OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA SECOND SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 9-10 GEORGE V, 1919 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1028	Volume II: Pages 1029-2096
" III:	"	2097-3192	^	' " IV:	"	3193-3996


Volume V:: 3997-4702



VOLUME CXXXIV


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

[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 Finance	Hon.	Sir Thomas	White, K.C.M.G., B.A.,Minister of Justice, and Attorney General	Hon. Charles	Joseph Doherty,	K.C., D.C.L.,
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 Alexander Lougheed, K.C.M.G.,
[Stage Direction]
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 Customs and Inland Revenue	<...Hon. Arthur Lewis Sifton.
Minister of Immigration and Colonization	Hon. James Alexander Calder.
President of the Privy Council	Hon. Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C.
Minister of Militia and Defence	Major-General Hon. Sydney Chilton Mewburn.
Minister of Agriculture	*Hon. Thomas Alexander Crerar.
Minister of Public Works	Hon. Frank Broadstreet Carvell, K.C.
Minister without Portfolio	Hon. Alexander Kenneth Maclean, K.C.
Minister of Labour	Hon. Gideon Decker Robertson.
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. Keeper, K.C.
Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment	Vacant.
* Resigned office June 4.
[Stage Direction]
Speaker	Hon. Edgak 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		
Sergeant at Arms			Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. Bowie.
Editor of Debates			Thomas P. Owens.
Associate Editor of Debates...		A. C. Campbell.
Official Reporters of Debates :-[DOT]
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. O. 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, Nickle and Riohardson.
Chairman : R. L. Richardson.

[Stage Direction]
OF THE	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Second Sessioh

Thirteenth Parliament.
Allan, George William-Winnipeg, S. Riding. Ames, Sir Herbert Brown, Kt.-St. Antoine. Anderson, Robert King-Halton.
Andrews, George William-Winnipeg Centre. Ahchambaclt, Joseph-Chambly and Vereheres. 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 Seyerin-Beauce.
Best, John-Dufferin.
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.
Boyer, Gustave-Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
Boys, W'illiam Alves-Simcoe, S. Riding.
Brien, John Wesley-Essex, S. Riding.
BRfsTOL, Edmund-Toronto Centre.
Brouillard, Joseph Ovide-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. Campbell, J. A.-Nelson.
Cannon, Lucien-Dorchester.
Cardin, Pierre Joseph Arthur-Richelieu. Carvell, Hon. Frank Broadstreet-Victoria and Carleton.
Casgrain, Pierre Francois-Charlevoix-Mont-morency.
Casselman, Orren D.-Dundas.
Chabot, John Leo-Ottawa.
Chaplin, James Dew-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. Cochrane, Hon. Francis-Timiskaming. Cockshutt, William Foster-Brantford.
Cooper, Richard Clive-Vancouver, S. Riding. Copp, Arthur Bliss-Westmorland.
Cowan, Walter Davy-Regina.
Crebar, Hon. Thomas Alexander-Marquette. Cronyn, Hume-London.
Crothers, Hon. Thomas Wilson-Elgin, W. Riding. Crowe, Sanford 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. j Desaulniers, Arthur L.-Champlain.

[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.
Duff, William-Lunenburg.
DuTremblay, 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.
Eui.er, William D.-Waterloo, N. Riding.
Fafard, J. Fernand-L'lslet.
Fielding, Hon. William 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. Green, Robert Francis-Kootenay, W. Riding. Griesbach, 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-Port Arthur and Kenora. Kemp, Hon. Sir Edward, K.C.M.G.-Toronto East.	.
Kennedy. William Costello-Essex, N. Riding. Knox, Andrew*-Rrince Albert.
Lafortune, David Arthur-Jacques Cartier.
Lalor, Francis Ramsey-Haldimand.
Lanctot, Roch-Laprairie and Napierville.
Lang, Norman-Humboldt.
Lapointe, Ernest-Kamouraska.
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, Willl\m Stew art-Northumbefland (N.B) Long, Charles Edwin-North Battleford.
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.)
McCreax 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. Mew'burn, Hon. Sydney Chilton-Hamilton, E. Riding.
Michaud, Pius-Restigouche and Madawraska. Middlebro, William Sora-Grey, N. Riding. Molloy, John Patrick-Provencher.
Morphy, H. B.-Perth, N. Riding.
Mow at, Herbert Macdonald-Parkdale.
Munson, Charles Arthur-Northumberland,. (Ont.)
Murphy, Hon. Charles-Russell.
Myers, Edward Thomas Wordon-Kindersley.
Nesbitt, Edward Walter-Oxford, N. Riding. Nicholson, Donald-Queen's, (P.E.I.)
Nicholson, George Brecken-Algoma, E. Riding-Nickle, William Folger-Kingston.
Pacaud, Lucien Turcotte-Megantic.
Papineau, Louis Joseph-Beauharnois.
Pardee, Frederick Forsyth-Lambton, W. Rid-.ing.
Parent, George-Quebec, W. Riding.
Paul, William James-Lennox and Addington.

[Stage Direction]
vii
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.
'Read, Joseph-Prince, P.E.I.
Redman, Daniel Lee-Calgary, E. Riding.
Reid, Hon. John Dowsley

Grenville.
Reid, John Flaws-Mackenzie.
Rhodes, Hon. Edgar N.-Cumberland. Richardson, Robert Lorn-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'Assomption-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 H.-Antigonish and Guysborough. Sinclair, John Ewen-Queen's, P.E.I.
Smith, William-Ontario, S. Riding.
Spinney, Edgar Keith-Yarmouth and Clare. Stacey, Frank Bainard-^Westminster District. 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, Simon Fraser-Victoria City.
Trahan, Arthur-Nicolet.
Tremain, Hadley Brown-Hants.
Truax, Reuben E.-Bruce, S. Riding.
Tudhope, James BROCKETi^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, William Henry-Victoria, Alta.
White, Hon. Sir Thomas, K.C.M.G.-Leeds. 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.
'Deceased, April 6.
fName changed to Fraser Valley. See Index: Representation Act Amendment.

[Stage Direction]
Constituencies of the House of Commons
Second. Session-Thirteenth Parliament.
Algoma, East-George Brecken Nicholson. Algoma, West-Thomas Edward Simpson. Antigonish and Guysborough-John H. Sinclair. Argenteuil-P. Robert McGibbon.
Assiniboia-
Bagot-Joseph Edmond Marcile.
Battleford-Henry Oswald Wright.
Battle River-William John Blair.
Beauce-Hon. Henri S£v6rin Beland,
Beauharnois-Louis Joseph Papineau. * Bellechasse-C. A. Fournier.
Berthier-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 Tweedie 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 Verciieres-Joseph Archambault. Champlain-Arthur L. Desaulniers. 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
Dauphin-Robert Cruise.
Digby and Annapolis-Avard Longley Davidson. 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 Griesback.
E lgin, 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 Manion.
Frontenac-John Wesley Edwards.
Gaspe-Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux.
George Etienne Cartier-Samuel William Jacobs. Glengarry and Stormont-
Gloucester-Onesiphore Turgeon.
Grenville-Hon. John Dowsley Reid.
Grey, N. Riding-William Sora Middlebrp.
Grey, Southeast Riding-Robert James Ball. Haldimand-Francis Ramsay Lalor.
Halifax-Hon. A. K. Maclean, Peter Francis Martin.
Halton-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.
X

