. C. Keefer, at page 163. He not only received the protection of the court, but this special officer, Major Keefer, was appointed judge of the court martial in Montreal, evidently by the Government. So that he got not only protection but promotion.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Archambault: Before recess I had been discussing the inquiry held in St. Johns, Quebec, in reference to the military vote and the ballots cast there, a subject which was introduced into this debate by certain remarks to which the Minister of Interior gave utterance, and I had already placed before the House the documentary evidence to establish the fact that perjury had been committed. I then proceeded to quote evidence which was given at the inquiry. I had quoted from the evidence of Colonel Melville and when six o'clock arrived I was reading from the evidence of Major Keefer. I now beg permission to continue the reading of that evidence:
Q. (By Mr. Geoffrion, Crown Prosecutor) : You voted! at the poll at which Mr. Corbett was deputy presiding officer?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you look at the envelope I now show you and tell us if you are the T. C. Keefer whose ballot was enclosed in this envelope?-A. I do not want to quibble over the language but I cannot say whether that is so or not. That is my name and I have no reason to doubt that it is my envelope.
Q. You did give your vote to him?-A. I did.
Q. The answers on this envelope are:	"I
cannot say" and "Chambly-Verchdres." Do you remember giving these answers?-A. In the first place I would like to point out that I am not familiar with civil law. My conception of "residence" is a layman's conception of it, and in the question where you asked:	"Did you
continuously reside four months of the twelve months?" I concluded in my own mind that I could reside for six months or for two months not in any one particular place, in other words, my idea of residence, whether I am right or whether I am wrong, is that residence could

be shifted from place to place during a year; especially when it is asked "continuously."
Q. Did the deputy presiding officer swear you before he took those answers?-A. I was sworn, yes.
The crown prosecutor continuing:
Q. You will notice that you answered "I cannot say" to three questions, two of which referred to residence during the last four or the twelve months immediately preceding your appointment, enlistment, enrolling, or calling on active service. Question No. 8 asked you: "In what electoral district or place in Canada you have resided at any other time." Those questions combined asked you to mention residence whatever in Canada at any time since you were born?-A. My understanding of the question is this:-the first question I answered conscientiously, as I could not say where I had resided for four months. The 8th question is to my mind the corollary of question No. 7. It would read to me that I am required to go back to my twenty-first birthday, and state the places or electoral districts I have lived in. I cannot mention electoral districts in Canada.
Q. But you are asked to mention any electoral district or place?-A. What place could I select?
Q. Any one you liked, if there is more than one?-A. I simply could not select a place out of the mass of the places I have lived in.
Q. You have not lived outside of Canada?- A. Oh yes, I have lived in a great many places beyond Canada.
Q. And you could not give any of the places you have lived in in Canada?-A. I could not recollect any particular one.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Were you born in Canada?-A. I was born in Canada but I joined the British Army when I was quite young and I had about nine years service travelling in various parts of the world.
Q. When did you come back to Canada?-A. 1910.
By Mr. Geoffrion:
Q. From 1910 to 1914 you were continuously in Canada?-A. No, I was in the States for some time. I have lived a good part of the time in Canada.
Q. When did you join?-A. 1915. In that five years I had no home, I was unmarried.
I had railway contracts for a certain time and had an office in this place and an office in that place. I used to go away in the winter and spend my time in some part of the States or Bermuda.
Q. Your original place was Ottawa?-A. Ottawa.
Q. Your family live there?-A. Yes.
Q. You were unmarried in 1915?-A. I was married in 1915.
Q. And your explanation for your answers, for the court to appreciate is that you had lived in more than one place in Canada since you were born and were exempt from answering those questions in any other way than you answered them?-A. I honestly concluded that I should go through practically every place in Canada in which I lived. I did not know which place it was required of me to answer I had stayed in.
Q. Just before you enlisted were you four months in Canada?-A. Yes, I was four months in Canada.
Q. In what place?-a. No one place.
Q. Did you spend four months in one place during 1915?-A. No, no one place.

Q. Where did you live, where did your wife live?-A. My wife was in Ottawa some part of the time and in Toronto some part of the time.
Q. Were you with your father, or did you
have a house of your own?-A. I had a house of my own.
And this man had no residence:
I also had a house in the province of Quebec, in the country district.
Q. Where?-A. Blue Sea. I also have a house at Iberville.
Q. Since you are on service here?-A. Yes.
Q. Then we have it that the year previous to your enlistment you were married and had a house in Ottawa?-A. No, I will correct that; I did not have a house in Ottawa.
He was indignant. He said: "I had a house at Rockcliffe."
Q. Near Ottawa?-A. Yes, I was not very familiar at the time with the electoral districts as I am not much of a politician. and I could not say whether my house is now in the electoral district of Ottawa.
Q. Then you had a city house at Rockcliffe? -A. I suppose you would call It a country house.
Q. It was the nearest approach to a city house for you?.-A. Yes.
Q. Then you had another house at Blue Sea?

A. Yes.
Q. That is in the Gatineau valley?-A. Yes, north of Ottawa.
Q. And your wife and children lived in this house and occasionally visited her mother in Toronto?-A. Yes.
Now at page 170 the following evidence appears :
Am I right in saying that for one year previous to your enlistment you were married and had children and had a house near Rockcliffe and another house at Blue Sea?-A. Yes.
Q. And your family always resided at Ottawa?-A. Yes.
Well, this major, as I have proved and as the exhibits filed in the inquiry show, could not say or could not name any place in Canada where he had resided. The third witness, whose evidence I wish to quote, is Lieutenant J>. B. Armstrong and his testimony is to be found at page 185.
Q. You voted?-A. I voted.
Q. Will you look at the envelope I now show you and tell us whether this is your vote?-A.
I cannot say. I never saw the envelope.
Q. You voted at the poll at which Mr. Corbett was Deputy Presiding Officer?-A. I did.
Q. You answered questions 6, 7, and 8, " 1 cannot say " ?-A. Yes.
Q. And chose to apply your vote to Chambly-Verch&res?-A. Yes.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Were those answers given under oath?- A. Yes.
By Mr. Geoffrion:
<2. When did you enlist or join?-A. June, 1915.
Q. Then within the year previous to .1 ..ue, 1915, did you live in Canada?-A. I did.
Q. Had you a home there?-A. No, I had nc home of my own.

Q. You lived with your father?-A. I lived in several places, at the home of my father for one.
Q. Where else?-A. In Canada I have lived In Ontario and in New Brunswick.
Q. And you were travelling for business?- A. No.
Q. What was the reason for your changing your residence?-A. I was attending college previous to the enlistment.
Q. Give it as approximately as you can. You were unmarried and your home, so far as you had a home, was at your father's?-A. My father's home was in Westmount, Que.
Q. When you were not at college you lived there?-A. Well, while I was attending college I lived there excepting for the time I visited other places or resided at other places.
Q. What college were you attending?-A. McGill University.
Q. When did you finish your course at McGill?-A. I finished the third year at the end of April.
Q. The course began in October?-A. Yes.
Q. The beginning of October?-A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, except for brief absences, you were continuously attending MoGill and living in Westmount?-A. I was not continuously residing there.
Q. Did you drop your course for some time? -A. During those eight months I visited various places for some time, four or five days, and resided at other places.
Q. With friends or relatives or what?-A. I resided in the Laurentian Mountains for a few days at a time at various week ends.
Q. But your residence there, as you call it, for a few days, did not, I am sure, prevent you following your course at MoGill University?-[DOT] A. No.
Q. Therefore I take it that with the exception of a few week ends and the Christmas holidays, you must have continuously been in Westmount and Montreal, living in Westmount and attending lectures at McGill College, Montreal, for the eight months?-A. I believe I was most of the time, yes. I could not remember.
By the Commissioner:
Q. You always lived in Westmount?-A. Yes, but I have not always had a continuous residence there.
Q. The way the question is put on the envelope is as to continuous residence?-A. Now, in connection with question No. 8 I may say that I resided in Chambly-VerchSres County as well as other places in Canada, so that by answering " I cannot say '' there, I simply did so because I could not specify any other places. I might have specified Chambly-Vercberes just as well.
By Mr. Geoffrion:
Q. What was the nature of your residence there?-A. I resided at the residence of Mr. Joseph Ward.
Q. As a guest?-A. Yes.
Q. Over week ends?-A. Yes.
Q. You call that residing?-A. That is residing. I was not domiciled there, but I resided there.
And this gentleman again swore that he could not name one place in Canada where he had resided a single day 'before his enlistment.
Now I come to Lieutenant H. L. Phillips. We find his evidence at page 193:
Q. You voted at the poll presided over by Mr. Corbett?-A. Yes.
Q. You answered questions Nos 6, 7 and 8 by saying "I cannot say"?-A. Yes.
Q. And question No. 9 you answered "Cham-bly-Yerchi'res" ?-A. Yes.
Q. You were sworn?-A. I do not remember the swearing.
Q. You do not know?-A. I do not know.
Q. Do you remember that these answer were required under the law to be given under oath? -A. I did not know very much about that. I only voted once before in my life.
Q. Giving the word "residence" its natural meaning and not any artificial meaning, such as a man going for a week end as the guest of a friend, but confining it to its ordinary sense, you have always been a resident in Canada?- A. Since 1911.
By the Commissioner:
Q. I suppose you knew some places in which you had lived in Canada between 1911 and the time you enlisted?-A. Oh, yes, practically all in Toronto.
Q. Why did you not say Toronto in answer to the question instead of saying " I cannot say"?-A. (No answer).
Q. You had a house there and knew the number of it?-A. Of course that changed a little.
Q. But you, lived in Toronto?-A. Yes, it was continuous.
Here is another question the Commissioner put to the witness:
Q. Seeing that you have just admitted that you lived for twelve months in Toronto before enlistment, how do you pretend now that you were justified in saying "I cannot say" in answer to question No. 6?-A. That is the one which has the word in electoral district?
Q. Electoral district or place.
By the Commissi onner:
Q. There is nothing about electoral district in question No. 6. It is place or places in Canada where you last cohtinously resided during the last four months of the twelve months immediately preceding your appointment enlistment or calling ^u^xin active service. It seems to me you	been a little more
specific. At the samWitiie there may have been some reason why you answered as you did. If there is any reason, you had better make a statement in regard to it now. A. The only thing I can say is that I wanted to place my vote in Chambly-VerchSres for Mr. Rainville.
The next witness I wish to refer to is Lieut. R. N. Pettigrew. His evidence will be found at page 205:
Q. You answered "I cannot say" to questions 6v 7 and 8 and "Chambly-VerehSres" to question 9?-A. Yes.
Q. You gave those answers?-A. Yes
Q. And you were sworn?-A. I remember being sworn, yes.
Q. You think the word "residence" in its ordinary sense, and not speaking of week end visits to friends your residence is in Canada?- A. Yes, I have lived in Canada all my life.
Q. Were you born in Canada?-A. Yes.
Q. Where?-A. Glen Morris, Ontario.
At page 210 he repeats the same answer. There is another man-one of the eleven men who were still in Canada when the inquiry was taken-who swore that he could not name one place where he had lived in

Canada, although he was born in this country and had lived here all his life.
The next witness I wish to refer to is that of Major R. W. Powell, at pages 21 and 219:
Q. You voted at that election?-A. I believe so, yes.
Q. You answered questions 6, 7 and 8 "I cannot say " and question 9 " Chambly-Ver-chferes"?-A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact you have always been a resident of Canada prior to the war?-
Q. Until you enlisted? A. Yes. .
Q. You were bom in Canada? A. Yes.
Q. Where? A. I was born in Ottawa.
Q. Was your home in Ottawa up to the time of the outbreak of the war? A. My parents lived there.
Lieut. Edwin T. Adney, page 233:
Q. I see by the envelope prepared by Deputy Presiding Officer Corbett that you answered "I cannot say" to question No. 6, "I cannot say" to question No. 7, and apparently gave no answer to question No. 8, and answered question No. 9 " Chambly-VerchSres " ?-Is that correct? A.. I stated I desired to have my vote placed at Chambly-VerchSres and I intended to say that I could not answer question No. 6. I am not sure of the manner in which I did so, that is, whether I said ''I cannot say" or "I do not know" or what the exact wording was.
I am going over this evidence as rapidly as I can, and in doing so I crave the indulgence of the House, because I desire to put on Hansard all the important answers given by these men, in order to show that the Minister of the Interior was not on good ground when he stated that the charges made by me in the House were unfounded, and thaMkhad been so declared.
I quote from th&9HKhce of Lieut. Trow, at page 256:
Q. You answered questions 6 and 7, apparently "I cannot say" and question No. 9 "Chambly-Vereheres?" A. Yes.
Q. You remember having given those answers as to your residence and you remember that you chose Cham'bly-Verch&res to vote in? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember having been sworn? A. Yes.
Q. You are a Canadian? A. Yes.
Q. Where were you born? A. Stratford, Ontario.	.
Q. How long did you live there? A. Until I was about seventeen.
Q. How old are you now? A. 28.
Capt. Raymond R. Knight, page 293:
Q. You voted at that election? A. Yes.
Q. I see that you answered questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8, "I cannot say," and you answered question iNo. 9, "Chambly-Verch&res" ? A. Yes.
Q. And I see a certificate-
There is a certain difference between this officer and the others.
Q. And I 6ee a certificate under your signature to the effect that "the above-named elector

did make to me under oath the aforesaid answers." Did you swear yourself?-A. No, sir.
Q. Why did you certify that you did? A. Just a matter of form.
Q. Do you think that certifying that an oath has been taken is just a matter of form? Is that your view of the requirements of the law? A. I took it as a matter of form in that case.
Q. Although you certified that you had sworn yourself, as a matter of fact you did not swear yourself? A. No.
Q. When did you leave England definitely for Canada? A. 1911.
Q. Where did you go to live when you arrived in Canada? A. Toronto.
Q. How long did you stay there? A. Two and a half years. In 1913 I left Toronto.
Q. For what place? A. Fort William.
Q. And you stayed there until when? A. Until I enlisted.
Q. How long were you in Fort William? A. about four years.
Q. When did you enlist? A. I came down here on December 15, 1916.
On page 297, while the Crown Prosecutor was examining the witness, he said:
Q. Then let us take the last question: "If you cannot specify as required by question No. 6, or state as required by question iNo. 7, then state in what electoral district or place within Canada, you have resided at any other time than is referred to in question No. 6.
Here is the answer of Lieut. Knight:
A. Of course, it was my wish to vote for Chambly-Verehfires to start with.
Mr. Geoffrion: That is probably the * whole thing in a nutshell?-A. And I submit that just as clever a lawyer on the other side could show that I was perfectly right in saying "I cannot say" to all these things, especially in view of my wishes.
And on page 298, I find the following- and I particularly direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this part of the evidence:
Q. And especially as you were allowed to choose Chambly-VerchSres? A. I might have wasted my vote if I had put it in Fort William. A Liberal went in there by acclamation because he was the Union candidate.
Q. To be perfectly candid-(Mr. Knight interrupting) :	I am perfectly candid, without
any view as to whether I committed perjury or not.
Q. Your dominant idea was to give a vote for the Government candidate where it would be useful? A. Yes, and I thought it was perfectly right.
The Crown Prosecutor puts in this question :
Q. You took the precaution not to swear yourself? A. I did not take any such precaution. That does not come into the case at all.
Q. You would have answered in the same way under oath? A. Yes.
And here is where the Commissioner comes in with help:
Q. And you thought you were justified in the answers you gave? A. Yes.

Q. You were a deputy presiding officer? A. Yes.
Q. Therefore you had studied your duties carefully? A. Yes.
Q. You had read the Act? A. I knew it was irregular not to swear myself, but I did not think it cut any figure anyway.
Then there is the evidence of Lieut. James C. Armer, which is found on page 504:
Q. Certain questions were put to you which you answered under oatlh? A. Yes.
Q. I gather from the envelope containing your vote that you answered the questions as to your residence Nos. 6 and 7, "I cannot say," and that you chose as the county in which you placed your vote, "Chambly-Vercheres"; is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Were you married when you enlisted?-. A. Yes.
Q. Have you any children?-A. No.
Q. You lived in 'Canada?-A. Yes.
Q. How many years have you been living in Toronto?-A. I could not say definitely, but eight or ten I guess.
At page 507 this gentleman who had sworn that he had had no residence in Canada before his enlistment, gives us the interesting fact that he is a director of a company doing business in Toronto.
Lieutenant A.* C. Wright was examined (p. 520):
Q. I see that in answer to questions -6, 7 and 8 you put down under your signature " I cannot say" as to residence?-A. Yes.
Q. And Chambly-Verchdres as to the county you chose?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you please tell us where your home was when you enlisted. (No answer.)
Q. Had you a home? Are you a married man': -A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your occupation before you enlisted?-A. Civil engineer.
Q. How long' were you married?-A. Eleven or twelve years.
Q. Have you any children?-A. Yes, sir, three.
Q. Do you own a house or do you rent a house?-A. I do not own a house.
Q. Do you rent a house?-A. Yes.
Q. I mean, of course, before you enlisted?- A. When I enlisted my family was in Ottawa, or rather in Westboro, a suburb of Ottawa.
Q. Living in a rented house?-A. Yes.
Q. How long were they there?-A. For nine months.
Q. They were there nine months previous to your enlistment?-A. Yes.
This, Mr. Speaker, concludes the evidence of the officers, and the proof. It is my duty to give you some of the evidence of the soldiers. Out of 491 ballots of soldiers showing that they had answered, "I cannot say" to questions 6, 7 and 8, and had voted in Chambly and Vercheres, 300 gave Canadian addresses, according to the evidence of an official of the department, Mr. Adam. The remainder, 147, did not give Canadian addresses. Of course, it was impossible for me to prove that they had resided in Canada because they were away at the time, and the only way I could have proved it was by examining the men themselves. Only 10 of the 491 who had voted in Chambly and Vercheres remained at the barracks at St. Johns when the inquiry was going on. We examined those 10, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, judging by the answers they gave, that they were well trained.


John Wesley Edwards: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that out of 491 who voted only 10 remained?


Joseph Archambault: Q. Where were you living before?-A. I had no residence at all.
Q. You are an Englishman?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you come to Canada?-A. I came to Canada in 1908.
Q. You have been living in Canada since 1908?-A. Yes.
Then he goes on to -say that he has lived in Smiths Falls, Perth, and all over Ontario.
At page 428 the question is put to him:
Q. Had you resided anywhere continuously for four months during those twelve months previous to November, 1916? A. I was working in Smiths Palls.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where did he vote?