[Stage Direction]
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 Woirdon Myers. King's, N.S.-Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden, G.C.M.G.
King's, P.E.I.-James Mclsaac.
Kingston-William Folger Nickle.	*
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 Napierville-Roch Lanctbt. L'Assomption-Montcalm.-Paul Arthur Seguin. Last Mountain-John Frederick Johnston. Laurier-Outremont-Pamphile Real Tremblay.
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.
Marouette-Hon. Thomas Alexander Crerar. Maskinonge-Hormidas Mayrand.
Matane-Francois Jean Pelletier.
Medicine Hat-Hon. Arthur Lewis Sifton.
Meg antic-Lucien Turcotte Pacaud.
Middlesex, E. Riding-Samuel Francis Glass. Middlesex, W. Riding-Duncan Campbell Ross. Missisquoi-William Frederic Kay.
Montmagny-Aim6 Miville Dech&ne.
Moosejaw-Hon. James Alexander Calder. Muskoka-Peter McGibbon.
Nanaimo-John Charles McIntosh.
Neepawa-Fred Langdon Davis.
Nelson-J. A. Campbell.
New Westminster-William Garland McQuarrie. Nicolet-Arthur Trahan.
Nipissing-Charles Robert Harrison.
Norfolk-William Andrew Charlton.
North Battleford-Charles Edwin Long. Northumberland, N.B.-William S. Loggie. Northumberland, Ont.-Charles Arthur Munson . * Deceased, April 6. [DOT]
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.
Pictou-Alexander McGregor.
Pontiac-Frank S. Cahill.
Portage la Prairie-Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Port Arthur and Kenora-Francis Henry Keefer. Portneuf-Michel Simeon Delisle.
Prescott-Edmond Proulx.
Prince Albert-Andrew Knox.
Prince Edward-William Bernard Rickart Hepburn.
Prince, P.E.I.-*Joscph Read.
Provencher-John Patrick Molloy.
Qu'Appelle-Levi Thomson.
Quebec County-Henri E. Lavigueur.
Quebec, East-
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 and St. George-Hon. Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne.
St. Mary-Hermas Deslauriers.
Saltcoats-Thomas MacNutt.
Saskatoon-James Robert Wrilson.
Selkirk-Thomas Hay.
Shefford-George Henry Boivin.

[Stage Direction]
Shelburne and Queen's-Hon. William Stevens Fielding.
Sherbrooke-Francis N. McCrea.
Simcoe, E. Riding-James Brockett Tudhope. Simcoe, N. Riding-John Allister Currie.
Simcoe, S. Riding-William Alves Boys.
Sxeena-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 Clarence Hocken.
Vancouver, Centre-Henry Herbert Stevens. Vancouver, South-Richard Clive Cooper. Vaudreuil-Soulanges-Gustave Boyer.
Victoria, Alta.-William Henry White.
VicroRU, Ont.-Hon. Sir Sam JLughes, K.C.B.
Victoria and Carleton, N.B.-Hon. Frank Broad-street Carvell.
Victoria City, B.C.-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. 'Westminster District-Frank B. Stacey. 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.
Y ork, S. Riding-William Findlay Maclean.
York, W. Riding-Thomas George Wallace. York-Sunbury-Harry Fulton McLeod.
Yukon-Alfred Thompson.
'Name changed to Fraser Valley. See Index:	Representation Act Amendment.

Moose of Commons debates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 20, 1919.
The Parliament which had been prorogued from time to time to the 20th day of February, 1910, met this day at Ottawa, for the dispatch of business.

The House met at three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.

Mr. Speaker read a communication from Lt.-Col. the Hon. Harold Henderson, 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:

Mi. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate iChamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a Speech to both Houses of Parliament. Tb prevent mistakes, il have obtained a copy which is as follows:-
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
Since the last session of Parliament events have transpired of the highest consequence to the Empire and to Canada. After withstanding with steadfast valour repeated assaults pressed with the utmost vigour and determination, the Allied Forces, taking the offensive in all theatres of action, advanced to decisive and overwhelming victory. Upon terms of practically unconditional surrender on the part of the enemy, armistices were arranged and are now in effect, under which extensive strategic territories have been evacuated, guns, munitions and other war material and supplies surrendered on a vast scale, and the greater part of the hostile fleets delivered up to the Allies. A Conference is now being held at Paris to determine the conditions upon which peace will be concluded. As the decisions of this Conference will be of vital importance to Canada as well as to other parts of the Empire, it is being attended by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, accompanied by others of my advisers.
In the notable victories leading to the glorious issue accomplished by the arms of the Allies, none of the forces engaged bore a more valorous or heroic part than those of Canada, whose achievements throughout the entire war have won imperishable renown for their country. It is most gratifying to be able to state that, in the final and decisive stages of the mighty struggle, our divisions in the field were maintained at over-strength, and equipped in the highest degree with all the requirements of modern warfare. The appreciation and gratitude of the nation cannot be too earnestly and sincerety expressed to the gallant members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, whose sacrifices, sufferings and heroism have played so effectual a part in vindicating the cause of world-liberty and civilization.
Prior to the armistice, plans and preparations had been made for the return, demobilization and re-establishment in civil life, after the close of the war, of our soldiers with their dependents overseas. These are now in operation, and while this great undertaking presents, owing to after-war conditions, many difficulties and complications, it is confidently expected that it will be accomplished speedily and satisfactorily.
Immediately upon the conclusion of the armistice, which necessarily involved the cessation of operations in the manufacture of munitions and in other essential war industries, steps were taken by my advisers to facilitate the readjustment of business, and to provide employment. Orders in Council embodying the measures adopted will be laid before you without delay.
A Bill relating to the franchise, with such provisions as are necessary having regard to existing conditions, and providing among other things for effectually enabling women to vote, and conferring upon them the privilege of sitting in Parliament, will be submitted for your consideration.
Your attention will also be invited to Bills providing for aid in the construction of highways ; for assisting returned soldiers in establishing themselves upon the land, and for promoting desirable immigration and farm settlement.



Bills will also be submitted for the promotion of vocational education; for the creation of a Department of Public Health; for promoting better housing conditions throughout the Dominion by loans made for the purpose to the several Provincial Governments, and for the validation by Parliament of Orders in Council prohibiting the importation and manufacture of intoxicating beverages, and the transportation thereof into any community where their sale is contrary to law. Other necessary legislation dealing with matters, including pensions to soldiers and their dependents, now regulated by Orders in Council, will be laid before you. Further important measures, designed to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people In the new era of reconstruction, social as well as material, upon which the world has entered, will be recommended to your consideration.
After more than four years of war, and notwithstanding the sudden dislocation brought about by the armistice, Canada's industrial, commercial and financial stability has been well maintained. It is the expectation that in addition to business arising from the resumption of public and private undertakings in Canada which were suspended by the war, and needed improvements and betterments throughout the Dominion, Canada will obtain substantial participation in the expansion of export trade following the conclusion of the war, and the liberation of commerce from the restraints which have existed during its continuance. Steps have been taken by my advisers to promote and facilitate such participation. Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
The accounts of the last and the estimates for the next fiscal year will be submitted to you without delay, and you will he asked to make the necessary financial provision for meeting the remaining expenditures arising out of the war and connected with demobilization; also for the establishment of credits for the financing of purchases of our agricultural, Industrial and other products.
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate:
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
It is appropriate that we should acknowledge our thankfulness to Divine Providence for the successful issue of the terrible struggle m which for so long a period our armies have been engaged, and for the restoration of peace to the world. Through the long conflict, with its dire vicissitudes and varying fortunes, our people never allowed themselves to doubt that victory would finally crown our cause, which was that of truth and justice. The deeply loyal and earnest co-operation of the Overseas Dominions and Dependencies with the Mother Country must more firmly cement for all time those ties which bind the Empire in indissoluble union. The spirit horn of common sacrifice, suffering and heroic endeavour will also, it is confidently hoped, .permanently unite the Allies by the bonds of a great memory and tradition, and effectually promote the formation of a Deague of Nations which wiill ensure for all time the peace of the world.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, it was ordered that the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament be taken into consideration on Tuesday next, and that this order' have precedence over all other business except the introduction of Bills until disposed of.

SELECT iSTAND'LNG lOOMiMlITTBEiS.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: If my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) will give me the names of members on that side of the House for a special committee to select under Rule 10 the Select Standing Committees of this House, I will make the motion in that regard on Tuesday next.


Mr. ROBB:: Certainly.



OATHS OF OFFICE.

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

[Stage Direction]
Joint report of the Librarians of Parliament.-iMr. Speaker.
REPUBLIC OF COSTA	RICA-CON-

[Stage Direction]
IMr. Speaker submitted a communication conveying to the Clerk of the House of Commons a resolution adopted by the Constitutional Congress of the Republic of Costa Rica, setting forth the joy of the people of Cost Rica upon the termination of the war and the triumph of the Allied arms.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister); Mr. Speaker, we meet today under the shadow of a great loss and a deep and widespread personal sorrow. The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, senior member of this House, has passed away, and the entire nation mourns his death. It is my intention later to ask the adjournment of the House until Tuesday next, out of respect to and in honour of his memory. Upon that occasion opportunity will be afforded me and other members of the House who may so wish, to refer in terms more extended than would be fitting at this time to the sad event and to the long and illustrious career of the deceased statesman in the public life of Canada. In the mean- time the 'Government, desirous of paying every appropriate mark of respect, has arranged, with the consent of the family, for a State funeral, which will take place on Saturday morning in accordance with the public announcement which has been made. From eight o'clock this evening the remains will lie in state in this Chamber, when all
[Stage Direction]
will have the opportunity of looking upon his face for the last time.
Viewing his vacant desk, with its drapery of mourning, and bearing the floral tokens of affection, it is hard for us to realize that we shall never again see him rise in his place in this House, and that we shall hear his voice no more.
In order that the House may approve and participate in the action which the Government has taken, I beg to move:
That it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the mortal remains of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid1 Haurier, G.C.M.G., should be publicly interred, and that this House will concur in giving to the ceremony a fitting degree of solemnity and importance.
Mr. JAMES ALEXANDER ROBB (Chat-eauguay-Huntingdon, Chief Whip of the Opposition) Mr. Speaker: Having in mind that on Tuesday next opportunity will be given to pay tribute to the memory of our late distinguished leader, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I will leave until then and to others better qualified than I am to speak for this side of the House. Representing temporarily His Majesty's loyal Opposition, I desire to thank the Acting Prime Minister and the Government for their kindness arid consideration. In every way the Government has manifested a desire to anticipate our wishes in honouring the memory of him who was our leader and, in the truest sense, our companion and our counsel. '
In a few minutes all that remains of the honoured Liberal Chieftain and Canadian statesman will lie in this Chamber in. state, honoured in death, as he was in life, by all classes and creeds of the Canadian nation. How appropriate at this moment are the words written on the occasion of the death of another distinguished British statesman:
Now is hushed the voice of party,
Grit and Tory both are one,
Joined to praise that wondrous statesman,
Now his noble work is done.
Motion of Sir Thomas White agreed to.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, since the last session of Parliament another of our members has passed away. I refer to that gallant soldier, Lieut.-Col. Sam Sharpe, D.iS.O. He was elected upon three successive occasions by the people of North Ontario as their representative in this House. Early in his career he had become connected with the Canadian militia and, when the war broke
li
out, he was major of the 34th battalion. After experiencing some difficulty in qualifying as medically fit for active service, 'Major Sharpe undertook to raise the 116th First Ontario County regiment, with which he went overseas in July, 1916. He was deservedly popular with the rank and file as well as with his brother officers, for all of whom he displayed an almost fatherly regard. He served with great distinction at the front being mentioned in dispatches and winning the coveted Distinguished Service Order. In civil life he was held in high esteem among his associates at the Bar and a wide circle of private acquaintances. He was a member who took a valuable part in the discussions in this House and in the work of important committees. His public career was full of promise and II am sure that every member of this House will join in deploring his untimely death and offering assurance of our deep and cordial sympathy to the widow and other members of his family circle.
Mr. .ROBB (Chief Whip of the Opposition) : Temporarily representing, and speaking for, Hfs Majesty's loyal Opposition, I desire to join in paying our tribute of respect to the memory of our deceased friend and colleague, the late Lieut.-Col. Sam Sharpe who as a member of this House had a host of friends. The late Col. Sharpe, as has been so well said by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) was a most useful member of this House, and one who was remarkable for the industry which he displayed in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Upon the outbreak of war, at the call of his country, he left these legislative halls, unsheathed his sword and went forth to do battle in the cause of freedom and justice.
We, upon this side, deplore his untimely end. We join , with the Acting Prime Minister in the expression of admiration for his gallant conduct, and in offering our sympathy to Mrs. Sharpe and the members of his family.



WELCOME TO THE HON. DR. BEL AND.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of the losses sustained by the House in the death of two of its members. I now turn to the restoration to this House of a member long known and well liked. I refer to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) formerly Postmaster General of Canada. We welcome him back almost as from the tomb; from the living death of

German imprisonment. He was made to bear, vicariously, the deep resentment borne by the Hun, on account of the notable part taken by Canada in the prosecution of this war.
Who, of all who knew him, in the session preceding the war; gentle, kindly, popular as he was with all the members of the House, could have imagined that fate had in store for him such strange adventures and such tragic experiences. The story of his visit to Belgium, of his internment as a political prisoner by the Germans and of the oppressive and calculatedly brutal treatment to which he was subjected is known to all the members of this House and, indeed, to all the people of Canada.
I assure him that we greatly rejoiced at the news of his 'liberation, Sand wholeheartedly we welcome him back to his seat in this House.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, may we join with the Acting Prime Minister and his followers on the Government side of the House in offering a welcome home to our good friend, the hon. member for Beauce, formerly Postmaster General. iHis four years captivity in a German prison may have brought wrinkles to his brow and sorrow to his heart but the genial, kindly, Dr. Beland remains and we join with our friends opposite in welcoming him back to this House.



ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TUESDAY NEXT.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I beg to. move, seconded by-Mr. Reid:
That when this House adjourns this day, it shall, out of respect to the memory of the late Right Hon, Sir Wilfrid Lauxier, stand adjourned fill Tuesday next the 24th hist.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the 'House that II have received from the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh and the Honourable Mr. Justice Simmons, two of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to "The Dominion Controverted Elections Act," a report relating to the Election for the Electoral District of Bow River, by which the said Election Petition was dismissed.



VACANCY.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that, during the recess, 
I received a communication notifying me of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of Ontario North, by the decease of Samuel Simpson Sharpe, (Esq.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the 'Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ of Election for the said Electoral District.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 3.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 25, 1919.


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

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.



INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION.

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."



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

William Thomas White: That a special committee be appointed to . prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House under Ruile 10, said Committee to be composed of Messrs. Reid (Grenville), McKenzie, Oarvell, Calder, Middlebro, McCoig 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]
Mr. FRANK B. STACEY (Westminister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act (1914).
[Stage Direction]
He said: This is not a matter of very great national importance, but it is of considerable interest to British Columbia, and very greatly concerns one constituency in that province. When introducing this Bill a year ago I pointed out that considerable confusion had [DOT] arisen owing to the title of the electoral constituency in question which it is proposed to change, which confusion still obtains. The purpose of the Bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Westminster to the electoral district of Fraser Valley, The change is eminently fitting, inasmuch as it is not only a geographical designation, but of historical significance.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Belt Act.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The purpose of this Bill is to carry into effect a principle that is already in operation as regards other Dominion lands, enabling the Crown to convey to a deceased entrant.
Motion agreed to and Bill read' the first time.