Joseph Archambault: He applied his vote to Chambly-Vercheres.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that a vote at large?


Joseph Archambault: It looks like it.
It was a very large vote, anyhow; it was six or seven hundred. Now, at page 430, Sapper Gotro gives this evidence:
Q. You voted at the election? A. Yes.
Q. I see you enlisted in December, 1916? A. Yes.
Q. And you gave your address as St. Pauls, N.B. ? A. Yes.
Q. You stated that you had been born there? A. Yes.
Q. And you lived there all your life? A. No, I was born there.
Q. How long had you been living there when you enlisted? A. I never lived there much.
Q. You gave St. Pauls, N.B., as your address? A. My address is Sydney, Cape Breton.
Q. When you enlisted you lived in Sydney, Cape Breton? A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been there?-A. I don't know, five or six months.
Q. You were put certain questions by the Returning Officer when you voted? A. Yes.
Q. You were sworn and these questions were put to you? A. Yes.
Q. I gather-and you will correct me if I am wrong-that you answered "I don't know" to the question relating to your residence? A. Well, I don't know either.
Q. You answered, "I don't know?" A. And I do not know.
Q. Then you chose as the county in which you wanted to vote, Chambly-Verchferes ? A. Yes.
Q. How did you come to decide on Chambly-
VerchSres? A. Because I knew he was the right man to vote for.
Q. How did you know that? A. Oh, because I knew it.
Sapper Stevenson gives this evidence at page 436:
Q. You voted at the last election? A. 1 voted at the last election.
Q. You were sworn? A. Yes.
Q. And certain questions were put to you? A. I just answered the questions that were put on the paper.

Q. As I understand it, you answered the three questions as to your residence, "I don't
know"?___A. Yes.
Q. You chose Chambly-Verchfires -as the county in which you wanted to vote? A. Yes.
Q. Where were you living when you enlisted? A. When I enlisted I was not staying in any place.
Q. But everybody has to be in some place? A. I was not in any place for any length of time.
Q. X don't care about the length of time. I want to know where you were staying be the time long or short. No answer.
Q. On your enlistment paper you gave as your address at the time of enlistment, 28 Martineau st., Ottawa? Is that right? A. Yes.
Q. When did you come to this country? A. 1913.
Q. Where did you come from? A. England.
Q. You had been three years in Canada when you enlisted? A. Yes.
Q. And during these three years you did not stay one month in the -same place? A. No.
Q. What was your occupation? A. I was a bar-tender. I was around the hotels pretty nearly all the time working around, I was waiting and doing different kinds of jobs around the hotels.
Sapper H. A. Evans-, at page 443, states:
Q. You voted at that election? A. Yes.
Q. You were then living in Canada in April, 1915? A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been living in Canada? A. I had been in Canada since July 27, 1910.
Q. That was about five years? A. I came here in 1910.
Q. Where was your last home or staying place?
Witness: Do you mean where I slept?
Counsel: Yes.
A. At the time of enlistment I was living on Christopher Columbus st., Montreal.
Q. How long were you there? A. I was boarding there.
Q. How long? A. Three months about.
Q. Where were you before that? A. Valley-field.
Q, How long?-A. Seven months.
Q. And previous to that?-A. I came to Val-leyfield.
Q. You were seven months in Valleyfleld and three months in Montreal. Those were your sleeping places immediately before you enlisted. How long before enlistment did you move your home to Montreal?-A. Approximately three years.
Q. Three years previous to your enlistment you had moved your home to Montreal?-A. Yes.
Q And it had been continuously your home until you enlisted?-A. Yes.
This man swore he had no residence in Canada, but he applied his vote to Cham-bly and Vercheres. Now, there is Sapper George Henson, who says at page 450:
Q. You voted at that election?-A. Yes.
Then he says that he had no place where he lived, but travelled from Winnipeg to Calgary and from Calgary to Winnipeg, finally coming to Montreal. Continuing, he says-:
Q. When you enlisted where were you as a matter of fact?-A. I can't say where I was.

Q. When you enlisted?-A. I enlisted in Winnipeg.
Q. How long had you been in Winnipeg?-A. Three years and eight months.
He swore that he could not name one place in Canada where he had lived at any time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some people do not know whether they send telegrams or not.


Joseph Archambault: He goes on to
say elsewhere:
A. When I first came to this country twelve years ago I worked with the Dominion Bridge Co., and I was travelling for them.
Q. That was twelve years ago?-A. Yes.
Q. You came to Canada twelve years ago1*- A. Yes.
Sapper H. Armitage, at page 462, gives this evidence :
Q. You enlisted in October 1917?-A. Yes.
Q. You were born in England?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you come to this country?-A. I came in 1913.
Q. And you remained in this country from 1913 to 1917?-A. Yes.
Q. How long had you been staying in Hamilton when you enlisted?-A. I think I can safely say I was there seven or eight weeks.
Q. Where were you this fall?-A. Working on the farm.
Q. You were sworn before you gave your answer?-A. Yes.
Q. You answered to six, seven and eight, by stating that you could not say or state as
regards your residence. That is correct'_A
Yes.
Q. And in answer to the question asking you to choose a county you choose Chambly-VerchSres?-A. Yes.
'Sapper James Sims gives this evidence, as appears at page 470:
Q. You were sworn?-A. Yes.
Q. And you were put certain questions respecting your residence. Is that right?-A. Yes.
Q. You answered these questions, "cannot say", is that right?-. Yes.
Q. Your chose Chambly-VerchSres as the county in which you wanted to vote?_A. Yes.
Q. You were born in England?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you come over?-A. About four years ago.
Q. During the two years you were in Canada when your work did not call you to any other place; you stayed with your sister?-A. Yes.
Q. I see your mother also lived at Pickering street, Toronto?-A. She used to.
Q. Is she dead now?-A. No.
Q. She lives with your sister on Pickering street, Toronto?-A. Yes.
Sapper Wagg, page 477:
Q. You were put under oath?-A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked certain questions about your residence; do you remember that? -A. Yes.
Q. You answered "I cannot say"?

A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You chose Chambly-Verchferes as the county in which you wished to vote?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you come to this country?-A. I came here about nine years ago but I have been trading with this country eighteen or twenty years.	~
Q. Where did you settle?-A. Brantford, Ont.
Q. How long had you been there?-A. Off and on perhaps three years.
Q. Between the time you came here nine years ago-which would be about 19 09 and 1914 your wife lived in Canada?-A. Yes.
. Q. Where?-A. In Brantford.
Q. All the time?-A. Yes.
Q. Have you any children?-A. Yes, two.
Q. They were there too?-A. Yes.
Q. You had a home there?-A. Yes.
Sapper William Haynes, page 488:
Q. You votej at the last election?-A. Yes.
Q. I see you voted before Captain A. R. Wright?-A. Yes.
Q. You were sworn on that occasion?-A. Yes.
Q. And certain questions were put to you?- A. Yes.
Q. Three of these questions related to your residence and it would appear that your answer was "cannot say"?-A. Yes.
Q. You chose Chambly-VerchSres as the county in which you wished to vote?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you come to Canada?-A. I think I have been over here about 13 years as far as I can remember.
Q. You were born in England?-A. Yes.
Q. You have been in Canada about 13 years? -A. Yes.
Q. You are a married man?-A. Yes.
Q. And you were married when you enlisted? -A. Yes.
Q. Where was your wife living when you enlisted?-A. Vancouver.
Q. You cannot mention a place where you were for five or six months?-A. No, sir; I was just roaming around.
It was very interesting to know why this man voted for the Union candidate in Chambly-Vercheres. In asking the reason the Crown Prosecutor said this:
Q. Can you tell me how you came to choose Chambly-Vercheres as the county in which you wished to vote? Did any one suggest it to you? -A. No, sir, no one suggested it to me. I used my own judgment.
'Q. Where did you find the elements upon which to base your judgment?-A. I thought iMr. Rainville was the best man to vote for.
Q. Where did you find that-in the newspapers?-A. No, sir, it was my own choice.
Q. Then you must have heard something of him?-A. I thought I was old enough to think for myself.
Q. Purely and simply thinking for yourself?- A. Yes.
Q. Had you ever met Mr. Rainville?-A. No.
Q. Then how did you arrive at that judgment?
At that point the Crown Prosecutor sat down waiting for an answer. The witness would not answer. So, finally, I said:
Did you vote by instinct?



The answer came as quick as a flash. "I have never met him; just my own instinct made me vote. "
At the end of the inquiry the question was asked this man if he had ever voted before. This man, I must remind you, had stated that he had no residence-no home -in Canada. The question was asked:
Q. Was this the first election you had ever voted in?-A. No. I voted in Vancouver once.
Q. Had you ever seen the member for tCham-bly-Verch6res?-A. No.
Q. When did you vote in Vancouver?-A. Not at a Dominion election; it was just on a bylaw, about a year and a half ago.
Q. About a year and a half ago you voted in Vancouver on a by-law?

A. Ves.
Q. You are not a proprietor; you have no land there?-A. No.
Q. Therefore you voted as a resident?-A. Yes.	*
It is not necessary for me to add anything in regard to the proof or evidence of false statements. Not only have I documentary evidence, but also verbal evidence. It is a clear case of perjury in each case, and the Commissioner admits the facts, as I will show in reading his judgment or report. But he does not draw the same conclusion as I do. We will examine this report later.
There was another accusation, and that was an accusation of conspiracy and subornation of perjury. In order to refresh our memories, let us read again a few sentences from Knots and Lashings, a paper which I read from last session or the previous session, and which was filed as exhibits 19 and 20 at the inquiry. The distribution of this papeT was not denied. On the contrary, some of the officers were proud to have contributed to it. The Commissioner admits himself the publication, admits that it was proved that the paper had been distributed, but he finds that it was an ordinary political paper and that there was nothing wrong about it. In the edition of December, 1915, here is what we find in this paper which the Commissioner decides contains the ordinary political literature that we see in every paper during an election :	.
We go to print on the eve of the election with our watchword "Vote for Union."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Joseph Archambault: (reading)
In another column-
I wonder if my hon. friends will say " hear, hear " at the end of this sentence-
-you will find instructions as to voting. Every soldier of the C.E.F. has a vote in this

election, and that vote is a powerful instrument which, used in a proper manner, can be made to operate effectually. You can size up the situation for yourselves. Ask yourselves these questions:	will your vote be needed in the
constituency from which you come? Will your vote marked for the Government be a means of putting in a candidate in a constituency where your vote is needed?
Where now is the hon. member who said "Hear, hear"?
Do not waste your vote. Have your mind made up before you enter the polling booth. Do not hesitate to place your vote for the Government in a constituency where it will count.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. AROHAMlBAULT:	I am not surprised at all at these " Hear, hears," because I know, Mr. Speaker, that many hon. members opposite were elected by this special vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perjury.


Joseph Archambault: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Archambault: Presiding Officer who answered me "We are in
the election."
Q. And you did not get any satisfactory answer from either of them, and this particular answer "We are in the election." you cannot say who gave it to you?-A. No I cannot swear as to that, hut I know that X received this answer from one of the two. who was laughing at the same time. "Oh. we are in the election."
Mr. Speaker, do we not find there all the elements of a conspiracy? We have 491 men and 17 officers giving to questions 6, 7 and 8 the answer " I cannot say," the only answer which would enable them to cast their votes in Chambly-Vercheres, or in any other constituency than the one where they had resided. This cannot be the result of a mere coincidence. The same thing applies to the answer ''Chambly-Vercheres." It would be insulting your intelligence and that of hon. members if I were to argue that the witness, in order to support the theory of a mere coincidence, perjured themselves a second time before the Commissioner. No, Sir. The organization was excellent. It was a conspiracy, as I related in the House last year, and included propaganda, posters, undue influence, placards, and suggestions to the soldiers, with an utter disregard for the sanctity of the oath, simply acting on the principle "Necessity knows no law; might is stronger than right," against which the whole world has been fighting in this terrible war which we have just won.
I should like to cite the evidence of Lieutenant Adney, at page 248:
I think we all realized that there was only one issue and in a case like this where the country is at war. normal rules do not apply. We are reluctant on account of the preservation of our liberties to set aside entirely the whole body of civil law. We preserve the civil law as far as possible until we find it wont work itself. When we find it will not work itself then we must take a military standpoint and get the one thing done which the preservation of the safety of the country reauires.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what the invaders of Belgium said.


Joseph Archambault: To continue:
Q. Your fundamental reason was that anything whatever could be done to win the election? A. In that respect I might be permitted to quote Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's judgment on that point. He says that the safety of the country is the supreme law against which no other law can prevail.
Lieut. Adney is purporting to quote Sir Charles Fitzpatrick's judgment. Now, Sir, you will undoubtedly he perplexed, and I am sure you will wonder, how the Commissioner could say in his report, as was reiterated with pride yesterday by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) in his no-answer speech, that my charges

were unfounded. Let us examine the logic of the report of this most favoured commissioner. He begins by relating the incidents which brought about the granting of the commission-the speech I made in the House, the accusation, and so forth-and proceeds to state the number of sittings. He then recites sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Military Voters' Act, 1917, and gives a dissertation on the word " residence." I may read what he says:
The officers whose conduct is impugned were almost all civil engineers and in civil life before their enlistment in the Engineers' Training Depot or their enrolment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Their work did not permit them to be in any one place permanently or for any fixed time and they had to move from place to place as duty called them. Such of them as were married men were frequently away from home. Those who were not engineers were also on the move at brief intervals, as their oecupa-tions required them to travel more or less About half of the officers of the Engineers' Training Depot who voted at the general election had left for service overseas before Mr. Archambault had made his charges of perjury in the House of Commons, and are still absent from Canada. All the remaining officers were brought before me and subjected to exhaustive cross-examination by able and skilful counsel selected by Mr. Archambault. Several of the officers who appeared had never voted before, and none of them knew much about electoral districts. They were not politicians or political workers. They answered, "I cannot say," or words equivalent thereto, to questions Nos. 6 and 7, and several of them gave similar answers to question No. 8. Question No. 6 is not simply an inquiry as to where the military voter resided at a fixed and definite date, but it is complicated by the word "continuously," which must mean constantly and uninterruptedly and by reference to the period of "four months of the twelve months immediately preceding appointment, enlistment or enrolment or calling out on active service." The question is rather indefinite, as an officer's appointment, enlistment, enrolment and calling out on active service in some cases were on different dates.
I may point out at this juncture, the fact that the statute does not use the words "and calling out on active service." The statute says, "enlistment, enrolment or calling out on active service." It is alternative or optional, which makes it a much easier matter. But the Commissioner in his report does not use the word which appears in the statute; he uses the word " and."
It was so in the case of Colonel Melville.
Then the Commissioner gives the definition of the word "residence." He says:
The place of a man's residence, or where he resides, is not always easy to determine. Laymen, lawyers and even judges are liable to confound it with "domicile;" but residence and domicile are two distinct things. A man's home, or the home of his parents if he is unmarried, may be his "residence" but it often

is' not; it is usually his "domicile." It is not the residence of an engineer who is following his profession, or a salesman on the road at a place from which he is unable to return to his home in order to sleep there. An oft-quoted definition of the word "residence" is the place where a person abides, eats and sleeps. A person's residence to-day may not be his residence next week or next month, and within a given period of time he may have no continuous or uninterrupted residence. Some of the officers swore they did not know the meaning of "residence," or what was meant in these questions by the place where they resided. Question No. 7 contains an inquiry as to the electoral district in which the voter resided. As the time referred to in question No. 6 is not definite, the time in No. 8 is necessarily so, and reference to the electoral district or place within Canada where he had "resided" is of a character liable to lead to confusion and uncertainty. The right of soldiers as such to vote was new in Canada.
Observe, Mr. Speaker, all these preliminary explanations.
The right of soldiers as such to vote was new in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: It was new everywhere.


Joseph Archambault: My hon. friend says it was new everywhere, and I believe he is right; for I do not think that England gave any vote to the Canadian soldiers who were in the English army, nor do I think the French Government gave any vote to Canadian soldiers who were in the French army during the French election. The report continues:
And it was abundantly proved in the inquiry that there was a widespread conviction amongst not only military voters but civilians that every military voter had a right to apply his or her vote wherever he or she saw fit. And all the officers whi were examined swore that they believe they answered truthfully to the best of their knowledge and belief and that they had the right to specify Chambly-Yerch6res as the electoral district where they wished to have their vote applied. These officers are charged with having committed perjury in their answers to the foregoing questions.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the Commissioner admits that the officers gave the answer, " I cannot say," and that he admits the fact that their residence was in Canada. He says:
These officers are charged with having committed perjury in their answers to the foregoing questions. Perjury by a witness as part of his evidence in a judicial proceeding is defined by section 170.
And then the Commissioner gives a definition of the word perjury. Further on he
says:
The officers here each and all testify to their belief in the truth of their answers as they understood the questions.
And evidently they understood the questions, Mr. Speaker.
That is to say, every one of the officers was asked by the Commissioner at the end of his evidence: Do you believe you spoke the truth in this evidence; do you believe that you acted right? Naturally they answered, " yes." What accused before a criminal court, if asked by the judge if he was guilty or not guilty, but would answer: "I am not guilty?" What court would acquit an accused person for the simple reason that the accused himself said that he was not guilty, and in face of the proof that he was guilty? The Commissioner goes on to say:
Few words have been the subject of judicial consideration more frequently than the word "resides" and its derivative "residence", which has many different meanings varying according to circumstances between a transient presence for purposes purely temporary and a fixity and permanence of abode equivalent to domicile.
Then there are some authorities cited to show that " residence," " domicile " and " home '' are the hardest things for a man to define when he is called to the box as a witness. The Commissioner says:
The officers who were examined before me gave their evidence in a straightforward manner and their conduct and demeanour while under examination, and the reasons which they gave for their answers established their good faith and they honestly believed that they had a right to answer questions 6, 7, and 8 as they did. The envelopes show that Colonel Melville, Lieutenant Trow, Lieutenant Adney and Lieutenant Armer did not answer question No. 8.
Here is the conclusion of the 'Commissioner regarding these officers:
That disposes of the charges of perjury against these officers.
These officers were bound to answer the first question, No. 6, whether they had resided in Canada for four months before their enlistment and the fact that they did not answer question No. 8, if they were wrong in answering question No. 6 the way they did, does not absolve them from the accusation of perjury. Nevertheless, the Commissioner says:
That disposes of the charge of perjury against these officers. In my opinion these charges are unfounded. It was proved to my satisfaction-
I wish you to notice these words " my satisfaction."
It was proved to my satisfaction that Colonel Melville was not sworn by the deputy presiding officer when he polled his vote.
The Commissioner declares that it was proved to his satisfaction that Colonel Melville was not sworn. But, this proves that Colonel Melville violated the law-violated the Military Voters' Act-because according to the Military Voters' Act, every sol-

dier who wants to vote must be sworn. Because, Colonel Melville was not sworn the Commissioner is satisfied and happy. He goes on to say:
In view of the answers given to questions 6, 7, and 8 the officers had the right to apply their votes to Chambly and VerchSres.
Nobody denies that. By answering questions 6, 7, and 8 the way they did, by not answering truthfully to these questions, by stating that they could not name a place in Canada where they had resided before their enlistment, surely they were entitled to answer question 8 by saying " Chambly-Vercheree" or any other county. But what we are arraigning them for is that they did not answer questions 6, 7, and 8 truthfully. They had all resided in Canada, they had all had a previous residence in Canada and in answering this question by " I cannot say" they perjured themselves. The Commissioner goes on:
Mr. Rainville the Government candidate in the electoral district was known to some of the officers, but not to all of them from having taken one meal the date of which is not proved, at the officers' mess. There were no speeches and no votes asked for on that occasion and the suggestion that something improper occurred between the officers and Mr. Rainville is absolutely unfounded.
I was precluded from bringing in evidence regarding this banquet and regarding the speeches made at it. I was precluded from bringing in any evidence other than evidence relating to the charge of perjury and subornation of perjury. When Colonel Melville made the statement that there were no speeches and no banquet, the Crown Prosecutor proposed to produce evidence to show that there was a banquet, to show that there were suggestions made by officers as to voting and to show that there were incitements to perjury, "the Commissioner ruled that, according to the Order in Council and the instructions of the Minister of Justice that the investigation should be judicially conducted, he could not go beyond the question of perjury or subornation of perjury and that he could not accept proof of the banquet.or of the suggestions made by officers. Nevertheless the Commissioner states that there were no speeches, no votes asked on that occasion and that the suggestion that something improper occurred between the officers and Mr. Rainville is absolutely unfounded. The Commissioner allowed proof on one side but he prevented me from bringing evidence on the other side. Then he goes on to state that these
[iMr. Archambault.]
charges are 'absolutely unfounded. He proceeds:
The officers and soldiers at St. Johns were strong supporters of the Union Government. From patriotic motives they wished to see the Government returned.
Is it proper for a Commissioner to mention such facts or to mention them in that way?
Mr. Rainville's public record as a supporter of the Government and his stand in favour of conscription and of adequate reinforcements for the Canadian army strongly appealed to the military voters and a considerable number of them, but not all who answered "I cannot say" questions 6, 7 and S desired to have their votes applied to Chambly and Verchcres as they honestly believed they had a right to do.
Then the Commissioner goes on to deal with the accusation of subornation of perjury.