YUKON ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Yukon 'Act. He said: The first purpose of this Bill is to amend the Yukon Act by permitting the Yukon Council to consist of three instead of twelve members, thereby reducing the cost of administration. There are other clauses in the Bill of a minor character, but that is its main object.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker; I rise to
refer to that sad occurrence, the sudden and lamented death of Right Hon. (Sir Wilfrid Laurier which has east a pall over the proceedings attending the opening of this session of Parliament, touched the hearts of all his fellow members, and created a profound and melancholy impression throughout the entire Canadian community. In years Sir Wilfrid Laurier
had considerably exceeded the allotted span, yet such was the vigour of his mind, the animation of his appearance, the freshness of his interest in affairs, the charm and vivacity of his manner, and above all the great and conspicuous place which he had so long occupied in the minds and affections of his countrymen, that we had almost come to look upon him as immune from the vicissitudes of human infirmity, and, in a measure exempt from the conditions of our common mortality. For this reason the news of his departure has come with a sense of shock as well as of grief to all.
His death removes a most distinguished and commanding personality from the stage of Canadian public life. How considerable a part he played, we may realize when we reflect that he was actively engaged in national affairs at a period before many of us were born, that he was for almost half a century a legislative representative of the people, and for forty-five years a member of this House. He has been leader of the Liberal party for over thirty , years, of which he was for fifteen years Prime Minister of Canada. During his long career he has been identified with all the great political controversies since the period of Confederation. His fame has carried far beyond the boundaries of Canada, and in Britain, France and United States, as well as in other countries, the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has long been known, respected and admired as one of the outstanding statesmen of the age.
With such a career, with such titles to distinction, we of this House, who, next to his own immediate family and intimate personal circle, knew him best, may well upon this occasion, with profit to ourselves and in appreciation of him, examine as to the nature of the political principles to which he subscribed, his characteristics as a statesman, the personal qualities and attributes of the man himself, and the sources of the great power and influence which he exercised within and without the halls of Parliament. I am deeply conscious that there are many within sound of my voice who through longer association and acquaintance with him are much better qualified for this task than myself. Particularly do I wish that the head of the Government, the Prime Minister of Canada, Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, could be here to bear eloquent tribute to his great political opponent and warm: personal friend.
It is not my intention to refer to the various controversies in which' Sir Wilfrid Laurier during his long career was so ac-

tively engaged. Those controversies divided and some of them still divide the people and public men of this country. That is the natural and inevitable result of opposing views, opinions and convictions strongly and honourably held in a self-governing community such as ours. It is not my purpose to attempt to pass judgment upon the attitude of the dead leader towards thes'e great questions. Even if it would be fitting and proper to do so, which it is not, we are too close to the events to make any contemporary opinion conclusive. The ultimate place and fame of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, will, like that of other statesmen, be determined by the impartial and dispassionate judgment of history.
What were the foundations of this man's political creed, the principles which guided his political action? Without pretending to be exhaustive, two or three outstanding facts emerge. Firstly, the man was strongly attached and devoted to the ideals of freedom and liberty, personal, civil and religious. He believed in 'freedom of opinion, liberty in its expression,-that is to say, free speech, freedom of conscience- that is to say, religious liberty. That these were his views may be gathered not only from his own speeches but from the names of those whom he most admired, Fox, Gladstone, Bright, Lincoln. These names were often on his lips and he had diligently studied their careers and utterances.
From this starting point of attachment to these ideals of liberty and freedom, to which I think most in this country and all in this House now subscribe, he was led to greatly admire the British political system and the security and guarantees for liberty which it embodies and affords. Owing to the influences surrounding him in that troubled period Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then but a young man, appears not to have [DOT] realized, at least in its fulness, the vision of Confederation. It is, however, to his great and lasting credit that once it was accomplished he accepted the new conditions with whole-heartedness, and in his subsequent career did much in collaboration with other political leaders "to develop its structure, interpret its meaning and mould it to the purposes for which it was designed.
He became a strong Federationist, a great admirer, exponent and champion of the Confederation pact and no question interested him quite so, much as one relating to or affecting the Constitution. He was a great constitutionalist, an ardent upholder of the principles of free government with all that it involves. As nearly

all questions arising out of our constitution have long since been settled and acquiesced in by all political parties it seemed to me at times that in his character of constitutionalist and in his continued interest in the constitution he was the dignified and solitary survivor of that great group of statesmen, giants in their day, who after prolonged and fiery discussion and controversy laid broad and deep the constitutional foundation of Canada's national life. In this connection, and as again emphasizing the part played by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Canadian affairs and the length of years spanned by his career, let us.recall that he was minister in the government of Alexander Mackenzie, served as lieutenant to Edward Blake, succeeded him as leader of the Liberal party, and became the opponent of Sir John A. Macdonald, with whom he contended politically for many years.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was an intense and ardent Canadian. He was a firm believer in Canada and its destiny, which he did much to mould. Particularly did he desire to harmonize the various nationalities of Canada with their conflicting ideals and aspirations. National unity he regarded as of paramount importance in a country of mixed races and diverse creeds such as Canada. He was regardful of the rights of minorities and a strong advocate of tolerance, towards the opinions and convictions of others upon all questions whether civil racial or religious. He was a believer in democracy but there was always in him a moderating and restraining influence, a pragmatical respect for experience and for the past which disinclined him to sudden or violent change and exercised a steadying influence in the determination of his policies.
For the British constitution and for the autonomy, freedom and security which it affords to all within the range of its beneficent sway, he had the greatest regard and admiration. In my last conversation with him he spoke in terms of highest eulogy of British administration in Egypt and said that he would have no fear for the mandatory system proposed at the Peace Conference if it would be carried out in accordance with the British mode of government in protectorates.
I am glad that he lived to see the end of the war and the triumph of the Allies- particularly Britain and France.
Coming now to the man himself and the sources of his personal power, we find less difficulty in reaching conclusions. He was endowed by nature with a singularly graceful, picturesque and commanding personal-
FEBKITARY 25/1919
ity, a stately bearing, a most gracious manner and rare charm of disposition. He had high intellectual culture and much personal kindliness of heart. The combination made him a great gentleman, whose distinction and individuality wrought an indelible impression upon all with whom he was brought in contact. While conciliatory and always a believer in persuasion rather than in compulsion he had a firm will and strong tenacity of his settled views, opinions and policies. This gave him strength which always of itself attracts. He had in marked degree that mystic quality, that innate attribute called personal magnetism or personality which is really the totality of excellences, physical, mental and moral, in its fortunate possessor.
His power of command over men was great. He was a natural leader because of his ascendency in the realm of intellect and of will. When all we can say has been said, there still remains an indefinable, elusive and baffling something which we cannot express, but which gave him an amazing power in attracting and retaining the affection and devotion of his followers and adherents. It was this which caused him to be likened in the minds of many to Sir John A. Macdonald, who had the same notable faculty in supreme degree.
A further and great source of his power lay in his extraordinary gifts as an orator. As a speaker either in the House or on the public platform he took the highest rank. His oratorical achievements were greatly promoted and enforced by his individual characteristics and qualities, for it is an undoubted fact that much of the success of speech depends upon personality.
His style was simple, direct, lucid. It had been modelled upon the best examples of English prose, and had been fashioned and moulded by his study of the classics, which is the best school for literary form. Some of his speeches in this House were notable illustrations of the supreme art of the orator. Those upon the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Gladstone and Her Majesty Queen Victoria are among the finest in the history of panegyrical literature.
In the House, where he was a most assiduous attendant and an eager listener, he was always courteous and considerate of the views of opponents and was by them all personally liked and respected.
Such, in most imperfect outline, was Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the principles and ideals for which he stood. He was idolized among the French Canadian portion of our population as their great exemplar and
representative on the floor of Parliament and as Prime Minister of Canada for so long a period. They were naturally and justly proud of his high intellectual qualities and the force and strength of his character, his political sagacity and his success as a statesman. But apart from those of his own race he had devoted followers and admirers without number throughout the other provinces of Canada. His private life was simple and blameless, and he leaves behind him a career unsullied by self-seeking or love of gain. To state that he had defects, that he made mistakes at times, is only to say that he was human and what he himself would be the first to admit and acknowledge.
We mourn his loss. We feel that a great gap has been created in this House, that a powerful link with the past has been snapped and broken beyond repair. The spirit of the age has altered since the days when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in his political prime. Times change and men change with them-in appearance, manner, methods, characteristics.
We desire to express our most heartfelt sympathy to that most worthy helpmate, the light of whose life has gone out in the loss of him who was for more than fifty years of happy wedded life her constant comrade as well as husband, counsellor and protector. We pray that she may be granted strength to bear the heavy bereavement which has come upon her.
As for our dead friend and fellow member, he has joined the great majority, the unnumbered shadowy hosts of the dead. We shall see his face and hear his voice in these halls no more. He has left these scenes and these voices, and it will be indeed long before we shall look upon his like again.
His life was gentle; and the elements so -mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world: This was a man.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, the task that falls to my lot on this occasion is a very serious one and one that I fully realize my personal inability to fulfil as it ought to be fulfilled and discharged. Speaking for the moment on behalf of the gentlemen who sit on this side of the House, and speaking, as I believe, for the late Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier's personal friends and admirers throughout this Canada of ours, I wish in the first place, if I may be permitted, most sincerely to thank the Acting Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Thomas White) for the magnificent tribute which