Jacques Bureau: Are those the Commissioner's words "from patriotic motives"?


Joseph Archambault: This Commissioner's judgment was that "from patriotic motives they wished to see the Government returned".
These officers were also accused of subornation of perjury by having induced certain military voters, being non-commissioned officers and men of the engineers' training depot to commit perjury by falsely representing themselves upon oath to be unable to specify or state in what place or places, or electoral district in Canada, they had resided at any time preceding their appointment, enlistment, or enrolment or calling out on active service for the purpose of having their votes applied to the electoral district of Chambly-VercMres.
And he goes on:
The evidence clearly establishes that there was no canvassing for votes on the part of any officers. The men published a regimental newspaper called Knots and Lashings. Lieutenant Knight was the editor. It is a weekly newspaper published every Saturday, and in the edition of the 15th December, 1917, there were several articles of a partisan character-
I should say so-
-but. in no way different from the usual political information to be found in party newspapers during an election campaign.
I have read these special articles, Mr. Speaker. I have read an extract from the paper in which the soldiers were told not to vote in constituencies where they came from, but to apply their vote in the constituency where they were needed, and the Commissioner not only admits this but he approves of this paper Knots and Lashings inducing the men to perjure themselves, and says it was nothing else blit an ordinary political campaign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Patriotic motives.


Joseph Archambault: On 17th December, 1917, election day, an extra of Knots and Lashing's was issued in which appeared among other matter a "specimen envelope showing how questions may be answered." The answer to questions 6, 7, and 8, is " I cannot say " and to question 9,
Chambly and VerchSres."
The fact that the paper was published for the men in the barracks, the Commissioner, himself has admitted in his judgment. Now he goes on and says:
Any military voter who was a British subject and had not resided in Canada would have a right to give the answers suggested in the printed specimen envelope.
Certainly, we have no objection to that. This is why the Military Voters' Act was passed in order to give British subjects who had no residence in Canada the right to vote at a Canadian election.
The applications for enlistment of 191 noncommissioned officers and men in the Engineers Training Depot were examined with the result that 299 gave Canadian addresses and 1'<2 gave their residence as being outside of Canada. If the latter never resided in Canada, and there is no presumption that they had-
There is no proof either that they had nottheir right to answer "I cannot say" to questions 6, 7 and 8 and to select "Chambly-Verchdres" for their vote, is undoubted.
That is true that over 147 men that voted never resided in Canada. Now here is one peculiar interpretation:
Every voter who did not understand the import of questions 6, 7 and 8, or who was honestly unable to give the information asked for, would also be entitled to answer them in the manner suggested in the specimen envelope. There is the further circumstance that the prevailing impression in military circles was that the questions could be answered in the manner suggested.
Who circulated that impression, Mr. Speaker? It was circulated by the newspaper that was published in the barracks. That newspaper was sent to the Minister of Militia, as stated in this evidence; and the fact that 17,000 men, as I will show later on, voted the same way in other places and answered the same question in the same manner, " I cannot say," shows there was a big organization and system created to use the votes of the soldiers for political purposes.
The men read the Montreal papers and were greatly interested in the result of the election. Mr. Rainville's public career and his stand on the important question before the country met with their approval. Ten of the men and noncommissioned officers were brought before the Commission and subjected to a thorough examination as to where they had resided, and why they answered "I cannot say" to questions 6, 7, and 8, and chose Chambly-VerchSres a's the place they wished to have their vote applied. These ten men were practically all that remained at St. Johns of the rank and' file that were there at the time of the election and who had voted. Their evidence does not show that they were influenced by anything that appeared in Knots and Lashings.
Mr. Speaker, practically every one of them swore that it was Knots and Lashings that influenced their vote.
They gave what appeared to me to be good, valid and sufficient reasons for the answers which they gave to the questions and of their choice of Chambly-VerchSres. . . . There were no improper inducements, representations, suggestions or other misconduct by the officers', or any of them, to influence any non-commissioned officer or man to commit perjury by giving false answers to the questions on the envelope, and the non-commissioned officers and men who appeared and were examined did not, in my opinion, commit perjury in connection with their questions. The charges of perjury and subornation of perjury are unfounded.
Now I wish to make a few further observations, but I will not add an iota or remark to this most extraordinary document of partisanship for fear I might spoil the lesson which it conveys and destroy one of the most vivid, typical and historical monuments of the administration of justice under the Unionist Government. But, Sir,


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the hon. gentleman is in order in making the reflection which he has just made upon the conduct of a judge of the Superior Court. The rule is quite clear that all references to judges, courts of justice of all kinds, and personages of high official station in the nature of personal attacks or censure have always been 'Considered unparliamentary and the Speakers of the English Commons have treated them as breaches of order. They have always insisted that " such expressions should be withdrawn," and that, " when it is proposed to call in question the conduct of a judge, the member desiring to do so should pursue the constitutional course of moving an address to the Grown." I took no objection to the reading of the judgment. The judgment is an official document which, under the rules, could certainly be read in the House; but I do not think that the hon. gentleman should comment upon that judgment in a manner unfavourable to the judge. Before giving my ruling, however, I will be pleased to hear any hon. gentleman upon the point of order.


William Stevens Fielding: I humbly submit we
are not dealing with a judge at all. We are dealing with a commissioner who may or may not be a judge, and I humfoly submit that the rule that would apply to a judge would not necessarily apply to a commissioner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may be quite true
that Mr. Justice Maclennan was acting as a commissioner, but I call your attention, Mr. 'Speaker, to the fact that the hon. gentleman in his criticism has chosen to treat him as a judge.
He has commented upon the administration of justice under the Unionist Government. If that can imply anything else than that he .means to condemn Mr. Justice Maclennan in his quality of judge-


An hon. MEMBER:: Commissioner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: then I am at a loss to understand what the words of the English language mean.


William Stevens Fielding: It might mean the administration of justice by the Government themselves.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But it means that he deals with this as a matter forming part of the administration of justice under this Government.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Justice is administered by judges, not by this Government.


William Stevens Fielding: Justice is administered by the Department of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is news to me. It is a new function to attribute to the Minister of Justice that he is charged with the administration of justice. The administration of justice, so far as it is a matter to be dealt with by governments, is absolutely in the hands of the provincial governments. But when taking as his basis the action of a man who is a judge, although he may have been a commissioner, the hon. gentleman chooses to condemn the administration of justice. He may seek by one means or another to avoid the conclusion, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conclusion is unavoidable. There is no connection between what this commissioner did and the administration of justice, except it be in the fact that this commissioner was a Judge of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec; and that being so, I submit that the commentary of the hon. gentleman is a reflec-

tion upon Mr. Justice Maclennan in his office as an administrator of justice-


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -and only in so far as he is a judge of the Superior Court.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, if the Government has nothing to do with the administration of justice, why is my hon. friend called the Minister of Justice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to determine why those who chose the title to be attached to the minister holding the position which I do adopted that title. But the hon. gentleman must know that there is a statute defining what are the duties of the Minister of Justice, and he may go through that and he will not find that the Parliament which enacted that statute undertook to take over to itself the function which the British North America Act assigned to the provinces, and to assign to a minister in a Government of the Dominion any share in the administration of justice. The hon. gentleman will not take me as an authority, but I may say that I heard my predecessor, whom he will accept as an authority, the Minister of Justice in the Government in which my hon. friend was the distinguished Minister of Finance-I heard him, standing in his place in this House, say in substance precisely what I have said, and not waiting for the question which the hon. gentleman put, he himself undertook to say that he was at a loss to understand why the designation of "Minister of Justice" had been attached to the office, and that it was misleading. I am in receipt of numinous letters-as he said himself he was-wriUon to me on the strength of that title and on the assumption that I administer justice. I have to explain to the writers of those letters, as I have tried to explain to the hon. gentleman to-night, that it is quite an unjustified conclusion to draw from the title itself-which, I admit may be a misleading title-that the Minister of Justice is charged with the administration of justice. As I have said, the statute is there for all hon. gentlemen to read, and they will see that in substance the Minister of Justice is the legal member of this Government, and, as such, the legal adviser of this Government and of the different departments of the Government; but his nearest approach to taking part in the administration of justice is that in his hands is the nomination, to be submitted to Council of the judges to be appointed. And the

function of this Government goes no further than the appointment of the judges. To the provinces belongs the administration of justice; to this Government belongs the function of the appointment of those men who shall sit in the Provincial Courts.


William Stevens Fielding: The only remark I
desired to make, Mr. Speaker, was that the expression, "the administration of justice under this Government" does not necessarily apply to a judge, but it may apply to what happens in the department of the hon. minister, who is called upon to deal with the administration of justice even in such matters as life and death.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman does not understand-


William Stevens Fielding: That is my misfortune.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -the difference between justice and clemency. The function of tire Minister of Justice, in so far as it affects life and death, is to advise the representative of the (Sovereign in the exercise of the Sovereign's prerogative of extending clemency.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I happened to be a member of this House a few years ago when the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) criticised the report of Mr. Justice Galt cf Winnipeg, who acted as a commissioner to investigate certain matters relating to the provincial administration of Manitoba while Mr. Rogers was a minister of the Roblin Government. Mr. RogeTS used very violent language with regard to Mr. Justice Galt, and I remember that my leader, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, rose to a point of order. It was decided that as Mr. Justice Galt had acted as a commissioner and not as a judge the member was at liberty to criticise as he wished the report of Commissioner Galt, but not Mr. Justice Galt.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? Was there an Order in Council appointing Mr. Justice Maclennan to act asi commissioner in this matter; and, if so, under whose recommendation was the Order in Council passed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There certainly was an Order in Council recommending the appointment of Mr. Justice Maclennan to act as commissioner, and that Order in Council was passed upon my recommendation. And notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentleman has passed some three hours
now swearing at his judge, a year and a half after the decision of that judge acting as a commissioner was rendered, I have no apologies to offer for the recommendation I made. The hon. gentlemen both come from the province that I come from and both are members of the profession of which I am also a member; and they know that down in Quebec we Tecognize that every unsuccessful litigant and every unsuccessful counsel has the privilege of twenty-four hours "pour maudire son juge". The hon. member from Chambly-Verchkres has waited for a year and a half, in the meantime "nursing his wrath to keep it warm", and here he is keeping this House for three hours or more swearing at his judge because he lost his case.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend wants to find a precedent for waiting to answer or criticise? Let him turn to his friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) who-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Jacques Bureau: I am coming to the question. My answer to the Speaker is this, that the member for Chambly-Vercheres is . not criticising a judge of the Superior Court any more than I am criticising a judge of the Superior Court or an ex-judge of the Superior Court if I criticise the Minister of Justice. Mr. Maclennan, for the purposes of this inquiry, virtually ceased to be a judge of the (Superior Court. For the time he was acting as commissioner under a commission giving him the powers therein recited, which . he might exercise within the province of Quebec as a judge of the Supreme Court. Mr. Maclennan was outside of his jurisdiction and without the scope of his duties; he was acting as a commissioner by virtue of a commission issued for a specific purpose. His finding is not a judgment; it is a report. If it were a judgment, it would be subject to appeal, but from his finding there is no appeal. Anyway, we know what it means to appeal to a majority of Unionists, whether the cause be right or wrong, because we have had experience in that line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jacques Bureau: There is no " order ''
. about it. The better our cause, the less chance we have of success.


John Wesley Edwards: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: One at a time.


Joseph Archambault: We are already discussing a point of order.


John Wesley Edwards: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order! We
are at present discussing a point of order, but I do think that the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has reason for intervening, to call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is wandering from the point under discussion. I would ask him to bring his remarks to bear upon the point of order now before the Chair.


Jacques Bureau: I want to know whether I am not in order when I am trying to establish the difference between Mr. Maclen-nan as a judge of the Superior Court and Mr. Maclennan as a commissioner to conduct an investigation in connection with a political matter? If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that under these circumstances I am out of order, I desire to appeal from your ruling to the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not so rule.. I merely said that I would like the hon. member to keep his remarks within bounds and not wander away from the point under discussion.


Jacques Bureau: I did not wander away from it, except when I desired to give the Minister of Justice a precedent in the matter of incubating over things and waiting for seventeen months before making an answer


Georges Henri Boivin: That was absolutely not in order.


Jacques Bureau: I know it was not, and I accept your ruling-I was saying that on this particular point I was out of order. As for the Minister of Justice, he cannot be out of order; he belongs to the Union Government. I submit that it is the right of any member to criticise any act of the Government and any act of Parliament. This commission, the appointment of which was first refused by the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Burrell) but afterwards granted because of a little remorse in the heart of the Minister of Justice, is an act of the Government. The commissioner was appointed by this Government; he made a report, and his report, as well as the commissioner himself, can be discussed, criticised, analysed, and-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Condemned.


Jacques Bureau: " Condemned " would
not be strong enough. It can be left to the judgment of the country.


Joseph Archambault: I should like to speak to the point of order. On September 19th last the Board of Commerce was being discussed by this House in committee, and I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair at the time. The discussion was with regard to Mr. Justice Robson and Mr. O'Connor.


Georges Henri Boivin: As the hon. member is rising to speak to the point of order, the Chair desires to correct a misapprehension which he is labouring under. The discussion at that time was not with reference to Mr. Justice Robson; it was with reference to Mr. O'Connor, a member of the Board of Commerce.


Joseph Archambault: I read from Hansard as follows:
Mr. Jacobs: I am a little surprised that the Minister of Justice should have permitted the attacks which have been made here this afternoon upon members of the judiciary. I think it was his duty as Minister of Justice to rise and protest against the attacks made by his followers on the members of the bench. He has just told us that the gentlemen who constitute the Board of Commerce are judges. That is true, and I should like to cite the following rule in Bourinot (page 3'58) :
"All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and. the speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order."
It goes on:
"Members have even been interrupted in . Committee of the Whole by the chairman when they have cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding."
It seems to me that the Minister of Justice who is the guardian angel of the judiciary of this country, should at least protect these new judges from the improper attacks which are being made on them this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, your decision was the following:
The Chairman : I should like to ask the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) is he now raising a point of order.
Mr. Jacobs: I am raising a point of order. The Chairman: In view of what has been said, I consider that the point is well taken.
That was your first decision. Later in the afternoon, with regard to the same question, you made the following decision:


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Georges Henri Boivin: With reference to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) concerning the ruling given by the Chairman in this House the other day, I must put him right to this extent: The ruling was given concerning Mr. O'Connor, a member of the Board of Commerce, appointed by this Government and removable by the Governor in Council for
cause. He was not and is not a judge of the Superior Court, and the ruling had nothing to do with Mr. Justice Robson, who is the Chairman of the Board of Commerce. Hon. members will find if they look up the statute creating the Board of Commerce that when a judge is appointed Chief Commissioner of the Board he shall not be removed at any time by the Governor in Council except upon address of the Senate and -House of Commons. The ruling does not apply here. I have paid great attention to the remarks made by hon. members on both sides of the House, but I have not found anything which to my mind sets aside the rulings which I find in May's Parliamentary Practice. At page 224, I read:
A question reflecting on the action in Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission, was by the Speaker's direction not allowed.
At page 296, I read:
Reflections against judges generally are equally out of order.
And on the same page:
The Speaker has ruled out of order language disrespectful to persons administering justice.
It is very difficult to separate in a -Commissioner the personality of the judge from that of the Commissioner. The conduct and character of a judge certainly cannot be attacked by a member of the House of Commons, except by pursuing the constitutional course of moving an address to the Crown. As I pointed out before, I allowed the hon. member to read the findings of Mr. Justice Maclennan, sitting as Commissioner upon the inquiry. His remarks have been placed upon Hansard and are before the House and the country for the judgment of the people of Canada, but when the hon. member reflects upon the conduct, character and motives of Mr. Justice Maclennan, and comments unfavourably upon the administration of justice in this country, be it under this or any other Government, he is exceeding his rights under the rules of the House.
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) referred to a ruling given in this House in 1917 when the right hon. -Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for whose knowledge of the rules- of the House I have much respect, rose to a point of order. On that occasion Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hori. gentleman (Mr. Rogers) is speaking to a question of privilege. I submit to you. Sir, that it is not in order for him to impugn the character of the Commissioner. He can dispute the Commissioner's conclusions, if he wants to, but he has no right to impugn the character of the Commissioner.

The ruling given at that time is as follows, Mr. Speaker being in the Chair:
Speaking without having had opportunity to consult the rules. X am inclined to think the point of order is well taken.


Ernest Lapointe: Will
you read on to the following page? As a matter of fact, Mr. Rogers continued his remarks against Mr. Commissioner Galt with the approval of the Speaker.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have quoted the ruling given at that time by Mr. Speaker. The further remarks of the hon minister were directed against the Ottawa Citizen and not the Commissioner. That is also my ruling at the present time.


Jacques Bureau: Does the decision mean that every time a judge shall he appointed an investigator or commissioner in anything, his findings cannot be criticised?


Georges Henri Boivin: That is certainly not the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member (Mr. Archambaul-t) read the findings of the Commissioner and commented upon them without interference from the Chair. The ruling of the Chair is that the personal conduct, character and motives of a judge cannot be criticised by a member of the House in debate, unless upon an address to the Crown.


Jacques Bureau: Am I to understand this, that if a judge of a Superior Court of any province is appointed to any position, we cannot criticise him on acoount of his personality? Is the ruling this, that the person of a judge, in whatever capacity he may act as agent or officer of the Government, his acts cannot be criticised?


Georges Henri Boivin: I thought I
had made myself quite clear. I will repeat the ruling. The findings of a commissioner may be read, commented upon and discussed, but the personal conduct, the character, and motives of a judge cannot be impugned.


Joseph Archambault: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If I am not allowed to discuss the motives of the judge or Commissioner I shall certainly be allowed, I think, to read some of his remarks in the evidence. I had not intended to proceed in that way, but I shall do so now, as under your ruling I have no right to discuss his motives. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the change of attitude of the judge, shown by his remarks, at a certain point during the in-

quiry. The inquiry started on the 12th of September, and from the 12th to the 18th of that month the Commissioner seems to have been very severe towards the men coming up before him. On the 18th there was a change of attitude, and in order to explain this change I must refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Hansard of last year, where it is stated that on the 18th of September the Commissoner was made permanent Chairman of the Labour Disputes Board.
At page 183 of the evidence, after Major Keefer had stated the different residences he had in Canada, the Crown Prosecutor was about to examine him in further detail when the commissioner said: "I think we have gone sufficiently into that, Mr. Geoffrion." He was satisfied with the residence at that time. At page 198 the commissioner said in connection with the answer of Lieut. Philips :
On page 200 in the examination of Lieut. Philips the attorney for the defence objected to a question, saying: "As to residence, I think the witness has already answered," and the Commissioner intervened: "Then let him answer again." He seemed at that time to be very anxious to obtain the truth in order to make his report. At page 202 the Commissioner said again to Lieut. Philips:
Seeing' that you have just admitted that you lived for twelve months in Toronto before enlistment, how do you pretend now that you were justified in saying "I cannot say" in answer to question No. 6?'' At page 203 the Commissioner said to Lieutenant Philips '. "It seems to me you could have been a little more specific." At page 208 he again stopped the Crown Prosecutor from further examination of the witness in regard to residenoe, saying: "X think that is sufficient for the question of residence, Mr. Geoffrion."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that before the 18th?


Joseph Archambault: Yes. On page 225, examining Major Powell, the Commissioner said: "Why, you could haive answered question No. 8 very easily by saying Ottawa." This, Ml Speaker, is all in reference to the time before the 18th. On page
274 the Commissioner said to Lieut. D-
"Why didn't you answer that question by stating where you were when you were a boy before you went to college?" On page 275, one of the attorneys for the defence having argued that the question of residence should be answered only as it had reference to the time after the witness had reached 21 years of age, the Commissioner said this:
Is it your contention that from the time you were 21 years of age you did not reside any-

where continuously for four months?-A. Yes, that is correct.
The Commissioner:	Of course none of those
questions have any reference to 21 years of age.
Alter the 18th of September there was a change in the attitude of the Commissioner and at page 415 he begins to inquire of every man who comes before him whether he had been telling the truth during the inquiry, and asking him if he had ewer had any intention of committing perjury. We have been discussing the question whether the Commissioner was acting as a judge or not; but surely, Mr. Speaker, you cannot call to mind any judge sitting in a criminal court in Canada and asking the accused whether he was guilty or not, after he had pleaded not guilty? Well, from the 18th of September to the end of the inquiry the Commissioner put this leading question to witnesses.
I have nothing else to add regarding this change of attitude on the part of the Commissioner, but I may cite a Latin dictum which is very appropriate to the occasion: " Sine conscientia, gubernatores, cibis, ves-timentis, auro et honoribus, suos implent abjectos servos."


An hon. MEMBER:: Give them the translation.


Joseph Archambault: when he appeared before the Commissioner.
In his evidence Lieutenant Knight also stated that the law was framed by the Government in order to win the election and to get that kind of a vote. I am sorry to detain the House so long but I believe that I have a duty to perform to the country. The examination of Lieutenant Knight proceeds at page 303:
Q. Do you know whence the desire to vote in Charribly-Verchdres arose?-A. I do not.
Q. How did Chambly-Verchdres come to be chosen?-A. I could not say.
Q. Why did you choose it yourself?-A. Well I met Mr. Rainville. As a matter of fact, I think most of us wished to have one Union representative at least in Quebec. That was our main desire.
Q. And you thought of Mr. Rainville as the chosen one?-A. Yes, he had a chance.
Q. You met him?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you think he had more chance than others?-A. Looking at the question of numbers-yes. It would have been useless for instance to put any votes in St. Johns1-As a mathematical proposition, he had a fairly good chance.
Q. Surely you cannot say that your soldiers all went through that process of reasoning? You would not pretend they are sufficiently well' versed in politics to do that?-A. They were not versed in politics at all. They got some information from somewhere and the number of Knots and Lashings helped a little. They did what they wished to do-plumped their votes in one district so as to do some good.	-
Q. Were they not advised or was it not suggested to them in the barracks by you, or through your knowledge, that they should answer in that way?-A. I emphatically deny that there was any canvassing at all done by the officers or by any men amongst the men. The men were not met at all by anybody to my knowledge. I think in Knots and Lashings is probably the only indication that there was any suggestion made as to where they should put their votes.
The only indication is given in Knots and Lashings which was not only produced but distribution of which was proved and which proof I have placed before the House to-day.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Did you "honestly think you were entitled to publish that specimen, envelope?-A. I understood the Act was drawn up-and I have a very good authority for saying this-I will not quote the authority-I understood that the Act was drawn up...
By Mr. Geoffrion (interrupting) :
Q. Tou will have to give us the authority if you quote it.-A. Pardon me, let me have a go. I understood that the Act'was so drawn up that you could easily drive a carriage and pair through it, and those questions were more or less modelled so that you could skip them conscientiously.
That is what Lieutenant Knight says. That is what the Government will not ad-

mit now but that is what everybody in the country believed. Everybody believed that this Act was so framed as to give the soldiers' vote to certain constituencies where it was needed for certain members as is shown in the telegram which is the subject of this resolution.
Now, Sir, I believe that I have really done my share of the work. I believe also that I have brought forward facts sufficient to show that the affair at St. Johns was, as the Minister of Justice stated, " judiciously investigated," and that the charges are not, as the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and the Commissioner said utterly unfounded. Therefore, I would like to include in this inquiry an investigation into the iSt. Johns vote, in order to remove from the minds of the people of Canada the strong impression that the safeguard which they have had in the courts of the country has been abolished and destroyed by the Government, and in order to restore the sanctity of the vote. Let us have a full inquiry and if heads are bound to fall, whether of friend or foe, let them fall for the rejuvenation of honesty which has been assailed in Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the many friends of the genial member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) will be glad to see that his health is in the excellent state that he has shown it to be in to-night. He has held the attention of the House, more or less, for the last four hours in an endeavour to make out a case. Now I would not like to say anything uncomplimentary about my hon. friend, and I could not say that he had a good case without being uncomplimentary to him. Had he possessed a strong ease, my hon. friend has sufficient ability to have presented the strength of that case in much less than four hours. The weakness of the hon. gentleman's case is shown by the length of time which he has spent in picking out shreds and patches from the evidence taken by Mr. Justice Maclennan. I have heard that it is a custom or rule amongst lawyers-not having the privilege of being a member of that learned profession I am not able to speak as to its truth-that when a lawyer gets the worst of it in a case it has always been regarded as his time-honoured privilege to go down to the nearest tavern and abuse the judge who gave the decision against him. Hon. gentlemen who belong to the legal profession will know whether or not there ever was such a custom. Of course my hon. friend could not follow that course

in the province of Ontario. He probably availed himself of that privilege in the province of Quebec after the decision was given by Mr. Justice Maclennan, but as to that I could not say. But he has certainly availed himself of the privilege of abusing the judge here in language as strong as the rules of this House will permit, because that judge saw fit to give -a decision against him.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question?


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend will have to possess his soul in patience.


Joseph Archambault: Perhaps it was a case of following my hon. friend's example in his attacks upon Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.


John Wesley Edwards: I am very pleased to see that my hon. friend has not exhausted all his youthful vigour in the time which he has devoted to this case.


Joseph Archambault: It is early yet,


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend finds his vigour boiling over and cannot repress it,' let him avail himself of some future occasion to introduce a resolution of impeachment which will give him a further opportunity tq spend another half or three-quarters of a day in airing his eloquence in this House. It is not an unknown thing of course for lawyers, when they get the worst of a case, to spend some time in abusing the opposing counsel or even casting reflections upon the judge who rendered a verdict against them. My hon. friend has succeeded in convincing every one that he made a very great mistake when he made charges in the first place, and that he rushed in where angels fear to tread, in making charges. Having rushed in rather hurriedly in the making of those charges he naturally had the decision given against him, and now he is advertising to the House and to the country that he feels very sore indeed because of that decision. My hon. friend, in the course of his remarks, has stated that some 491 soldiers voted, or presented themselves to vote, at the poll in question. The returns of the general election show that .there were only 137 votes polled in that constituency all told-ten for my hon. friend nnd 127 for his opponent. The difference between f37 and 491 is 354 soldier votes which must have been discarded. My hon. friend laboured for hours, citing case after case, to show that men came forward who were under a misapprehension with regard to the .law, thinking they had a right to vote in this constituency when the evidence went to 38
show that they had resided in different parts of Canada. My hon. friend furnishes figures to show that the votes were not recorded; .that 354 of these votes were discarded because the voters had no residence, and he charges conspiracy. A conspiracy by whom? Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, in that regard this pertinent question:	who was likely
to benefit by the polling of those votes? Was it my hon. friend who only received ten as against his opponent's 127? If those ,354 votes had not been discarded, who was most likely to have obtained them, my hon. .friend or his opponent? His opponent unquestionably, Mr. Speaker, was the one most likely to have obtained those votes. Then who conspired to deprive his opponent, the Government candidate,, of votes? Was it ,the Government that conspired to deprive .the Government candidate of his votes, or .was there misrepresentation, as was stated by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. (Meighen) in discussing this matter-a distinct and definite propaganda of misrepresentation to mislead voters and to try and get them to place their votes in constituencies where the parties responsible knew those votes would be discarded and could .not be counted.
In regard to the charge that there was a conspiracy to rob soldiers of their vote, what do the facts show? That because of the propaganda of this man Preston, and others who were backing him up, some fifty thousand odd of these soldier votes were discarded. That was because the soldiers were misled by a definite propaganda intended to mislead them. Now what was the reason for that? Because hon. gentlemen opposite, Laurier candidates in the Dominion of Canada in 1917, knew perfectly well that they stood a mighty poor show of getting very many of the soldier votes. There is where your conspiracy comes in, and that conspiracy worked out definitely to the advantage of hon. gentlemen opposite. May I be permitted to call attention to this fact: my hon. friend in the four hours during which he spoke was dealing with what? He was dealing with the vote here in Canada. But the telegram which is the subject of debate to-day has reference to the overseas vote. My hon. friend's share of the soldier vote in Canada was practically the same as his share of the soldier vote polled overseas. However, before I leave this matter, I wish to quote for the benefit of the House, and to place on Hansard, a few words from the judgment of Mr. Justice Maclennan, who investigated the charges made by the hon member (Mr. Archam-bault) who has just taken his seat.



Mr. Justice Maclennan dealing with this matter, states in his report as follows:
This investigation was in consequence of representations-[DOT]
The hon. judge is very kind in using ithe word "representations." He might have prefixed another syllable there, I think.
-made by Mr. Joseph Arehambault, member of Parliament, for the electoral district of Chambly and Vercheres, to the House of Commons on 22nd May, 1918, alleging that certain military officers at the Barracks of the Engineers' Training Depot in St. Johns in the Province of Quebec, on 17th December, 1917, and previously thereto in connection with the general election held on that date, committed perjury and were guilty of other nyseonduct whereby certain military voters, being members of said Engineers' Training Depot, were alleged to have been induced to commit perjury by falsely representing themselves upon oath to be unable to specify, or state in what place, or places, or electoral districts in Canada they had resided at any time, preceding their appointment, enlistment, or enrolment, or calling out on active service, for the purpose of having their votes applied to the electoral district of Chambly and VercMres pursuant to the Military Voters Act 1917.
That is what the Judge was called upon to investigate. I am not going to again place on Hansard many of the statements which have been quoted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arehambault), but I want to quote this passage. The hon. Judge says:
About one-half of the officers of the Engineers'
Training Depot who voted at the general election had left on service overseas before Mr. Arehambault had made his charges of perjury in the House of Commons and are still absent from Canada. All the remaining officers were brought before me and subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination by able and skilful Counsel selected by Mr. Arehambault. Several of the officers who appeared had never voted before and none of them knew much about electoral districts. They were not politicians or political workers.
The right of soldiers as such to vote was new in Canada, and it was abundantly proved in the inquiry that there was a widespread conviction among not only military voters but civilians that every military voter had a right to apply his, or her vote wherever he or she saw fit.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is there any doubt in regard to that? Is there any doubt in the mind of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Mo<lloy) in regard to that? Did not that hon. gentleman write to his leader the late Bight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier asking him to get for him some of the soldiers' votes for his constituency? Was there anything wrong in that action, of the hon. member? Not at all. But there was a misapprehension on his part as to the soldier vote-a misapprehension which was not confined to soldiers alone but was

pretty general throughout the country. That misapprehension, Mr.. Speaker, I maintain was deliberately added to for party purposes by hon. gentlemen opposite-[DOT] or at least by the party supporting the hon. gentlemen opposite-who did everything in their power through the instrumentality of one of the greatest political crooks who ever lived in the Dominion of Canada, W. T. R. Preston, to deceive the soldier electors for the purpose of destroying their ballots so they would not be counted, as he and the party he represented knew perfectly well they would be counted, if they went as the soldiers wanted them to go. But, Sir, Mr. Justice Maclennan makes this comment on the officers who testified before him:
The officers who were examined before me gave their evidence in a straightforward manner, and their conduct and demeanour while under cross examination and the reasons they gave for their answers established their good faith and that they honestly believed they had the right to answer questions 6, 7, and 8 as they did. That disposes of the charge of perjury against the officers. In my opinion these charges are unfounded.
Let me add to that, Sir, this further statement at the conclusion of the judge's report:
There is a further circumstance that the prevailing impression in military circles was that the questions could be answered in the manner suggested.. .The men read the Montreal papers and were greatly interested in the result of the election, Mr. Rainville's public career and his stand on the important question before the country met with their approval.. . . There were no improper inducements, representations, suggestions or other misconduct by the officers or any of them to influence any non-commissioned officer or man to commit perjury by giving false answers to the questions on the envelopes, and the non-commissioned officers and men who appeared and were examined did not, in my opinion, commit perjury in connection with their answers. The charges of perjury and subornation of perjury are unfounded.
That is the judgment of Mr. Justice Maclennan, Mr. Speaker. But it is not as my hon. friend (Mr. Arehambault) would like it to be. My hon. friend picks passages here and there from the evidence and asks this House to pass upon his garbled scraps and condemn a judge who came to his conclusions on all the evidence, not on those extracts quoted by my hon. friend.
Now, there is one further remark of my hon. friend to which I wish to refer, because it elicited some rounds of applause from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. He said:
Many of the members of this House were elected by this soldier vote.

That called forth a vigorous "hear, hear" from many hon. gentlemen, on the other side of the House. There has been, Mr. Speaker a deliberate and persistent attempt on the part of the leader of the Opposition and his followers to get the people of this country to believe that this Government is in power and that many hon. members are sitting in this House because of the manipulation of the soldier vote. I want the attention of the House, Sir, while I refute that absolutely. I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite, from the leader of the Opposition to his most brilliant supporter, to question the figures which I am now going to give or to refute my argument based on those figures.
In the first place, referring to the province of Ontario, there are 82 seats for the Dominion House. I hold in my hand the general elections returns for 1917, which give the civil vote for each candidate and the military vote divided, showing those who voted in Canada, in the United Kingdom, and on the continent of Europe. To what extent were those 82 seats influenced by the soldier vote? All but four oj the members elected from the province of Ontario were elected, by the civilian vote alone by enormous majorities, and of the 4 elected with the help of soldier votes 3 were Conservative-Unionists and 1 was a Liberal-Unionist. Is it unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, for me to argue thus:	That we
might fairly assume that a candidate would get as large a proportion of the overseas vote as he did of the vote at home? Is it unfair to argue that a man who received 75 per cent of the vote polled here in Canada would likely receive 75 per cent of the soldier vote overseas? If that is a fair proposition, then we will allow to each of these four candidates the same proportion of the vote polled overseas as that which he received of the soldier vote polled in Canada, and we will hand to their opponents all the soldier votes polled overseas over and above that proportion. This done, each of these four candidates still has a seat in this House, and has it by handsome majority. More than that, each could afford to give to his opponent several hundred soldier votes, and still hold his seat in this House. Where, then, is there, so far as Ontario is concerned, the slightest evidence of any manipulation of the soldier vote?
I come next to the province of Quebec, which is represented in the House of Commons by sixty-five members. By the way, may I advert in this connection to a refer-
38i
ence made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) to the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Blondin)? He said that the Postmaster General ran in two constituencies in Quebec, and insinuated that the Government, by manipulating these votes, diverted votes to that hon. gentleman in order to elect him. Well, if there was any intention of doing anything of that kind it was foolish for the Postmaster General to run in two constituencies, and thus divide up the soldier vote; he might better have run. in one constituency only and had all the soldier votes coming to him go to that one place. But I may inform the hon. member for Brome that the Postmaster General, though defeated in that election in Quebec, polled nearly three times as many civilian votes as did the member for Brome. Further, of the 122 candidates in the sixty-five constituencies in the province of Quebec, only twenty candidates polled a larger civil vote than did the Postmaster General. So that although he did not get enough votes to elect him to this House, the vote which he did receive showed that he had in very large measure the confidence of the people. But if there was any conspiracy to elect the Postmaster General, why were those who were handling the thing so remiss that they did not see to it that several thousand votes were thrown to the Postmaster General to make sure of his election? Why was it not done? You have only to look through these election returns. The figures given in respect of the various constituencies carry with them a refutation of the charge or insinuation which has been made by the hon. member.
There is not a single member of this House from the province of Quebec whose seat could have been influenced in any way by the soldier vote. Every member from Quebec holds his seat in this House absolutely regardless of the soldier vote. Every member from the province of Quebec could have given his whole soldier vote to his opponent and still have held his seat in this House. In the face of these facts, how can hon. gentlemen argue that there was manipulation of the soldier vote so far as the province of Quebec is concerned?
I have dealt with Ontario and Quebec, whose representation comprises 147 out of the 235 members of the House of Commons. I now pass on to Nova Scotia. In that province there were five of the present members of the House whose seats were influenced by the soldier vote, but if we allow to those five members only that percentage of the overseas vote which they obtained of the


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will answer my hon. friend. I have never hidden behind a bush from any body. It is generally believed in this country, and we will prove it if we get a committee, that soldiers were told if They would not vote as told by their officers they would be immediately sent to the trenches, where likely they would be killed, and where some were sent and killed. That is what I mean, and that is what I will prove.