he has paid to the great worth of the illustrious dead. The tribute is so full, so comprehensive, so complete, so just, that indeed very little is left to be added to it. It would rather spoil the effect of what has been said so well and moulded so completely to try to add very much to it. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it comes home to me, as the desk-mate of our late revered leader, and for so many years his friend, that we should, from this side of the House join with the hon. leader of the Government in saying something about our departed friend. I stand, Mr. Speaker, by the vacant chair, a chair that will never so worthily be filled in this House or in any other Canadian House within my lifetime and perhaps not within the lifetime of the youngest man here. The leadership of the Opposition and of the Liberal party will some day be filled, but it is no disparagement to whoever may fill that position to say that we have not the mould, nor the man to fill the place of the departed Chieftain of the Liberal party.
As to the love and affection which the people of this country had for him, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friends, of that great pattern of human love that has been held out to us and which we used to read in our school books and in the Sacred Book itself about David and Jonathan of old; held out to us as the greatest human evidence of love between two men. When David and Jonathan were parting, Jonathan, his brother-in-law, took him fervently by the hand and said: David, I will never see your face again; we are parting now and forever; but to-morrow you will be missed, for your seat will be empty.
The great dead is missed in this House to-day, because his seat is empty and it can never be filled. His place in this House is empty, his place in his home is empty, but his memory shall never fade. We, as his friends, have reason to be thankful, and we are thankful, that his great worth has been appreciated by the people of Canada and presented to this House today in such a magnificent manner by the hon. gentleman who is leading the Government.
I am sorry that the duty of paying this tribute to the departed statesman has not fallen upon some one more capable than I. One cannot help thinking on an occasion of this kind of the masterly eulogies which our late leader has pronounced, and one is apt to say, with the poet: "0, for the touch of a vanished hand, and the sound of a voice that is still!"
*^lr. McKenzie.]
The acting leader of the Government has pointed to the many things Sir Wilfrid Laurier has done for the development of this nation, and it is no disparagment to others to say that in bringing this country of ours up to the full measure of nationhood, in bringing it vividly to the attention of the Mother *Country and of the home Government, in securing for it as a nation and as a dominion the high position we hold in the commercial and political world, none has done so much as Sir Wilfrid Laurier. 'Canada has risen to her rightful place as a nation within the great Empire to which we belong. The position which Sir Wilfrid Laurier took at the time of the diamond jubilee of her late Majesty Queen Victoria, and again at the coronation of King Edward VTT and of King George V and at the various imperial conferences of the great statesmen of the Empire, did more to bring Canada before the world and to secure for us the position which we now occupy than anything hitherto done by any other Canadian. We have therefore much to be thankful for, both for his life, and for the memories he has left behind not only in Canada but throughout the Empire.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier rose to the very highest position in the gift of the people of this country. As he had often himself said, he was a democrat to the hilt. He was capable of realizing and anticipating every feeling of the people, and almost of every individual in the community, for he had gone through the various stages of life within Canada, and he could see what was necessary for the true welfare of his native land, of which he was so proud. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I repeat, occupied the very highest position in the gift of this country, and I submit that had he lived in any other country of the civilized world he would have occupied a similarly high position. Had he lived in the great republic to the south, rvith its hundred millions of people, he would have shared in the hearts of the people of that country a place with Washington, Lincoln and Grant. Had he lived in France, the home of his ancestors, I submit that he would have been President of France. Had he lived in our own beloved Mother Country of Great Britain and Ireland, I have no doubt, and I have often heard said, that he would have occupied a similar position to that held by Lord Chatham, John Bright, Gladstone and Disraeli. It has often been stated by men in this Chamber, and not by those in sympathy with him politically, that if Sir Wilfrid



FEBRUARY 25, 19X9

[Stage Direction]
Laurier had lived in Great Britain, nothing could have prevented him from becoming its Prime Minister. So we have reason to believe that his talents, although afforded plenty of scope in Canada, did not reach the full limit of their possibilities here, and that he was fully capable of performing higher and more exacting duties if fate had placed those duties as his task.
I think it is sometimes justifiable to use the language of others when it exactly expresses one's own sentiments, and what I am about to quote I would adopt as the language of this side of the House as well as adopting the sentiments so ably expressed by the Minister of Finance. This newspaper was not a supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and therefore I quote from it with the greater freedom. It says:
Another Link with the Glorious Days of Canada's Making is Broken by Laurier's Death.
In the passing of Sir Wilfrid Laurier yet another link with the spacious days of panada's making has gone. There are great names in Canadian history-Baldwin and LaFontaine, Brown, Gialt and Tupper, Blake, Macdonald and Laurier, and rightly indeed does the London Daily Chronicle, in its tribute to the dead statesman, say:-*	.
"Laurier's name will ibe permanently associated with some of the most important phases in the development of the British Commonwealth. Not only will Canada always rank him among the great builders of her nationhood, but he will hold his niche in the temple of world history."
Apart altogether from the political views which he held, and advocated, the testimony is universal that Sir l Wilfrid Laurier in the-truest sense was a great man. He belonged to the Empire, and for many years he was the most considerable figure in Greater Britain. A French Canadian with unquestioned devotion to that race and its traditions, he yet accepted as Jiis task the establishment of a better understanding and a closer union of the two races of the Dominion, and though it was a task which has not yet been completed, Sir Wilfrid had the satisfaction of achieving a marked advance. iNo need of Canada has been greater and none has lain nearer to the statesman's heart than the removal of discord between the different races and tongues and creeds which comprise the Canadian Confederacy. To have attempted a task of such magnitude and hedged with tremendous and critical difficulties, is in itself an eloquent testimony to his essential greatness.
Former political opponents -are one to-day in voicing their ungrudging admiration and unqualified recognition of his undoubtedly great gifts. Though not blind to his political fallings and to views which they believed to he detrimental to Canada's truest welfare, yet as one man they express the highest regard for Sir Wilfrid's strict personal probity, his untarnished character and the years of strenuous and devoted service to the Dominion.
As an orator Sir Wilfrid Laurier occupied a unique position. As one writer in the English press has said-'He was gifted with unusual personal advantages. His appearance alone
was worth a handsome fortune. His figure, lithe and straight as a 'larch; his face unwrinkled ; his glance clear and searching, made up a personality that wielded a strange fascination for his hearers. He spoke as well in English as he did in French-his mother-tongue. Among the many gems of Sir Wilfrid's oratory, the following, delivered in Paris in IS 97, is considered one of his finest utterances