John Wesley Edwards: That is what I thought the hon. gentleman meant.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


John Wesley Edwards: But I did not want to put words in his month. I wanted him to use words which would express his meaning beyond a shadow of a doubt, and he has left us in no shadow of doubt as to what he meant by those words. I want to
say to the hon. gentleman who is possessed of wonderful courage in coming out from behind the bush, but who has not the courage to make his charges on his responsibility as a member of this House and thereby jeopardize his seat and the extra $7,000 he gets out of it, that the imputation against the honour of the officers over there which has just fallen from his lips is in my judgment the worst libel that was ever uttered by any man on the floor of this House or" outside.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is
exceeding the amenities of debate in accusing the hon. leader of the Opposition of uttering a libel.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would he surprised
if he said anything else. Let the child have his play.


John Wesley Edwards: I can give my hon.
friend all the play he wants, and perhaps a little more than he wants.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Come along, my boy,
come along.


John Wesley Edwards: I can assure my hon. friend I may come along in a way he will not like.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I defy my hon. friend.


John Wesley Edwards: We will see before we get through. Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order in using the word " libel " I bow to your ruling and retract it. It was the word that occurred to me as best expressing what was in my mind, and I used it believing that it was properly applicable. I can understand the leader of the Opposition and some of his friends on the other side trying to discredit in every -way they can the men overseas whom they did their best not to send assistance to.
I can understand tihedr attitude. Hansard, and the reports of their speeches throughout the country, will show quite clearly the fact that they displayed an utter lack of appreciation of the perilous position our men were in overseas. They showed absolutely no regard for the .soldiers, whose votes naturally went to the party which was pledged to1 support them in 'their noble but, till then, unequal fight over in Flanders. Hon. members opposite feel sore at the result and the only way in which they can safely get back at the men who were fighting for the lives of us all is a cunning resort to slander, for the men, I am sorry to say, have been slandered on the floor of Parliament and outside as well. That is the plain fact, and there is no gainsaying


An hon. MEMBER:: Who appointed Preston?
Mr. EDWARDS-:' This man Preston was appointed by the leader of the Opposition at that time, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Inasmuch as this man Preston has had quite a lot to say about the soldier vote overseas, may I be permitted to say one or two words about W. T. R. Preston? In the first place, I think it would be well for the members of this House to know who this man Preston is and who he was. He was organizer for the Liberal party in the province of Ontario from 1883 to 1893. He was defeated when he ran as a candidate in Durham for this House in 1885. He was appointed librarian of the Ontario Legislature in 1893. About that time a man named H. H. Cook testified that this man Preston had demanded from him $10,000 as the price of a senatorship. He not only made that statement, but he took his oath that such a demand had been made upon him by Preston. In 1896 Preston ran as a -candidate for the Hou-se of Commons in West Toronto. The people of West Toronto knew him as well as they knew him in Durham and he was defeated there. He resigned the librarianship to take charge of the campaign machine in the provnce of Ontario and from the time he took charge of the campaign machine it went from bad to worse in the way of corruption and scandals of all kinds, until the province of Ontario became disgraced in the eyes of the world.
He took a very active part in the election of a man by the name of Macnish in West Elgin in January, 1899. Mr. Macnish resigned because of the corruption which was disclosed on that occasion. Let me tell you one or two things that were done in that election. Preston was handling the gang in West Elgin.


An hon. MEMBER:: The machine.
Mr. EDWARDS He was hugging the machine and he had with him the Pritchards, the Cap Sullivans, the Lewises and a lot -more of those fellows of unsavoury reputation. On the -Sunday before the election, Preston put on his Sunday air, went to the Sunday school and talked to the children. I presume he had on a regulation long coat, probably a silk hat, and he perhaps looked as pious as the leader of the Opposition (does sometimes-. He quoted Scripture, spoke to the children, told them to be good, not to do anything wrong, and there were tears in his voice. Then he said: " Now children, there is,one hymn I want you to sing; I like it very much; I want you to sing it for me to-day as a special favour." "What is the name of the hymn, sir?" "There is sunshine in my soul." And so he got them to sing the hymn "There is sunshine in my soul." That was on Sunday afternoon. On Sunday evening he met the gang; they got the machine together in an upper room of the hotel and laid their plans for defeating the wishes of the electors of West Elgin, by switching and spoiling ballots and defrauding the electors of their right of making a choice at the polls. The election was held and after the election, Preston, not happening to be in the riding that evening, telegraphed from

Toronto to Mr. Mannish, the Liberal candidate in West Elgin, as follows:
Heartiest congratulations, sorry to the bot-of my heart I cannot he with you to-night."
I suppose if he had been there he would have asked them to sing "There is sunshine in my soul."
To be supported by such a noble army oi workers should make you the proudest man in Ontario. Shake hands with the boys for me, and hug the members of the much-abused threshing machine for ' Auld Hang Syne.'
That telegram showed the intimate relations existing between Preston and Mac-nish. A day or two after Preston sent that telegram he received one from Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir Wilfrid sent for him. He said: "Mr. Preston, you have made a nice job of it, but you have not been getting enough money; we are going to send you to England as our Commissioner of Immigration at a salary of $3,000 a year." That was the reward for the good work which he had done. Shortly after that charges were made against Mr. Macnish, his election was protested, and he finally resigned his seat, couching his reasons in the following letter:
Messrs Crothers & Price,
Barristers, St. Thomas. Ont.
Hear Sirs :-
We beg to advise you that Mr. Macnish has discussed at length with his solicitors the charges contained in the petition which has been filed against his return as member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for West Elgin, and that they have to a considerable extent investigated the charges contained therein and other matters which have come to their knowledge in connection with the election. And the subscribers hereto make the following statements and admission respecting the same:
1.	That a large number of persons were specially sent into the constituency by men working on behalf of the liberal party for the express purpose of taking part on Mr. Macnish's behalf on the election held Januray 12, 1899, and we believe that fraudulent and corrupt means were used by some such persons to secure his election.
2.	That several of the said persons illegally and without authority acted as deputy returning officers at the said election, and in at least three cases so acted in the names of reputable local men, having under assumed names, been introduced to the returning officer by local agents of Mr. Macnish.
3.	That in many polling subdivisions of the riding there were grave irregularities connected with the return of the ballot boxes and their contents, the voting, and the counting of the ballots thereat.
4.	That there were large numbers of persons brought into the riding for the express purpose of personating legitimate voters, and assisted by some of Mr. Macnish's local supporters, such persons did personate qualified voters in voting for Mr. Macnish.
5.	That the declared number of votes for Mr. Macnish largely exceeded the number of bona-fide votes cast for him.

6.	That a large number of votes cast for Mr. Macdiarmid were in some nefarious and corrupt manner manipulated whereby the result of the election was rendered doubtful, and that in this connection the voting at Shedden and Middlemarch, and in several divisions in St. Thomas, where said persons acted as deputy returning officers, merits special mention.
7.	That there are good reasons to believe that there are many specific and well-authenticated cases where agents of Mr. Naenish concealed at their homes some of these strangers, who there paid large sums of money to electors to induce them to vote for him.
8.	That Mr. Naenish will forthwith deliver to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly his resignation as a member thereof for the said electoral district.
I call attention to this statement:
And the subscribers hereto make the following statements and admissions respecting the same.
Who are the subscribers to this document? Donald Macnish, Liberal candidate, and A. B. Aylesworth, at one time Minister of Justice in the Laurier Government. Those are the men whose names arc signed to that confession of rascality of the worst kind, to that confession of all sorts of corruption. Those are the men, I say, who subscribed to that confession on the part of Macnish which this man Preston was connected with as he was connected with very many other shady transactions, and I will give you one or two more of them. It was Preston who, as organizer of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, brought in this gang of pluggers, ballot-switchers, ballot-spoilers and markers. He is the man who was behind the cruise of the "Minnie M.", the nefarious work of Cap. Sullivan; he is the man who was behind the self-confessed ballot-switcher Pritchard, and others of his ilk. This man, Preston, was the individual who organized this machine, and he was rewarded for his work by being appointed to a $3,000 position as emigration officer over in England.
Now let us see what he did when he got there. No sooner had he got to England than he started his dirty work, his crooked work, over there. His hand was seen in connection with the North Atlantic Trading Company, for which his son-in-law was the .solicitor; and a certain Leopold Lazarus -a man of Hebrew extraction I would judge by his name, and about as crooked as they make them-was one of the agents for the company and had a room just across the hall from the office occupied by Mr. W.
T. R. Preston, emigration agent for the Dominion of Canada. Well, Sir, let me give you a letter which will indicate to some degree at least, but only to a small degree, what an unscrupulous rascal this

man W. T. R. Preston was, and I believe is. This is a letter, dated 18th October, 1901, and it is addressed to Mr. Thomas Southworth. The letter was written by Mr. W. T. R. Preston on his own printed paper and it reads as follows:
W. T. R. Preston,
Emigration Department.
IT Victoria Street,
London S.W.
October IS, 1901.
My dear Southworth,-
I have your letter of a late date on emigration to Ontario. You incidentally say in the letter that you are opposed to indiscriminate emigration. Well, in that respect you agree with everybody else. I do not know any one who suggests, or who would propose, that there should be indiscriminate emigration to that province. Whatever is done must be done carefully and any who are sent out must be well-selected emigrants. But don't run away with the idea that only well-to-do people, or those with money, are going to emigrate. If you are going to keep up a population in the old parts of the province, you must be satisfied with sober, energetic and industrious emigrants. I know all you people are terribly afraid of the foreign element. Upon that point I don't agree with you and have no hesitation in saying that a good class of foreigners scattered about the old parts of Ontario will do very much *more towards preserving a proper agricultural population than those from England, for instance. Politically speaking, I believe the introduction of a hundred families or so into some of those close ridings with the connections which could be had and maintained here would easily preserve for us many doubtful seats in that province. I know the anxiety or nervousness of the minister upon this question. Confidentially, I may tell you I fear it bears some slight resemblance to one of courage. You know enough about politics to know that courage always beats. However, as we don't agree upon that phase of the question we won't discuss it.
I have heard from the Wallaceburg people in answer to my letter of the middle of last month and I' am now trying to meet their wishes among the beet growers of Belgium. I will be over there in the course of a week or ten days and will then write to you as also to them upon the outlook there.
Yours very truly,


W. T. R. PRESTON.
[Stage Direction]
Now the signature on that is not typewritten. It is written with pen and ink, it is written on the paper of the Emigration Office where Preston had his office-there is no doubt about that. The leader of the Opposition in his remarks on 'the motion before the House spoke about fingermarks and earmarks and so on. Let him produce the telegram to which he refers, so that we may look at the fingermarks and the earmarks; let us see if he can produce this telegram with authentic marks on it as to its origin and parentage.
Mr. Speaker, why have I placed these matters before you and before the House.''
I have done so because I want to ask one question, and it is this: Knowing as we do know, and admitting as we must admit, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew the history of this W. T. R. Preston as he knew his alphabet; knowing that this W. T. R. Preston was the man who was connected with the switching of ballots, with the West Elgin election and with very many other elections which were protested in -the province of Ontario and with which his connection could not be doubted; knowing that he was the man who made a demand upon a certain gentleman for $10,000 as the price of a senatorship; knowing that he was the man connected with the North Atlantic Trading company and several organizations which were bleeding or robbing this country to the extent of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars on the emigrants that were brought out here; knowing all this-knowing his connection and his loose, crooked connection with the politics of this country, the question I ask is: Why was that man selected as the agent of the Laurier party over in England? There is only one reason why he was selected. If this Government was guilty of the charge which has been levelled and of the insinuations that have been made__against it, that there was a conspiracy to'manipulate the votes overseas, may I tell you, Sir, that it was fully aware of the record, the reputation and the ability for crookedness of W. T. R. Preston, and if it wanted to manipulate votes and wanted somebody crooked to handle those votes, it knew where to get the best man for that kind of work in the Dominion of Canada, or on the continent of North America-W. T. R., Preston. I repeat that if the Government wanted to manipulate votes and wished for a past master in crookedness to do it, and to divert the soldier votes, it knew that W. T. R. Preston was the man to apply to for that purpose. It did not wish to manipulate the soldier votes and it did not apply to or get Mr. W. T. R. Preston to do it . What reason was there for the leader of the Opposition to select W. T. R. Preston for that job? Was it because of his record for integrity, was it because of his record for political purity that he was selected for that position? Is the Laurier party so lacking in men of integrity and honour and credibility that they have to select a man of the stamp of W. T. R. Preston to represent their candidates over in the United Kingdom? Why was it done? It was done in my judgment, Sir, because they knew that the
[Stage Direction]
sentiment of the soldiers was opposed to a leader and a party which had refused to back them up in their fight in Flanders. The Laurier Party said: "The man who is most likely to deceive those soldiers, to devise a plan whereby their votes will not be counted as they want ithem to be counted, is W. T. E. Preston. We will send that prince of political crooks over to England to represent the Laurier candidates." And yet the leader of the Opposition gets up here and professes a righteous indignation because of an alleged telegram which is vouched for by whom? By W. T. E. Preston. And the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) boasts that his ethical training makes him look with holy horror upon a request that a certain number of votes should be sent here or there. Well, well, the member for Brome shocked, the member whose ethical training is along the lines of political morality! When have we ever heard from the member for Brome or from the hon. leader of the Opposition, or from the honourable member from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) or from the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Eobb) or from a whole lot more that I would name if they were in their seat3-whoever heard of their having spasms over the crooked acts of the party they have supported for years? Did they stand aghast at the Sawdust Wharf transaction, at the Saskatchewan land deals,-at the selling of timber limits,-at the bogus ballot box affair down in Frontenac and Hastings Counties? Did they shed any tears over that last scandal? No, they did not express any honor, nor was the hon. George Graham tried or reproved for his part in it. Those bogus boxes were made at Watertown, and on a Sunday afternoon when the principals were going over to see how the work was progressing they went out of their way to visit Brockville and closet themselves with the Hon. George Graham,-the man who aspired to be the leader of the Liberal parity-to talk over the situation. Many of the ballots were printed in his newspaper office. That came out in the trial of Eiley, who served a year in Belleville jail for his share in the work. When have these hon. gentlemen, who now pose as political purists, ever denounced that sort of thing on their side of the House? I have yet to hear the first one.
We have a record here which is as long as a telegraph pole, if any one wanted to take time to read it, of attempt after attempt being made during the fifteen years the Laurier Government was in power to

investigate this, that and the other scandal, this act of corruption and that act of cor-rupion, but all attempts were voted down every time. I can give a list of nine or ten just off-hand. For instance, there was the request made on 13th April, 1899, on the motion of E. F. Clarke, to investigate the Yukon scandal. On June 27th 1899, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper asked for the appointment of two judges to investigate the Yukon scandal. But he did more than that-and I commend this particularly to the attention of the hon. leader of the Opposition, who speaks of never getting behind a bush. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper said: "Appoint those judges to investigate the Yukon scandal, and if I cannot prove my charges to the hilt I will resign my seat in this House and place myself in a position that I will never run for or attempt to hold any public office as long as I live." That was a different attitude from the way my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition seeks shelter. He takes care that he gets behind something that will serve his purpose . to protect him from any harm. Then on 30th May, 1906, we asked for a committee to inquire into the management of public lands-that was refused. In 1909, another committee was asked to be appointed to investigate dredging scandals-that was refused. In 1910, Mr. Lennox,-now Judge Lennox-asked for a committee of seven to be appointed to go into the Lumsden charges -that was refused. Evidently, to use an expression which I heard the late 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier use in this House, " to the pure all things are pure," and he did not see any wrong in all those scandals, or if he did he was too clever or too shrewd to permit any investigation. Then we had a demand on March 26, 1907, for a special committee to investigate matters " affecting the honour of a ministef "-that was a motion growing out of the celebrated " Wine, women and graft " charge. I specially commend that to a certain hon. gentleman opposite. There we had an hon. minister directly involved. The charges were made, but the committee was refused -the party then dominant would not allow any investigation. Then on April 16, 1907, the present Prime Minister (Sir Eobert Borden) moved for the appointment of a committee to investigate election frauds in the constituencies of Brockville and West Huron as disclosed in the confessions of some of the hirelings of this man Preston -James Farr, Pritchett and others. These hon. gentlemen who were then supporting the Laurier party, and who are very much

concerned about the votes going the right way now-did they show any concern at that time? No, none whatever. They were quite sure that no investigation was needed. There was undoubted evidence of political frauds as shown by the confessions of various men taking part in the elections, and yet every attempt to secure an investigation was refused.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) said in answer to a question that the officers over there had no right to canvass any soldier for his vote. Well, that -certainly is a funny doctrine. Where was the wrong, supposing a request was made for a certain number of votes to be applied to a certain constituency? Both sides had the same opportunity.
Is there anything wrong with my going to my friend John Jones and saying: John, I wish you to go out to the fifth concession, see the people there, tell them I am the better candidate of the two, that I am supporting the Government, and try to induce them to poll their votes for me- is there anything wrong about that? Every member of this House does it; every member of this House places his case before the electors and tries to induce them to vote for him. Any member of the House, had he the opportunity of going overseas, would have gone to the soldiers and tried to influence them to vote for him. And why should he not do it? W. T. R. Preston, who handled the campaign for the Liberals over there, had that opportunity and he certainly made use of it-by sending out advertisements and lies by the hour. And he did not stop at one lie, or two, or half a dozen. If he thought that by telling lies he could influence the soldier vote, that would not stop W. T. R. Preston. That is why he was sent over there-because he did not scruple to lie or to use any other means he could to influence votes. But he found out, as did those on the other side of the House, that the Laurier platform was very unpopular with the soldiers-and naturally so; therefore the only thing for them to do was to organize some kind of scheme whereby they could make many of the soldiers believe that they had a right to vote anywhere they saw fit. This scheme they organized and followed out to the extent of practically disfranchising fifty or sixty thousand voters by deceiving them in regard to their franchise. An hon. member asks me if Preston has been banned from the party. Oh no, W. T. R. Preston will not be banned from that party. He is the prime mover,
the man who is back of this whole thing. That is what I am trying to emphasize, Mr. Speaker. It was W. T. R. Preston who first made use of the expression used by the leader of the Opposition to-night-it did not originate with the leader of the Opposition -about officers sending soldiers to the front if they did not vote as they were directed to vote. How were the officers to know how these men voted? Did you ever hear such nonsense in your life? The soldier goes into the poll and marks his ballot. He is all alone when he marks that ballot; he puts an X opposite the name of the Government candidate or the Opposition candidate, as he sees fit. Nobody sees him mark the ballot; he puts it in the envelope and, if he is one of these voters at large, he designates the constituency in which he wants his vote to be applied. The point I make is that no returning officer or military officer could hold a club over that soldier's head and say:	If you do not vote so-and-so I will
send you up to the firing line, where, in all probability, you will be killed. The soldier went in there and marked his ballot behind a curtain, nobody saw him mark it; he marked it as he saw fit. How is the returning officer to know whether he voted for the Government candidate or against the Government candidate?
Earlier in the course of my remarks I quoted from the speech delivered by the leader of the Opposition and asked him to state explicitly what he meant by certain words he used. In explaining his words he emphatically and explicitly charged certain generals, colonels and others overseas with having intimated to the soldiers that if they did not vote for the Government candidates they would be sent to the front, where they would be likely to lose their lives. Now, a statement of that kind, coming from the hon. gentleman who is leader of the Opposition, even though only temporarily, calls for a little bit more, I think. The leader of the Opposition accompanied the assertion to which I have referred with an emphatic declaration that he was not the kind of man who would hide behind the bush in anything that he had to say. I ask him now to give me the name of one general, one colonel, one major, one officer, one man of any kind over there, who made such a statement as that? Now we will see whether the hon. member will hide behind the bush or not. He does not reply; he is hiding, all right-and it is a mighty small bush, too.
[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, what do you think of an hon. member of this House who charges that an officer threatened to send his men up to the firing line, where they would in all probability be killed, if they did not vote as he wanted them to vote; and who sits there in silence and refuses to name the man to whom he refers? I do not know what you think, Mr. Speaker; I am not a mind reader. But I credit you, Sir, with being a mind reader, and I believe that you can guess what I think. Perhaps .it will be a whole lot safer to let you guess than for me to attempt to say what I think and at the same time to keep within the rules of Parliament.
Well, what is the object of all this? I would apologize to the House for speaking at half-past twelve were it not for the fact that we have all listened very patiently to an hon. member "who spoke for four hours. What is the object of this motion that has been put forward by the leader of the Opposition? Mr. Speaker, the object was stated very clearly and explicitly this afternoon by the member for Bed Deer (Mr. M. Clark). I give it as my solemn belief and conviction that not an hon. member on the other side -not even the leader of the Opposition, who moved, this motion; not even the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), who sits beside him; not even the humblest back-bencher-believes for a moment the insinuation which has been cast upon the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon and yesterday. I do not believe that any hon. member opposite is convinced that the Minister of the Interior was mixed up in any dishonourable act or in any act that could reflect in the slightest degree on his honour as a man, as a member of this House, or as a minister of the Crown. I repeat, then, what is the object of all this? The object is, as the member for Bed Deer said, to play the game of politics; that is the object, and that is the only object. It was started at a political convention by one of the most unscrupulous political shysters that this country has ever produced.
Following it up, if you want to get at the parentage of that alleged telegram, I believe W. T. B. Preston had something to do with it. There is no doubt about that. Does anybody in this House believe that the statement made by a man with the record of W. T. B. Preston is going to weigh with this House or the people of this country for one single fraction of a second, when he imputes anything dishonourable to a man of the standing of the Minister of the Interior? Not for a moment.

As the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) said, hon. gentlemen opposite have made a great mistake in bringing this matter before the House, and they realized that shortly after the matter was brought up. I am quite sure they realized it because they took up all the time they could in a short afternoon. Then the suggestion came from that hon. gentleman who never gets behind a bush-he is an awfully good fellow to himself, isn't he?-when the Minister of the Interior was about to answer, that the debate be adjourned until the next day. " Oh, yes,'' he says, " only let my statement go out to the country with a few hours' start, and you cannot catch up to it. Let my statement get to the public now, and you defer your answer for twenty-four hours until to-morrow or the next day, and then things will be all right." That was the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman who never gets behind a bush. Well, if that was not getting behind a bush, it was getting in the direction of the bush pretty fast. The next indication we had of their superabundant courage was when the Minister of the Interior had spoken about twenty minutes or half an hour and six o'clock came. Then the courageous member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)' jumps up and calls the Speaker's attention to the fact that it is six o'clock, Wednesday, and no evening session. The medicine was coming to them faster than they could take it comfortably, and they wanted to get away. Then this afternoon we had the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) sticking most courageously to his guns and reading out extracts from the judgment of Mr. Justice Maclennan, occupying four hours of the time of this House, for what purpose? For the purpose, I am inclined to think, of preventing discussion on this matter. Perhaps I am wrong in that. I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice, but I certainly think I have some grounds for coming to that conclusion.
Well, we have given consideration to this matter, and what does it all amount to? An alleged charge based upon an alleged telegram which the leader of the Opposition cannot produce, and a statement made by some person overseas who says when he made the statement that he was a scoundrel or was doing what was wrong. Then we have that great and glorious and saintly man, W. T. B. Preston, to back up these charges. Mr. Speaker, it will require more than the sanctimonious air of the leader of the Opposition and his assumed

indignation at an alleged telegram which he is afraid to carry on his person, because he does not like to carry stolen property, or the vociferous declamation of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) or the long-winded side-tracking of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheras .(Mr. Ar-chambault) for hon. gentlemen opposite to make out their case.
I am content to leave it there. I rose for the purpose of endeavouring to show, what I think cannot be refuted, that the result of the election was not influenced in any way by the soldier vote, and I have demonstrated that province by province. I also wanted to show the company hon. gentlemen were keeping when they were making these charges. I wanted to show the record of W. T. R. Preston, the kind of man they *were relying on and applauding at their Liberal convention, when he was mouthing charges of this kind against a man whose shoe latchet he is not worthy to unloose. I am satisfied to leave the whole matter to the judgment of the country, and I am well satisfied also as to what the soldiers will say as to the remark of the hon. leader of the Opposition, a remark which I say he should never have made, a charge which I say is unworthy of any man in this House, implying, as it does, crime of the worst possible kind on the part of gallant men who were risking their lives for the people of this country. Certainly a charge of that kind should not be made unless the leader of the Opposition gets up and names the man who had been guilty of making a threat of that kind, for otherwise he leaves all these officers and gentlemen under that imputation.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.45 a.m.
Friday, September 26, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
MoMASTER.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. R. MoMASTER (Brome) :	Before
the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Montreal Gazette in its issue of this morning contains the following words:
A. R. McMaster, Brome, who harshly criticised the voting owes his election to failure of soldiers to comply with the regulations. If the soldiers from Brome had all regularly polled their votes, Brigadier-General Draper would now be in parliament instead of Mr. McMaster.
Prom the hundreds who enlisted from Brome, only 184 votes were counted for General Draper.
I wish 'to say, Sir, that this statement is particularly untrue. From the little county of Brome^probably the smallest agricultural community in Canada-many of its youth bravely went to the front, but through death, wounds and other wastage, *at i the time the election was held there were not enlisted in the Canadian army or otherwise capable of casting soldiers' votes from that county more than three hundred men. My majority was over six hundred, and had every 'vote been cast against me by those who voted under the Military Voters' Act, I would still have had a majority of over three hundred. I make this explanation in the 'hope that the Montreal Gazette will see its way clear, and be desirous, to correct a false and misleading statement against a political opponent.
Jacques Bureau: They will never correct it.



TREATY OF PEACE WITH BULGARIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I read in the papers that the Treaty with .Bulgaria has been prepared and signed, I desire to know if Canada is a party to that Treaty and, if so, whether our representatives have signed it. Further, is it the intention,of the Government to bring that Treaty before the House for ratification?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt that if the Treaty has been signed, as the hon, gentleman says, it will have been signed by our representatives. I am not aware, however, th^t it has been signed. As to what will be done in regard to this Treaty, I .should think-not undertaking to determine the question positively now-that it will be proper, as was indicated in the answer given a day or two ago, for us to deal with it, when it is signed and comes before us, in the same manner as in regard to the Austrian Treaty.



TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

William Findlay Maclean: With regard to the treaty between Great Britain and France, to which we are supposed to be a party, may I ask whether that is to be brought before this Parliament also?
Hon, C. J. DOHERTY: That treaty differs from the other treaties in that it is, as the

hon. gentleman says, a treaty between Prance and Great Britain. As to what action should be taken by the Dominions in connection with it is a separate and distinct question.



LOBSTER REGULATIONS.

William Duff: 
William Findlay Maclean: If I may presume to answer on behalf of the Government, I. may s'ay that at the moment it is impossible to Teply to the hon. gentleman's question, but I shall do so on Monday. I am not aware of the facts he has cited, but I think there is some legislation contemplated this session by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in, this matter.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if I obtain the unanimous consent of the House, I wish to move that we return to the Ordter for the introduction of Bills.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has 'the hon. member the unanimous consent of the House?


Jacques Bureau: Lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jacques Bureau: Lost.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member moves, with the unanimous consent of the House, that the House do now return to the Order for the introduction of Bills.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jacques Bureau: No. There must be unanimous consent.


Ernest Lapointe: Carried.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand 'that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) objects to the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15 to amend Dominion Lands Act.
Jacques Bureau: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: 
Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that this Bill has for its object the ratification of certain Orders in Council which were passed in connection with the establishment of returned solid ers on land?


Arthur Meighen: It is very nearly that. It
is the ratification of Orders in Council that give returned soldiers one day's priority of entry over civilians in relation to all Canadian lands that are open for entry after the passing of the Order in Council. That has

been the law for some time. This provides for its continuance.


Jacques Bureau: The minister states that
has been the law. Why are you requiring a ratification of these Orders in Council if it is the law?
Mr. MEI'GHEN: Because it would cease to be the law immediately the war ceased. We want it to continuue to be the law.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



INTERPRETATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House again went into Committee on Bill No. 4, to amend the Interpretation Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-application of Act to Orders in Council and regulations:
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill remained in the Committee the other day in order that the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) might have an opportunity of satisfying himself as to whetner its enactment would in any way produce the effect of continuing in force or reviving Orders in Council that may have been heretofore passed, more especially Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act.
I ventured the opinion that the Bill would not produce that effect and since the matter was up before I have had it carefully gone through by the Deputy Minister of Justice, who advises me that there are no provisions in the Interpretation Act which, by being made applicable to the Orders in Council, would produce the results apprehended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The difliculty I have is altogether in relation to the provisions of section 19 of the Interpretation Act. As I understand it, under the War Measures Act, when the war ceases those Orders in Council are repealed and disappear as if they never existed, and no proceeding can be instituted under them or anything at all done by virtue of them once they have lapsed. I have some idea that parts of this section 19 of the Interpretation Act, when applied to an Order in Council, would have the same effect upon it as it would upon a statute. I had better read the section:
Where any Act or enactment is repealed, or where any regulation is revoked, then, unless the contrary intention appears, such repeal or revocation shall not, save as in this section otherwise provided,

(a)	revive any Act, enactment, regulation or thing not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal or revocation takes effect; or,
(h) affect the previous operation of any Aot, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; cr,
(c)	affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred under the Act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked; or,
(d)	affect any offence committed against any Act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked, or any penalty or forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect thereof; or
It appears to me that if it is found that any offence has been committed against a repealed Order in Council,' which offence has not been tried or punished, even if the Order in Council of itself has been repealed by the operation of the law, this keeps it alive for the purpose of enabling proceedings to be instituted to collect a fine or enforce punishment:
(e)	affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid:
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the Act or regulation had not been repealed or revoked.
These are the considerations which I wish to bring before the minister. If he is satisfied that it does not keep alive such an Order in Council, that is entirely a matter for himself and the Department of Justice, but I would suppose the provisions of this Bill keep alive, for the purpose of collecting a fine or enforcing punishment, an Order in Council, notwithstanding that the War Measures Act has been repealed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not before me the section of the War Measures Act but, speaking from memory, the provisions of that Act in regard to the effect of the revocation of regulations passed under it is in the sense of the provision of this particular section 19, ifamely, that the revocation of an Order in Council would leave standing the position of everybody as it existed at the revocation and if, for instance, a man had committed an offence which rendered 'him liable then to a penalty or punishment, that revocation would not operate to relieve that man; it would operate for the future.
It would operate for the future, the law being no longer in force, so that no man could commit any offence under , it; but speaking from memory I think a provision in the War Measures Act itself saves that situation. That is to say that when orders made under it are revoked they are revoked for the future, but it maintains the .situa-

tion of everybody as it existed at that time and leaves the parties who have violated those orders, where the offence is completed, liable to the punishment to which they already had rendered themselves liable before the revocation of the law. If it be necessary to make application of this section for the purpose of obtaining that result, it seems to me that that is a result that ought to be obtained so that a man who has violated any of these regulations, many of which were applicable only in war time, should not escape scot free from the consequences of that offence which he has committed, merely by reason of the fact that the war having ended that law ceases to be operative and is not being applicable under the existing conditions. An opposite interpretation would create a situation which would be, I think, manifestly unfair and unjust-a situation where, as between two violators of a law absolutely in force at the time of the violation, the one that managed to escape until the war ended would go scot free, whereas the other, who was apprehended while the war was still on, might be subjected to very serious punishment. I hardly think it would be suggested that a consequence of that kind would be just as between people all of whom, while that law was in force, were equally affected and equally bound to obey it, and equally subject to be punished if they failed to obey it. The provision of the War Measures Act on the subject of the revocation of orders and regulations under it is found in subsection 2 of section 6. It provides:,
All orders and regulations made under this section shall have the force of law, and shall be enforced in such manner and by such courts, officers, and authorities, as the Governor in Council may prescribe, and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation; but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof, nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing, or incurred thereunder toe affected by such variation, extension, or revocation.
It seems to me that while this is not in the actual words of the section of the Interpretation Act, it is very nearly so. The provision of subsection of section 19 of the Interpretation Act declares that the repeal or revocation shall not have the effect ,of reviving:
Any Act, enactment, regulation or thing not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal or revocation takes effect;
I understand no exception is taken to that proceeding.

-or, (b) affect the previous operation of any Act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder.
Now the provision of the War Measures Act is that neither the previous operation thereof-that is the previous operation of the revoked order under the War Measures Act-nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing, or incurred thereunder be affected by such variation which is, I think, substantially the same provision as in subsections (b) and (c) of section 19 of the Interpretation Act. Subsection (c) is almost in the same words. The revocation shall not:
Affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred under the Act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked; or,
Then subsection (d):
Affect any offence committed against any Act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked, or any penalty or forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect thereof; or,
And then subsection (e):
Affect any investigation, legal proceeding-

and so on. Those I think are simply
in substance the same as the provisions already contained in the War Measures Act as to the effect of orders made under it or their subsequent revocation. If they were not so, I would submit that it would be proper to make that provision. That is not reviving or continuing the law in operation, hut it is leaving everybody in the same position in which they were at the date of the revocation.