a speech touched with a prophetic fire:
The citation from the speech referred to by this writer, I quote:
"It may be that here in France the memories of the ancient struggles between France and England have lost nothing of their bitterness, [DOT]but as for us, Canadians of whatever origin, the days we hold glorious are the days when the the colours of France and of England, the tricolour and the Cross of St. George, waved together in triumph on the banks of Alma, the heights of Inkerman, the ramparts of Sebastopol. Times change; other alliances are made, but may it be permitted to a son of France, who is at the same time a British subject, to salute those glorious days with a regret which will perhaps find an echo in every generous mind on either side of the Channel."
This quotation which I have taken the liberty ,to read, conveys to you, Sir, and to the House, my own views, and perhaps puts them better and more concisely than I myself could. Let me conclude by saying that we appreciate what has been done in the country, and what is now being done, to honour the memory of the great departed chieftain. We acknowledge, with thankfulness, what has been done by the Government in honoring his mortal remains, and we are thankful for the tribute that has been paid to his memory by the leader of the Government to-day. We on this side of the House, and his friends generally, particularly those of his own party, might say, as has been said by a wise man of old, " Our Father, our Father, the chariots of liberalism and the horsemen thereof," and may I say, with one of old, to my friends and the public at large, " Know ye not that this day there has fallen in Canada a prince and a great man,"
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve and Gasp6):: Mr. Speaker, the
Shadow of Death has stalked through this Chamber; a chair stands vacant. As we gaze upon the flowers strewn about us, which, by the morrow, will have withered away, more deeply than ever do we understand the baffling brevity of this life's span, the specious vanity of each and every thing. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is no more.
The mellow voice which for so long enthralled this assembly and stirred the enthusiasm of all who heard it, is silent.
The trumpet's silver voice is still
The warder silent on the hill.

The last survivor of a great generation, he whose imposing stature, whose eagle eye and whose white plume recalled those nobiemen of the eighteenth century, such as we meet them still in medallions of olden times, is sleeping his last sleep.
An illustrious ancestor has passed away. Let us incline our heads with respect in the presence of this grave:	its closing
writes 'finis' to a whole epoch of our history.
Death is a law and not a punishment. No one better understood this profound truth than the eminent statesman whose loss we mourn. He had long since made his preparations for the voyage from Time into Eternity. Without bitterness the old gladiator saw himself disarmed as he was about to descend once more into the arena. His spirit passed gently, serenely, as though 'midst the darkening shadows of life's falling night the Faith of his forefathers had already revealed the gleam of dawn, presage of Eternal Day.
Speaking here in the name of my colleagues of the old French province who counted him her most distinguished son, and whose idol he became, it does the heart good to recall that throughout his entire career he was ever faithful to his origin and to the finest traditions of his race.
"I love," he was wont to say, "I love France who gave us birth, I love England who gave us liberty, but the first place in my heart belongs to Canada, my country, my native land."
This striking formula was, if I may speak thus, the Ideal, the Polar Star which guided his public life. Affectionate gratitude towards the nation, resplendent among all nations-whose sons we have the honour to be- the splendour of whose glory lights up the highest summits; unswerving loyalty towards that great and generous nation who inherited the administrative genius of the Romans and of whom Tennyson could say that hers was the classic land of liberty. But, first and foremost, Laurier was a Canadian. To his French inheritance he owed his golden tongue, his keen intellectual vision, the boldness and the grandeur of his conceptions. To his contact with the great English school, the school of Burke, Fox, Pitt, O'Connell, Gladstone, he owed his deep practical knowledge of British institutions and it may be said without exaggeration that it was by assimilating the teachings of these parliamentary leaders that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made for himself a lasting niche in the Hall of Fame.
At the time when he stepped through the threshold of Parliament, the memory
[iMr. Lemieux.]
of the great Papineau still hovered over the country. And the imago of Lafontaine, whose profound wisdom had saved many rights from the wreckage of a storm-tossed sea, was becoming greater as time went by.
In those days Cartier and Dorion represented the two different channels of opinion in 'our province. The one, dashing, impetuous, disdained all obstacles; the other, calm, of proverbial integrity, possessing a mind of very high attainments, trusted to time to dispel hoary prejudice. If it be true that, in a certain way, Laurier was the disciple of Dorion, events made him the fortunate successor, rather the direct heir, of Lafontaine's policy-the policy which strives to soothe all hurts, the better to build on a solid foundation; the policy of conciliation for the sake of unity; the policy of the golden mean; the best, the true, the sole policy which can obtain in our country.
Sprung from a vanquished people, but a people who, in their turn had themselves made the conquest of Liberty, his dream was to unite the two races on the only rational basis: equality of rights, mutual respect and tolerance. His political vision moved him to seal anew the pact entered into by Lafontaine and Baldwin in days gone by and so bring fresh strength to the work oi the Fathers of Confederation.
Was this majestic vision too ambitious? History, that impartial judge of men and .events, will say whether or not he brought it to realization, but what we of his time may uphold from this moment is his untiring perseverance, his steadfast courage, his invincible faith in the ideal he set out to attain from the very start of his career. However, he was too well versed in psychology not to realize the difficulties which beset his path.
In 1887, hardly a year after that historical debate when, at one flight, he had risen to the greatest heights of parliamentary eloquence, when the English-speaking press had acclaimed him as the "silver-tongued orator," the Liberal party, helpless after the retirement of Edward Blake, was casting about for a leader. The French Liberals formed a minority in this party, as they formed a minority in the country. Let it be said to the honour of the English Liberals, it was Edward Blake, it was Sir Richard Cartwright, it was David Mills, who selected the leader, and the unanimous choice fell v upon Wilfrid Laurier. What was the answer of the young member for Quebec East? Ah, Mr. Speaker, our great countryman, despite his' marvellous endowments, did not covet the honour