Jacques Bureau: The Act itself says that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act itself says that, that is what I am pointing out. If that be a good rule of interpretation for a statute, and Parliament has determined that it is, it seems to us good rules of interpretation for the interpretation of statutes and for the interpretation of Orders in Council. As I said the other day, we have found that it was of great practical advantage to have settled rules of interpretation. In the absence of these rules we found the necessity arises very frequently in the case of each particular Order in Council of inserting clauses to define the precise meaning of certain terms that might be used in the Order in Council; and in our opinion we were not following a very bad example in following the example of

Parliament in its determination of how its enactments should be interpreted when we adopted the provisions governing that interpretation and applied them simply to such rules, regulations and orders as the Governor in Council is authorized to make. The statutes have general application; they have no special application to the orders made under the War Measures Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This discussion would possibly not have taken place at all were it not for the fact that during last session this same point was debated in the absence of the minister. An Order in Council was passed enabling a commissioner, I think Mr. Pringle, to deal with difficulties between the pulp-producing companies of this country and the newspaper people, and in the absence of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance introduced a Bill for the purpose of continuing the power that was vested in the commissioner under the Order in Council, otherwise the Order in Council would have lapsed by reason of peace. I took the point then that there was no necessity for that Act, because the provisions which the minister read enabled proceedings, once begun, to continue to the end whether the order lapsed or not. The Minister of Finance, himself a lawyer, agreed with me, but he said that the solicitor in charge of the business and the Department of Justice did not agree with him, they holding the view that the Order in Council of itself was not enough and that there would have to be a statute. The minister will And that Act in last year's statute. Therefore if that interpretation was correct, I do not want to see any laws kept alive to punish people if it was not the intention of the War Measures Act to keep such laws alive.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not desire in virtue of this enactment to alter the law on that subject, whatever it may be. What we had in mind was the interpretation of the particular statute of last year, and of course I am not in a position to determine between the different opinions on that statute. It may have been thought that it was more important to make that absolutely clear which might perhaps without the statute have been the law. But in any event it does seem to me quite clear that there is no substantial modification made in the effect of provisions under the War Measures Act by simply subjecting those provisions to the interpretation clauses, including this one which applies to statutes generally; and, as I
read the War Measures Act, the effect would be the same. But more than that, I think if there be a difference between them that in this Bill these interpretation rules are made to apply only in so far as they are not inconsistent. The section is:
Every provision of the Interpretation Act ehall extend and apply to every order and regulation heretofore or hereafter passed by the Governor in Council in the execution of any powers delegated by statute, except in so far as any such provision is inconsistent with the intent or object of such order or regulation, or would give to any word, expression or clause thereof an interpretation repugnant to the subject matter or the context, or is in any such order or regulation declared not applicable thereto.
There is no exception as to the legal provision; I was under the impression there was some exception. But I think the provisions are substantially the same. I think if there be any difference it would produce the effect which, I take it, was intended by the War Measures Act, and which in any event, in order to be just to everybody concerned, ought to be so.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman, we have from time to time had debates of this House referred to before the courts to justify the interpretation of an Act, and I have heard instances where the remarks of the gentlemen introducing Bills had been quoted to justify a certain interpretation, but the judges <amd the lawyers would not hear of it. Now we have had the Minister of Justice and the leader of the Opposition, both gentlemen who adorned the bench in days gone by, talking a long time on this Bill. This may be a very far-reaching Bill- I have not caught the full scope of it yet- but if there is any doubt in it it should be dispelled. There must be a purpose in passing this Bill. Whatever may be the purpose it should be enunciateu, and whatever the language of the Bill it should be clear and concise. Surely there is no need for all this discussion on such a short Bill if the foundation be absolutely clear and nothing hidden. Language is made sometimes to conceal one's ideas. I think in our statutes we should use language that is absolutely clear so that a child may read as he runs. I do not know how this would apply to the War Measures Act, or to the Military Service Act, or anything of that kind, but I would like the language to be clear and the meaning made explicit right now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose is precisely to make a clear-cut rule by which Orders in Council may be interpreted, and we find those clear-cut rules in a statute laying



down the principles by which tows are to be interpreted. Now, we want the same rules that Parliament decided ought to be applied to the interpretation of the laws enacted by Parliament to be applied to Orders in Council. The purpose is to make for clearness and for uniformity of interpretation so thai * we may not be in a position where it may be contended that whereas a certain expression in a statute must, under this Act, be held to mean a certain thing, the same expression in an Order in Council might be open to the suggestion that it meant something else. The purpose is precisely to ma*.e for clearness of understanding of these Orders in Council and for uniformity of interpretation.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, is there any particular case the minister could give to the House which has suggested this legislation, where the terms of an Order in Council were subject- to an interpretation which did not conform to the interpretation which should be given if we used the Interpretation Act? I see the section reads:
Every provision of the Interpretation Act shall extend and apply to every order and regulation heretofore or hereafter passed by the Governor in Council.
Now, there may have been conditions heretofore different from those which now exist, and by passing this Bill we submit the interpretation of those Orders in Council, passed a long -while ago, to this particular legislation. I think that is what my friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) had, in mind.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: We are binding the courts to give a decision which might be other than what would be given if the Bill were not passed. I would like to know from the minister what was the date of the Order in Council under which the question arose which brought to his mind this legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot recollect that it was in view of any particular Order m Council. What called attention to it was that in the carrying out of the War Measures Act the number of Orders in Council became very considerably multiplied, and it was found a great inconvenience to have to insert an Interpretation Act in each order.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was a very unhandy way to have to embody the clauses of the Interpretation Act in each Order in Council in order to make them apply. It seemed

therefore much more desirable that we should once for all enact that the rules of interpretation laid down by law for statutes should apply to Orders in Council; and we did enact, under the War Measures Act, an Order in Council to that effect. Now that Order ,in Council, in common wlith others under the War Measures Act, is about to come to the end of its effect. Our experience: of the value of such a rule led us to believe that it ought to be continued, and therefore we submit to this House that what are good rules to interpret its statutes must surely be good rules to interpret Orders in Council.


Jacques Bureau: I admit that. But the
word " heretofore '' does not merely cover Orders in Council passed during the war, but Orders in Council passed ever since Confederation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there can ,be no
doubt about it. I do not think we have had for a great many years any material alterations in the Interpretation Act; the rules therein .contained represent the wisdom of Parliament upon the subject of interpretation. They have been consecrated by the respect that has been accorded to them in all these years and by their application by the courts,, and it did seem to us that we could not set to work to-day to make a better system of rules of interpretation. It is, after all, Parliament exercising its authority over these Orders in Council ,in the same way that it has exercised authority over statutes; it is making what we did subject to interpretation in the way that Parliament thinks laws .ought to be interpreted. -As those Orders in Council were given the effect of law, I should think it would commend itself to the judgment of Parliament that upon a question of determining their precise meaning they should he interpreted in the same way as all other laws are interpreted-laws of .the past as well as the laws of the future.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is doubtless good reason for the enactment of such a section as that which,is before the committee. But how is it going to work out if the Interpretation Act of to-day is different from the Interpretation Act of yesterday? Is there not a danger that, a result which is not intended may be brought about?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not,in a position to say that there has been no amendment of the Interpretation, Act or how -many years we would have to go back to find any amendment ; but It must be a very considerable, time since there was was any su-bstan-

tial modification. When the Interpretation Act was passed it was made applicable to then existing legislation as well as to future legislation. The very first section of it is:
Every provision of this Act shall extend and apply to every Act of the Parliament of Canada, now or hereafter passed.
Sir SAM,HUGHES:	Are there any exceptions in the Interpretation Act as there are in this section of the Bill which we are now considering?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The exceptions in this Act are the exceptions made when the interpretation of the Interpretation Act would be inconsistent with the very context of the Order in Council itself. The purpose of the Interpretation Act is not to determine that things which, on their face, clearly mean one	thing are	to	mean	another;the	purpose of	the Act	is to
give an interpretation to any expression which, on the face of either an Act of Parliament or an Order in Council, is not clearly defined, and which might have one meaning or another. The law says that when an expression is used in that way it shall mean a certain thing, and we are. applying that to Orders in Council. The wording of section 29 of the Interpretation Act is: " Unless the context otherwise requires," and of section 30: " In every Act, unless the contrary intention appears." The *words used in this Bill are:
Except in so far as any such provision is inconsistent with the intent or object of such order or regulation, or would give to any word, expression or clause thereof an interpretation repugnant to the subject matter or the context, or is in any such order or regulation declared not applicable thereto.
In other words, these rules are to apply except when, on the face of the Order itself, it appears that the intention was different from that which the application of these rules would give to it, or unless the Order in Council itself says that such and such an expression shall have a different meaning.


Samuel Hughes: If the intent or the object of such order or regulation runs counter to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, then the Interpretation Act shall not apply?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is right. If Parliament, in passing an Act, or the Governor in Council in passing an Order in Council, indicates that it is not intended to say the thing which the Interpretation Act would make the Act or Order say, then what is intended is made perfectly clear and the Interpretation Act is overruled. The Interpreta-
39i
tion Act is not intended to restrict the power of Parliament to legislate or the power that the Governor in Council may have under Orders in Council. It is simply intended, where nothing to the contrary appears-in other words, where no different definition of intention appears-to apply certain rules as to how the interpretation shall be made. [DOT]


Samuel Hughes: The intent or object of such order or regulation is to be determined, not by the debates in the House, but by a reading of the statute?


Charles Joseph Doherty: By a reading of the
statute.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Dominion By-Elections Act, 1919.
He said: This Bill became necessary by reason of what was, I think an oversight when the By-Elections Act, 1919, was passed during the spring session of the House. It is well known that the Dominion franchise is, in principle, based upon the Franchise Acts which exist in the various provinces throughout the country. The Dominion qualification, as set out in section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act, is as follows :
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as herein otherwise provided, he those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
In the Act which was passed at the last session of this Hfouse, section 5, which was rather a broad enactment, provides:
Save as in this Act otherwise provided, every person, male or female, shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member, Avho, not being- an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reservation,-
(a)	is a British subject by birth or naturalization ; and
(b)	is of the full age of twenty-one years ; and
(c)	has ordinarily resided in Canada fqr at least twelve months, and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months, immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
Some provinces of the Dominion of Canada have passed certain limited disqualifications which would disqualify an elector,
[Stage Direction]
who could qualify under the clause which I have just read of the By-Elections Act, but who could not qualify under the provincial law. This is so, notably in the case of British Columbia where, by section 3 of the provincial Elections Act passed in the year 1913, it is provided that:
Chinamen, Japanese, Hindus, and Indians are [DOT]disqualified and prohibited from voting at any election and from making application to have their names inserted in any register of voters.
The .present Bill is to remedy the omission in the Dominion By-Elections Act passed last session. UndeT the Act of last session the disqualifloaition of Oriental voters in British Columbia would be of no effect, and they would .be entitled to vote at a Dominion election. But as I pointed1 out at the beginning of my remarks, the Dominion franchise is based, in principle, upon the provincial franchise.
Jacques Bureau: It was.


Ernest Lapointe: It was.


Hugh Guthrie: I fancy my faon. friends have reference to the War-time Elections Act. The Dominion franchise is now based, by section 10 of the Dominion Elections Act, on the provincial franchises of the various provinces', and the By-Elections Act passed last session is-


Jacques Bureau: If it is now based on that, what is the use of this legislation?


Hugh Guthrie: Because the provincial franchise of British Columbia, which I have just read, would not apply if the Act which this House passed last session in reference to by-elections were allowed to remain unamended. If the Act of last ses-
4 p.m. Bion remains as it is, all our Orientals', who are British subjects, twenty-one years of age, resident in British Columbia, shall be entitled to vote at a Dominion election, whereas the statute of British Columbia says that they shall not be so entitled.


Jacques Bureau: Is that the only case?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the only case that I am aware of. The Bill has been drawn in general terms, merely stating:
Notwithstanding anything contained in The Dominion By-Elections Act, 1919, where hy the laws of any province in Canada a person is disqualified from voting for a member of the Legislative Assembly of such province by reason of the provisions of any law of such province in respect of age or race, such person shall not he qualified to vote in such province under the provisions of The Dominion By-Elections Act, 1919.

The word "age" is added to the word "race." It was suggested, when this Bill was originally prepared, that in some of the provinces there might be a discrimination in regard to the age at which women were permitted to vote. On examination, however, of the various provincial statutes, I find that that is not so. It, therefore, does not matter whether the word "age" remains in the Bill or not; it has no application. It, however, cannot do any harm.	.


Jacques Bureau: We can take it out.


Hugh Guthrie: If it should happen that some province has a provision in regard to age, this should govern.


Jacques Bureau: If the provinces all have the same provision as to age, why leave this word in the Bill?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not mind. That is a matter, I suppose, for the Committee.


Jacques Bureau: I would strike out the
word "age" and leave the word "race" in the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair.
On section 1-disqualification under provincial laws not affected by Dominion ByElections Act.	.
Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that under this legislation a Japanese shall be prevented from voting in a Dominion election if he is a British subject resident in British Columbia, and shall be able to cast a vote in the other provinces when such a disability does not exist in the laws of those provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is the effect of this legislation.
The effect is to recognize the right of the province to make its own franchise, and the principle of the provincial franchise is the one we adopt. ,1 do not know any other province that discriminates against Orientals. Ontario certainly did fifteen years ago. So far as I am aware, this will only affect the province of British Columbia, and only ,in regard to Oriental votes.


Ernest Lapointe: It appears, therefore, that a certain class of British subjects shall have the right to vote in some provinces but shall be precluded .from exercising the franchise in other parts of Canada. When woman suffrage was introduced we were told that it was inconceivable that women might vote in one province , at Dominion elections and not in others, and the

principle was enunciated in that connection that every province should have the same law in regard to those who might vote. Why should there be a difficulty in connection with some classes of British subjects?


Hugh Guthrie: I concede that there
is somewhat of an anomaly in the suggestion that any British subject should not be entitled to vote, but ,1 can only say that this is a very live question in British Columbia, and I noticed on the Order Paper yesterday or the day before, at the instance of , the only labour member in the House, a question as to whether the Government did not intend to disqualify these Orientals in British Columbia. While a great deal may be said in support of the argument that,every British subject should be allowed to vote, the fact remains that there are disqualifications. Some of the provinces disqualify all criminals in jails and penitentiaries, while other provinces disqualify all who receive provincial,aid or charity. About thirty years ago-I think, about 1887 or 1888-our present Franchise Act was deliberately adopted on the basis of provincial qualifications. I was in the House as ,far back as 1900 and I know it was a settled matter then that we should adopt the provincial qualification with as,little variation as it was possible to allow. We cannot make the system absolutely uniform. This is an innovation and applies only to a single province. But I,think that it is the opinion of the House and of the people that we should have regard to the wishes of the, province of British Columbia in this matter.
.Mr. E. LAPOINTE: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I favour the adoption of the provincial franchise for Dominion elections, but I desire to see the system uniform, not having regulations for certain people when it suits them and abolishing them when they are inconvenient.


Jacques Bureau: I understood the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) to say that under Clause 10 of the Dominion Elections Act the provincial franchise was adopted as the basis for Dominion elections, except as regards women's votes.


Hugh Guthrie: There were no women's votes when that Act was passed.


Jacques Bureau: As I understand it, a man who cannot vote at the provincial election cannot, under the Dominion Franchise Act, vote at the Dominion election.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an exception in regard to office holders.


Jacques Bureau: That is not in force just now.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: If it is. in force, what is the use of this law? Every man has to be qualified under' the British Columbia law in order to cast his vote in a Dominion election within the limits of that province.


Hugh Guthrie: Last session, for the purpose of the by-elections, we passed a new law which was given more breadth than the original Franchise Act. We provided that every British subject twenty-one years of age, resident for twelve months in the country, should be entitled to vote; and we did not pay regard to certain persons disqualified by provincial law.


Jacques Bureau: There is no preamble in this Act and there is nothing in the Bill itself to show that it applies to British Columbia. Would it not be better to say in this Act that notwithstanding any provision contained in the By-Elections Act of 1917, the people disfranchised by the laws of the province , of British Columbia shall have no right to vote at a Dominion election. If we did that we shoulu know then that this Act was for a special purpose, applicable to a particular province.


Hugh Guthrie: That is practically what it is.


Jacques Bureau: There is no preamble.


Hugh Guthrie: None of our public Acts have a preamble.


Jacques Bureau: They used to have, and it is only lately that the custom of having preambles in public Acts fell into disuse.


Hugh Guthrie: It is considered better legal drafting without the preamble.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend knows that you cannot go before the court with Hansard and quote discussions that occurred in Parliament by way of interpreting an Act. If you put it clearly in the Act itself the court will know exactly what was the intention of Parliament when it passed the Act. This is an Act relating to British Columbia. Why not, therefore, say so in the Bill itself?


Hugh Guthrie: It so happens that it will have application only to British Columbia, so far as I know. There was a reason for using the word "race." We

might have said, I suppose, that we would disqualify every Japanese, every Chinese and every Hindu, but that, it was considered, might be giving an unnecessary affront to governments of friendly powers. It was therefore thought more courteous to draft the Bill as it is.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think the hardship of disfranchisement will be mitigated by any evasive expression. If British Columbia wants a certain law, why not say that it is for British Columbia?


Hugh Guthrie: Because this is a general Act for Canada, and if Nova Scotia passed a Law disqualifiing Egyptians or Hottentots in that province, they could not vote at a Dominion by-eleotion. This Act has application to every province.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says that it is a general Act, but a<s a matter of fact it applies only to British Columbia; otherwise it would not have been introduced. Has the minister bad a request for a similar law from any other province?


Hugh Guthrie: No, nor have we had any particular request from British Columbia.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In a country ais great as Canada, and with such wonderful differences in geography and social conditions, it is extremely difficult for a person living in one part of the country to utter words of conviction in regard to social problems that prevail thousands of miles away. I should like this law to pass without expressing my dislike of it, and my opinion that those who desire to have such a law enacted should set before the House in the clearest and most unmistakable terms the reasons for that desire. This law means that one of His Majesty's subjects, born in India, perhaps a distinguished graduate of Oxford University who has served at the front and probably beem distinguished for gallantry under fire, may come out to British Columbia, establish himself there, and discover to his chagrin that he is not a British subject in that part of the Empire and has no right to vote, being treated like a helot. As I said before, these questions are difficult, and I speak with considerable reservation and moderation in regard to them, because I am not familiar with social conditions in the province of British Columbia. But I lay thiis down as a sound liberal principle, that any man vdio is fit to come into this country to labour and work, and to pay taxes into the treasury, should have the right to vote. That is a principle on
[Air. Guthrie.]
which the whole system of our body politic is based.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman include the Hindus, Chinese and Japanese?
Mr. , McMASTER: I include Hindus who are British subjects and if Japanese are allowed to come in and become British subjects, then they should have the right to vote. It seems to me, that we have got to take our stand in this fashion: I can easily understand that for ethnical reasons, for reasons of race, it may be wise to exclude races which cannot coalesce with our own -without pretending that w'e are superior to them; merely on the ground that they cannot coalesce with us I can see a reason for it. I do not know , sufficient about the subject to say whether one race or another should be excluded, but the clearest possible case should be made out for the , pretension that once a man is allowed to come into Canada to work and contribute to the upbuilding of the nation,with his powers, physical and intellectual, and who has taxes imposed upon him should not be allowed the rights of citizenship. This seems to me to be sound, democratic, .liberal, constitutional doctrine. I have not heard from the minister in charge of this Bill this afternoon any argument at all except that it is in , accordance with the wishes of the people of British Columbia.


Hugh Guthrie: It is the provincial law of British Columbia and the Act is based upon it.	t
Mr. MoMAS'TER:	And it is the desire
of the people of British Columbia that their provincial disqualification , should be incorporated into the Act and become a Dominion disqualification.	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is what.it entails.


Hugh Guthrie: The statute is based
upon the provincial franchise.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who asked for this
legislation? This was not in the .legislation brought up last year.


Hugh Guthrie: It should have been
but it was overlooked.	,


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who brought it to the attention of the minister?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) sitting behind him?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not going to say the desire is wrong. I do not know suffi-

cient about the problems , of British Columbia to speak with conviction about the subject, but the clearest and most convincing argument should be made to this House, composed of British subjects,,why our fellow British subjects coming from India, many of whom have fought and bled for the principles of democracy and humanity, if they are allowed to come .into this country, should not have the rights of citizenship.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) has opened up a question that,
I am quite certain, the House does not desire to enter into any lengthy discussion of to-day. This Bill does not precipitate necessarily a discussion of the Oriental immigration problem. We simply find that this is a Bill for the purpose of preserving to the electorate of British Columbia the same rights as have already been accorded to all the other provinces. The Franchise Bill which was passed last session did, in its terms, discriminate against British Columbia; that is to say, it did not recognize in all its terms the franchises of all the provinces. This Bill was introduced for the purpose of overcoming that technical oversight. My hon. friend challenges the Bill on the broad and general grounds of the great question of Oriental immigration. A great many members of the House know my views on that .question, I have given them to the House on more than one occasion. But we have endeavoured in recent years to avoid controversial questions of a peculiarly provincial character in this House.
Let me, however, in one or two sentences, point out some justification, not for this Act, but for the Provincial Franchise Act. My hon. friend says that he desires to be fair, that he does not want to be extreme, that he wants to be moderate. What did he do? He proceeded to pick out an individual, as he described him, born in India, who had gone to England, studied in the University of Oxford, graduated, and then come to British Columbia. That individual was denied the vote. I do not know that there is such an individual in British Columbia. I do know that within one or two months, under the Government headed by his party, 7,000 Hindu coolies landed in British 'Columbia and precipitated this problem. If 7,000 coolies from any Oriental country landed in Montreal in a month or two it would also precipitate a problem.
Mr. MoMAS'TER:	I made it a point to
say that I expressed no opinion as to the desirability or undesirability of allowing
people of eastern races to come into our country. The point I was trying to get at was that once having allowed them in, a very strong argument ought to be adduced to show why they should not ,have the right to vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend stated in exceedingly emphatic terms that it was up to somebody, inferentially the Solicitor General, to make clear to this House why this provision should be made. He said that he knew nothing about the problem, and then proceeded to lay down certain very extraordinary reasons and to cite an example which is of a most extreme character. I was trying to show you, when the hon. gentleman persisted in interrupting me in his usual manner, what is the average, general situation, not citing some isolated, individual case which does not exist at,all as far as I know. The hon. gentleman confuses another thing. He says that a man who happens to be the subject of His Majesty in India should have the full rio-hts of citizenship in .Canada. Without labouring the question, or without any extended argument, let me submit to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, this argument. Out of the,400,000,000, or to be more exact, 340,000,000 people of India, up to present time, there have only been 12,000,000 living under anything like a representative form of Government. ,In places such as Rangoon, Calcutta and Bombay the people live under councils half elected and half appointed. That is the extent of the representative Government and of the citizenship, as we understand it, that they enjoy in India. I do not say whether that system is good, bad or indifferent. The hon. gentleman ,has asked that we should extend to a person claiming the protection of the British flag in some other part of the globe full rights of citizenship m Canada. That is only one .phase of the question.
Then we come to the Oriental races. There came into British Columbia in .years gone by tens of thousands of orientals of different races. Without questioning the type of civilization under which these races live, there is one outstanding fact present beyond all peradventure, and if the hon. gentleman who precipitated this discussion has the faintest acquaintance with the problem at all he will know that,in no occidental country do these orientals assimilate.
As far as Canada is concerned, British Columbia has had to bear the brunt of this problem. In that province it has. been proven for fifty years, and in California for

a great deal longer, that even the children born in the country do not assimilate, and that there is great difficulty in bringing Oriental people into acceptance of the common ordinary practices and conditions of our people. Now then, these tens of thousands of people come to this continent and all over the country, in the United States as well as in Canada, and you have this result- a Chinatown springs into existence or some section which is set apart for these people, not set apart by statute or by regulation, but by mutual consent and arrangement. So these Orientals hive, taking no interest in the affairs of the country, with very few exceptions perhaps. It has been found by experience-an experience covering from thirty to forty years and over in British Columbia, where the people have been actually face to face with the problem-that it is advisable that these people shall not have the franchise. Now all that is asked is that this Parliament shall respect the franchise law of British Columbia as it respects the franchise law of any other province.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear, but say so in the Bill.
Mr. .STEVENS: The suggestion is made that because there is a race problem in British Columbia this Bill shall so state it. My hon. friend from Three Rivers, who was Solicitor General to the preceding Government, will agree with me when I enunciate this principle which has been accepted by all, that Dominion or federal legislation should never be localized-that is, it should have a general application to the whole country. That is a sound principle of parliamentary procedure, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will never disagree with it. Furthermore, he will at once agree with me when I say that it is exceedingly undesirable to establish the precedent of designating in a Bill that such a provision shall be applicable to one province.
I have another reason why I think this Bill should pass, and it is this. The Solicitor General, who has undoubtedly given considerable attention to this matter, advises the House that he does not know of any further province to which this particular Bill would apply; but if my memory serves me right-I do not profess to speak with authority-the province of Saskatchewan has in force some regulation referring to Orientals in connection with its Franchise Act. Now I think it is desirable that provincial rights should be protected without necessarily looking through all the

provincial statutes iand ascertaining the exact provisions of those statutes. It was not my intention, nor is it my desire, to precipitate a discussion on the old Oriental question). If it were desirable I could make out a very strong and a very good case for my constituents and friends in British Columbia; but I simply rest my case on this: it is desirable that if the Act passed last session was found to be faulty, it should be amended, and no injustice should be done to any other part of the Dominion, whether British Columbia or any other province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
An hon. MEMBER:: India is a member of the League of Nations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, my hon. friend
states that they are now, according to the interpretation of the Treaty of Peace, members, of the League of Nations. But they are British subjects, and, as British subjects, should they be debarred from the right to exercise the franchise under the British flag? What is the cause of the .rebellious spirit that to-day exists in certain parts of India; what is at the root of the agitation against the British authorities there? .Does my hon. friend know?


John Hampden Burnham: Difference of race.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is precisely because
of the treatment accorded ,to the Hindus, who are just as much British as my hon. friend from Peterboro is a British subject. They are treated as an inferior race in such parts,of the British Empire as Canada, and especially in British Columbia. That is at the root of the whole trouble. When.one has had the privilege of meeting those Hindus not only in the army, where they have served gallantly, but at Cambridge and Oxford, at the Privy Council, at the,Bar, and in the British House of Commons, one is surprised indeed at the lofty air assumed by certain " Colonials " when they speak of their " fellow British subjects of India."
In British Columbia, so far ,as I am aware, the Chinaman is the only one who will accept menial occupations, and I know that those who raised the anti-racial cry against the Oriental .races in British Columbia were the first to utilize the services of Chinamen and other Orientals; and you will not speak, iMr. 'Chairman, to any member from British Columbia on this question
of Oriental labour who will not have to admit that he and his fellow-members are thanking God evdfy day that they have Chinese domestics and .Oriental labour generally in that province. Speaking as a Liberal, and speaking only for myself-I do not wish to commit any one to my own opinions-I say ^hat these men, especially the Japanese, who are a highly intelligent race, should have the right to exercise the franchise; and it goes without saying that a fellow-British subject like the Hindu .should also have a like right.
. The CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 1 carry?


Jacques Bureau: No, Mr. Chairman. I
think it was .understood with the Solicitor General that if we are not going to limit this to British Columbia the word " race " ought to be alone there, the sentence then reading "in respect ,of race such person shall not be qualified."


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to
the words " age or " being struck out. I therefore move:
That the words " age or " at the end of the eighth line and the beginning of the ninth line of Clause 1 toe struck out.


Mr. McKBNZIE:: I wish to assure the
Solicitor General that I listened with a great deal of satisfaction to the first part of his speech when he quoted the old election law of Canada, that is, the law before the Wartime Elections Act, and made that the basis of his amendment and gave it as the reason why the rights of the provinces should be recognized in saying who should and who should not vote. There is a great deal of force in saying that the same class of people qualified to vote in municipal and provincial elections shall also vote in Dominion elections, because it is the same class of people and the same Government of the same people in different forms. A man who votes in the city of Vancouver for his city government has the right to vote for the Provincial Government and also for the Dominion Government. I am not at all getting into conflict with what was said on this side of the House as to what should ' be done to the stranger who comes into the country; but I do say that the principle is right, that the provinces should have something to say about the franchise, and that' we should follow that principle in future as we have followed it in the past.
At Confederation, of course, the British North America Act provided that. we should adopt the local franchise until this legislature should provide otherwise. We ran along under the provincial franchise until

1885, and in the election of 1887 we had for the first time a different franchise and what were known as Revising barristers. It was a very cumbersome, expensive and unsatisfactory piece of machinery, and without any objection at all, I believe, from the Conservative party it was repealed in 1898, when we went back again to the provincial franchise, and that continued to be the law without any murmur and without any exception until the extraordinary, and possibly one. might say the iniquitous Wartime Elections Act was enacted in 1917, which broke into what was regarded as the proper principle underlying the franchise. That principle is revived to-day by the Solicitor General, and in this amendment we are going to base our ideas henceforth upon what is the old law, and he quotes that law.
Next session, I understand, it is the intention that a general Franchise Bill shall be brought down, and I would like to know from the leader of the Government, as weli as from the Solicitor General, if it is the intention of the Government to act upon the principle of the law which he has laid down to-day in regard to that Franchise Bill. Next session is not so far away as to justify the Government in not telling us their ideas in that regard. If they intend to go back to the sound principle enunciated to-day I shall hail with delight their return to those democratic principles which have been so acceptable in this country for many years; but if this principle, as has been stated on this- side of the House, is only to be utilized while it suits the Government for a specific case, I would not be in favour of it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the title:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rather think that the hon. gentleman who is leading the Government (Mr. Doherty) was in a mood to give us his views on this question of the franchise. I should be pleased to hear from him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was reflecting very seriously on the wise words with which the leader of the Opposition (Mr-. McKenzie) had favoured ns upon the question of this very important principle. What he said deserves more mature consideration than could be given to it in the moment or two during which he was putting his question, and before arriving at a conclusion we would like an opportunity of

giving that mature consideration to what he said.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.	j
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Solicitor General), Bill No. 14, to amend the Naturalization Act, 1919, was read the second time, and the House twent into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 20 of the Naturalization Act passed at the last session provided as follows:
An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act to any judge of any Superior Court, or to any judge of any Circuit, District or County Court, and in the North West Territories to such authorities or persons as the Governor in Council may prescribe.
It is to be noted that in the enumeration of the courts to 'which applicants may apply for naturalization, the long-established Court of General Sessions of the Peace of Ontario has been omitted. I suppose for the last fifty or sixty years in Ontario nearly all applications for naturalization have been made .to the Court of General Sessions of the Peace. The clerk of that court is the clerk of the peace, but he is not the clerk t)f the county court. The clerk of the peace in practically all the country districts is the Crown attorney, who has for many years been in the habit of receiving and dealing with these applications. I do not think it was the intention to deprive him of that function or of the simple fee that usually accompanies such applications. On the other ,liand, the 'County 'Court is enumerated in the Act, but the clerk of that court has not been in the habit of receiving applications for naturalization. This proposed legislation, therefore, is simply to .include in the enumeration of the courts in Ontario the Court of General Sessions of the Peace.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection to
including the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for Ontario, but I wish,to point out that we have similar courts in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec city.


Hugh Guthrie: I see no objection ,to
including the province of Quebec.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In our province, I think, the matter has always been dealt with by the Circuit .Court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have quite often seen
applications of this kind go to the Court of Sessions of the Peace.
Mr. DOiHERTY:	I do ,not speak positively, but if the law permitted such applicants in the province of Quebec to go elsewhere than to the Circuit Court, I am under the .impression that the law has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. To include Quebec would be introducing an absolutely new thing so far as that province is concerned, whereas what is,sought to be done in respect of Ontario is to correct a mistake the result of which has been to pass this matter to a court which has never exercised jurisdiction in that regard. If we include ,in the Act the Court of Sessions of Quebec, we create in that province exactly the situation which was created in Ontario and which this Bill seeks to correct. ,1 confess I am at a loss to see what advantage there would be in transmitting this matter-which is simply a matter of hearing evidence to show that *a man possesses the qualifications of naturalization-from ia civil court to a court which deals primarily with questions of criminal law. In Ontario, however, the advantage gained is that of putting the matter back where it always was until, through an oversight, the Court of General Sessions was omitted when the new Naturalization Act was passed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: One of the advantages
of including the Court of Sessions of the province of Quebec-possibly the chief advantage-would be to secure a fairer distribution of the work. My hon. friend, who was a judge in Montreal for many years, knows that the Circuit Court judges there are overwhelmed with judicial work. If the jurisdiction in such cases were extended to the judges of the Court of Sessions, the work in connection with naturalization applications would be more fairly distributed.


Jacques Bureau: Before these amendments were made the Circuit Court had jurisdiction in such matters; to-day it is the Superior Court. But, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned-that is, outside of Montreal, where we have Circuit Court judges-the Circuit Court and Superior Court judges are the same. I can see one advantage to be gained by making this change. I have been begging the Minister of Justice to increase the salaries of our
judges in rural districts, who are overloaded with work. The judges of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, who, except in Montreal, are also judges of the Circuit Court, go outside of districts wherein their particular courts are located and sit in the Court of Review.
If an applicant comes there to be examined and to secure a certificate from the judge, he always finds the judge of the Sessions de la Paix in his office every morning, year in and year out. This hasi the advantage of having a man always at his post to take the case and consider it and give a certificate. As the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) says, it relieves the other judges who are overworked. It is a court of record.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter deserves
consideration. For instance, are we going to have a situation in which every man who wants to be naturalized will have to present himself before a court sitting as a criminal court? There seems to be something incongruous about giving this matter, which is in no way analogous to a criminal matter-


Jacques Bureau: This is not exclusively
a criminal court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know what it may be in the rural districts, but according to my experience in the district of Montreal, the court of sessions has been a court exercising exclusively criminal jurisdiction. It would be a very unfortunate thing that every man who wants naturalization should have to appear before the bar of a criminal court.
Mr. BUREAU': It is the same in the circuit courts down in 'the rural districts. The criminal judges sit-


Charles Joseph Doherty: They sit and hold the
court of King's Bench, of course, but the office of their court is a civil court; the clerk of their court is a clerk of the civil court; the whole matter is handled by a court of civil jurisdiction. I do not think that the quantity of work that is entailed can be very excessive. As to finding a man always at his post, if I am not mistaken, the procedure is- not one under which an applicant presents himself there one day and says: Now I want to be heard about my naturalization.


Jacques Bureau: Notice has to be given.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has to file an application; then notice has to be hung up, and no doubt a day is fixed when a judge of the


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with my hon. friend that we should not, for the pleasure of adding the name of the province of Quebec, alter the Bill. My only point was that I thought that, speaking for the district of Montreal, the judges of the Superior Court and Circuit Court are so busy that proper distribution of the work should be made. My hon. friend may imagine what it means for a judge in Montreal during the term, sitting in a case of importance, to have to adjourn that case or to postpone the hearing of witnesses in order to look after this purely ministerial work. If my hon. friend finds something in my suggestion, I would ask him to think of it, because they have all the officers of the Crown at the Court of Sessions of the Peace, and with the small fee given, I am quite sure that they would see that those cases are channelled towards the sessions of the Peace, thus relieving the judges of the Superior 'Court in Montreal who are already overtaxed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Montreal, the judges of the Superior Court are not, I understand, troubled with these applications, which are made to the Circuit Court. There was a time when I used to hear a great deal of complaint about the overwork of the Circuit Court, but-I do not know whether the salve that was applied, which was not in the direction of taking away jurisdiction, but rather in that of conferring remuneration, had anything to do with the matter or not,-I have not, for quite some time, heard any complaint or .suggestion that the judges of the Circuit Court are at present overworked, and they have carried on that work as I have said, from time immemorial. I shall, however, be very glad to make inquiry into the situation.


Jacques Bureau: Montreal is a special place; it is the only district in the province where there are circuit judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it can be said that in our rural districts generally the judges of the Superior Court who also hold the Circuit Court are overburdened with work. I understand that the work in the district which the hon. gentleman has in mind has very much increased of recent years, but taking the average rural district where the judge of the Superior Court holds the Circuit Court, I think we would all agree that they can hardly be described as being overworked.
There is also to be considered
5 p.m. the fact that I am not sure that in most of the rural districts you will find a court answering to the name of Court of Sessions. That is doubtful, although I do not want to speak positively. Most of that work is done by stipendiary magistrates. Before we proceed to make the change, the conditions should be looked into, and I will make inquiries.


Jacques Bureau: Since the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Doherty) has spoken about the district I have in mind, I am going to name it. I have in mind the district of Three Rivers. My hon. friend laughs. He knows that the district of Three Rivers is just undergoing a period of development unique in the Dominion of Canada, and it is the place where applications for naturalization are being made every day by Americans and Norwegians, who are manufacturing pulp and paper. We are getting more applications for naturalization in that district than in any other district that I know of just now, with the exception, perhaps, of the West, into which farmers are flocking. We have a Court of General Sessions of the Peace which has time to look into the applications, pass upon them and issue certificates. Since the minister is going to take this question into consideration, I make a special plea for Three Rivers on that ground, and I think my plea ought to be granted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will certainly look into it, and I want to make it clear that my laughing did not imply any reflection on Three Rivers, but was because my hon. friend thought it necessary to tell me what district he had in mind. I understand, with the devotion to his duties which characterizes him, he always has Three Rivers in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. [DOT]

On section 2-to be construed with Dominion By-Elections Act.
Rodolphe Lemieux: This clause reads:

shall be deemed to have come into force and operation on the 7 th day of July, 1919.
Have applications been made and received since?


Hugh Guthrie: We are dating it back
to the date at which the main Act was assented to, because I understand that in many of the counties of Ontario clerks of the peace have been receiving applications, not knowing of the change in the law. This is notably the case in the- city of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).

Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	How many military defaulters have been brought before the civil courts of justice in the province of Quebec from the 1st of November, 1918, to the 1st of September, 1919?
2.	What is the amount of fines paid by these defaulters during the said period of time, and the amount of costs paid by them?
3.	What was the total sum expended by the Government in connection with the arrests, transportation of the defaulters and the officers
' or agents who made the arrests, and also, the amount disbursed for expense and fees in connection with the trials of the said defaulters.
4.	Did the Government pay out any bonuses or remit a portion of the fines to the officers or agents who made the arrests of the said defaulters? If so, what was the amount of bonus paid or portion of fine remitted during the above mentioned period?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1.	The total number of M.S.A. defaulters apprehended and prosecuted in the province of Quebec is 4,155.
2.	$185,295 in fines. No record of court costs.
3.	$158,920.50.
4.	No.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 5.15 p.m.
Monday, September 29, 1919.