offered him. He well knew the burden he was assuming; already he could catch a glimpse of the obstacles which lay in wait for him, and the answer of this man who, beneath a stolid exterior hid very deep emotions, his answer was a sob.
Thus, unable to escape the earnest entreaties of his English-speaking friends, he [DOT] undertook to lead the Liberal party, determined to steer the ship of state towards progress and liberty, to bind together, by conciliation in both word and deed, the heterogeneous elements which go to make up Canada. He had often said that the national sentiment of a country is worth no more than the pride which it inspires in its sons. He knew thjs country was overflowing with strength and vigour, full of activity, of ambition.
He loved its distant childhood; its history, every page of which he knew; its legends; its fertile, majestic natural beauty; he loved this country especially for its ethnic duality which showed him the children of the two greatest races of Europe, henceforth fellow-wayfarers towards a common destiny in the boundless spaces of the New World.
By healing the wounds of days gone by and rallying all for the development of our immense resources, he opened a new era, he anticipated the day when he could declare in the presence of his Sovereign: " Sir, Canada is a nation. The nineteenth century belonged to the United States; but the twentieth century will witness the expansion of Canada."
The 23rd of June, 1896, was a memorable date in our political annals. The member for Quebec East had just been borne into power by a majority of the electorate. He became Prime Minister of 'a Dominion which had been guided by the genius of Macdonald. The old Tory chieftain had passed from the stage some five years before and the memory of his bewitching magnetism bordered on the legendary. People anxiously wondered if the orator from Quebec would reveal himself a statesman of sterling worth. Would he have the necessary firmness? Could he grapple with our intricate problems? Would he prove himself an experienced helmsman and steer the ship safely through shallow shoals, flinging into the teeth of the gale, to ride at anchor in the port beyond? My answer to all these apprehensions, already distant and, mayhap, forgotten, is that which John Morley made, one day, regarding Gladstone. The occasion was the unveiling of the statue erected in honour of the Grand Old Man, but a step or two from Lincoln's Inn. " The stalwarts of finance, of the
city, looked with misgiving upon the idealism of Gladstone and smiled at his supposed incompetence in matters of money and business. I wonder added Morley- and I still see him, his finger pointing to the monument-I wonder, whether after Gladstone's long and brilliant career, the Bank of England itself would not feel honoured by the presence and strengthened by the counsel of the orator? "
As I have just said, it is only in the cold, calm light of impartial history that the part played by men in the great events of their time, can be duly appreciated. But I think I am within the mark in stating now that in Laurier's optimism, in his power of assimilation, in his incessant and untiring toil, in his boundless faith in the future of our country, may be seen and reflected the powerful impulsion given to Canada from 1896 to 1911, her wonderful ascent towards economic progress, her marvellous development. How often have I not heard him whenever grappling with some difficult problem repeating the lines penned by Andre Chenier, the great French poet:
"L'illusion fficonde habite dans mon sein,
J'al les ailes de I'espCrance!"
"In my bosom dwells fruitful Illusion On the wings of hope I soar!"
He had to the fullest extent mastered the sense of the Constitution; he had an insight into its jurisprudence and genius, and he loved it. .
He ever advocated adherence to the federal pact, in its integrity. To his mind, any change, any departure or new orientation involved a danger. He was an apostle of Autonomy, like Blake and Mowat.
His political creed borrowed its inspiration from British liberalism. He believed in progress grounded on order; he believed in the advent of democracy through evolution, not through revolution, but never did he allow himself to be carried away by his love of liberty beyond those two limits laid down by conscience and human reason, that is to say, rights and duties.
From a national standpoint, none of the two great ethnical elements of tkfe country was to predominate or to be domineered. Equal justice, equal rights for all such, was his motto. He deprecated isolation, because as he said, for an ethnical group to ' isolate itself is tantamount to stagnating in inferiority. Let me add that he always advocated harmonious relations between religions and liberty, by means of a loyal alliance. In a country like ours so hard to govtrn, and owing to the fact that the

opinions and creeds of the various ethnical groups have to be taken into consideration-a policy of exclusiveness is not properly speaking, a policy, but a blunder which must prove fatal to minorities. Love of justice and of freedom, tolerance, loyalty grounded upon autonomy, patriotism, such his ideals. And with what mastery did he expound them! Those who will read his speeches in which the scholar always controls the tribune, checks his outbursts; chastens his language, will no doubt find in them the lustre of fancy coupled with the magic of style but they will first of all discover loftiness of thought combined with an unerring judgment, and the intuition of the right course to steer through the windings of Canadian politics. And this constitutes a lofty ideal, and it was this ideal which fashioned Laurier into the great .Canadian that he was. But in appreciating his career, it is on his firm and dignified attitude in the relations of Canada and the Mother Country that our attention must be focussed.
None more than Laurier admired the majestic institutions of the British Empire, where liberty wrought this miracle of a Gavan Duffy, a Wilfrid Laurier, a Louis Botha, respectively governing Australia, Canada, Africa, with intense loyalty and devotedness to the interests of the Crown.
In this connection may I be allowed to add that after the Transvaal war, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was consulted in turn by Campbell Bannerman and by General Botha as to the contemplated South African Union and that both these statesmen benefited by his vast experience. I shall never forget the words uttered in my presence at Cape Town, in November, 1910, by the Boer General; "In South Africa, two names are particularly dear to us, that of Campbell-Bannerman and that of Wilfrid Laurier. To those two men we owe an eternal debt of gratitude."
At the several Imperial conferences which he attended-and we all know what a brilliant role he played in them-Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose fiscal policy had tickled the pride of the Mother Country, had nevertheless to withstand the new wave which was just then beginning to roll from London into the Dominions. This brilliant dream of a vast Empire, whose centre of action would be Westminster, could, forsooth, seduce the leaders of British politics, but Laurier was a Canadian first and last. Our country having disentangled itself from the bonds Of Colonialism, had gradually conquered its political freedom,

through the extension of the principle of autonomy. Knowing the exact extent of our rights and duties, he boldly and sincerely proclaimed the principle of Imperial unity based upon local liberties.
That virile attitude was to him, no doubt, the source of disappointments. But the old Premier was too much of a philosopher not to realize that impulses cannot play the part of reason, and that popularity is a poor substitute for arguments.
Were I called upon to define the outstanding qualities of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a statesman, I would say that his moderation was a driving power in itself, his gift of expression a shining light, and that, with this master of oratory, sound judgment and common sense, outweighed his very eloquence.
His worthy manner of living, his thorough honesty, his perfect equanimity through the worst ordeals, his devouring intellectual activity, his unimpeachable righteousness, his home life imbued with such charm and beauty, his loyalty to friends, his discreet charity, but, above all, his eloquence exerted in behalf of the downtrodden, all these recall in many respects some distinctive characteristics of Gladstone and Lincoln.
We shall no longer have before our eyes those refined and aristocratic features of Laurier, whose most amiable smile went to the plebian, the needy, the humble, the lowly and the feeble; but his memory made immortal in works of bronze and marble will pass on to coming generations as one of the greatest embodiments of virtue in public and private life, as one of the finest products of human-kind in the last century.
We, his followers, his admirers, find solace in the thought that he died in the way he had wished to die. As the Norman knights of old, it was clothed in his armour that he appeared before the Supreme Judge. Death, the soother of all suffering, was to him like the declining hours of a beautiful day.
Before closing his eyes to things terrestrial, he had the supreme joy of seeing the Allies victorious. Enamoured of freedom and justice, he witnessed the downfall in Europe of autocracy and its instrument, militarism, and the founding on their ruins of the.League of Nations.
As of yore at Inkerman and at Sebastopol, he saw our two great mother countries clasping hands and joining their forces on the battle-field, and our sons rushing with a light heart to meet together a glorious

death and take their full share of sacrifice and victory.
Yes, he was granted that supreme consolation of seeing France, France which was branded as frivolous, because she was cheerful, standing before the whole world as an example of endurance and fortitude, and show herself to the oppressed what she had ever been, the shield of civilization, the champion of right. He beheld England, that country deemed cold and self-seeking, set out all her sails, spend lavishly of her wealth, call to arms all her children to rescue the world from oppression.
The alliance of these two great powers, sealed by the purest of blood, was especially dear to his heart. To him it appeared like the rainbow which breaks through the clouds, and which is described in the Holy Writ as a messenger of peace, a presage of better days to all men of good will.
Oh Laurier! should there remain something to be done towards the fulfilment of that triumph of harmony and good will which you have so persistently striven to bring about, then those younger Canadians whose teacher you were will in turn take up the work and carry it to its full completion. They will pride themselves in following in your footsteps along the rugged and endless path of duty which you have opened and pointed out to them.
And now, with this last farewell, allow us to mingle the expression of our deep sense of gratitude. We are thankful to you, Laurier, for having ever remained worthy of the part entrusted to you by Providence, since from the palaces of our sovereigns and from the most humble farm house, from the towering cathedral as well as from the smallest country church, there ascends towards heaven the same hymn of gratitude.
We say Farewell and we thank you. We thank you for having thus gathered around you your own people, the descendants of those Canadians of old, the last to give up the fight in that last battle, who, with souls anguished by defeat, escorted the Marquis of Montcalm from the gates of Old Quebec to the Chateau Saint-Louis, on the night following the battle on the Plains of Abraham. We thank you for having lifted them up to you and invited them to share your glory.
We say Farewell and we thank you. We thank you for the shining memento which you bequeathed to the historian at large. Its brilliancy w7ill not fade. It will be a guiding light which the tempest-beaten
mariner will look to. It will be as a pillar of fire which will guide, on their march towards the promised land of a better Dominion, all sections of the Canadian people, reconciled at last to one another and linked together by the bonds of an "Union sacree."
Farewell. Close to your resting place, amid maples and poplars, adorned by the coming spring with luxuriant foliage, we shall, many of us, congregate to pray in the tongue of your ancestors. The field wherein you lie, whose tender embrace you received, will be light to you. For it is part of that native land w'hose history is three centuries old and whose motherly womb will some day cover our meanness with its vastness and shroud our nothingness with its perennity. Adieu!



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.	[DOT]
Mr. DANIEL LEE REDMAN (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I wish to tender to the Honourable, the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), my humble thanks for the honour which he has conferred upon me and upon the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a constituency which, **' in enlistment and other war efforts, has made an enviable record. I had the honour to serve for a short period in a small way in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, I have been for some time in association with returned soldiers and their organizations, and I have no doubt that, in choosing me to move this important address, the Government wished to do honour to our soldiers generally. In their behalf, if it is not presumption on my part to speak for those splendid Canadians, I wish to express gratitude and appreciation.
I can assure you, Sir, that I enter upon this task with a keen sense of my temerity, and I ask for the kind indulgence of you, Sir, and of this House, in listening to the brief remarks which I intend to make. Great honour has been conferred on this Dominion in giving to us as our Governor General the head of a House which, for centuries, has taken a leading part in ruling our great empire.

His Excellency, the Duke of Devonshire, can he well assured of the high estimation jn which he is held by the Canadian people, and of their deep appreciation of the painstaking and able manner in which he performs the arduous and important duties which devolve upon him.
I must pause here, as indeed this nation has paused, to pay my humble tribute to the great man who has died. I can add very little to the eloquent tributes which have been paid by honourable members on both sides of the House. As a new member of this House, I consider it a very great privilege to have witnessed the closing years of his great and illustrious career. His memory will always remain as an inspiration to those who love Canada.
In each of the last four years Parliament has been opened under the cloud of a great war. A war entailing enormous effort, unlimited sacrifice and great sorrow, and requiring the undivided attention of the nation to the exclusion of all other national problems.
To-day, the cloud has lifted and we stand on the threshold of an assured and, I believe, a lasting era of peace. Our great epoch of struggle and sacrifice is ended. A glorious, a victorious peace has crowned the efforts of our Empire and its allies. The armistice has been signed on our own terms. The enemy is utterly demoralized. The menace of militarism and 'autocracy has been crushed, we trust forever, and democracy and representative institutions have been preserved to humanity.
The British empire, of which Canada has the increasing honour of being an important member, has played an outstanding part in this war. Her matchless navy made victory a certainty. The splendid tenacity of her army made defeat an impossibility. Her lofty aims and unbending adherence to the principles of fair play and international justice attracted numerous nations to the side of the allies.
The British Empire has been preserved to itself and to humanity. Hundreds of millions of human beings are assured that they may continue to live safely under its beneficent laws. Its ideals, its institutions, have been preserved, and will continue for the good of the world, we hope, for many centuries to come.
The co-operation of the British Empire and the United States of America in this war should result in the happiest relations between these two great Anglo-Saxon nations-relations which shall not only be beneficial to these two nations, but which should enable them, acting in unison, to

exert an excellent influence in world affairs.
Representatives of each of the Allies are now assembled at Paris to settle the immediate differences between all belligerents, and to plan, as far as may be possible, to make war impossible in the future. Great conferences have been held in the past with these two objects in view, notably the Assembly at Vienna in 1814-15, and the Conference at Berlin in 1878. But progress has been made since those memorable days. The right of peoples to choose their own form of Government has been recognized. The horror of war is greater to-day than ever in the past. This Conference is attempting to settle the differences of nations on such a basis as will remove possible causes of war, and it regards the prevention of future wars as its most important problem. This Dominion has been recognized as a nation entitled as such to representation in any league of nations which may be formed. The presence of the right honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, with several of his ministers at this conference is most fitting, having regard to the great sacrifice which the Canadian people made in the war, and Canada's international duty as a nation among the nations of the world. The Prime Minister has distinguished himself at that conference. He has been entrusted with important and difficult work, and he is reflecting great honour on this Dominion.
The people of Canada may, now that the tremendous burden of effort and sacrifice, imposed on them by the war, has been removed, pause to review with pride the excellent record which they have made under the leadership of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Only through untiring efforts and sacrifice can the character of an individual or a nation be strengthened and achieve greatness. Canada, in this war, has made and proven itself a great nation. The achievements and sacrifices of its soldiers and sailors have, and of right do, overshadow all its other efforts. Over 600,000 of its manhood enrolled in its service; over
200.000	casualties have been sustained; over
55.000	have given up their lives in its behalf. Canada has raised for war purposes, from its own people, under the able direction of the Minister of Finance, in excess of the fabulous sum of $1,300,000,000. Canada has manufactured and sold to the Allies over one billion dollars worth of munitions, being in excess of one-fourth of all the munitions used by Great Britain and the

United States in the war. Agricultural products of enormous values have been sold to the Allies. Its business and economic fabric is stronger and on a larger scale than ever before in its history. Its people generally during the period of the war submerged petty prejudices, personal ambition and their own convenience, and devoted their energies to war work, notably in connection with Red Cross, Patriotic Fund and kindred efforts. The women of Canada bore a great and inspiring part
5 pm. in the struggle. The stoical patriotism with which they sent their sons to war; the suspense and bereavements which they suffered, the splendid influence which they exercised over our soldiers cannot be too highly commended. They took the places in business of thousands of men who went overseas and added to our economic capacity.
But our main inspiration was given by our soldiers overseas. How nobly have they upheld our honour thousands of miles across the sea; their discipline, their resource, their initiative, their irresistible dash in attack, their stubborn tenacity against heavy odds, has made Canada a name to conjure with. Not only have they upheld our traditions but, far surpassing them, they have established for us new and loftier standards; new and more illustrious traditions. They have made a magnificent reputation for our country on those hard-fought fields where, before the eyes of all the world, manhood is tested and reputations are irrevocably lost or made to endure throughout eternity. Those who risked all, and especially that 55,000 who gave all, have left us a great heritage, but have also left us great responsibilities and great duties. Let us, as Canadians, now look well to the duties which lie immediately before us so that we may not be untrue to those who have sacrificed so much for this country, and so that the principles and ideals for which they died may become actual institutions in this country, to be enjoyed by the people of Canada and posterity, for whom we, at this crisis, are trustees.
But while it is pleasant to pause and reflect upon the achievements of the last four years, so pressing and so vital are the problems which immediately confront us that we must face them now and devote to them all the ingenuity and concentration which we possess, looking backward only for the purpose of obtaining inspiration. And surely the adaptability and ingenuity shown, and the success achieved, by our soldiers, our statesmen, our manufacturers, our workmen, our farmers and
our people generally during the period of the war should make us confident of successfully solving them. Let us then undertake these problems patriotically and unselfishly, inspired by the lessons of sacrifice which we have received from our army overseas.
During the war we had the stimulus of a common enemy, the excitement and the fever of battle. This has now been removed. In order to attain the concentration and efficiency the present situation demands, we must have something to take its place. What is undoubtedly required is a high sense of patriotism, a strong concept of public duty and responsibility on the part of all our people, and such a desire to wrork for the common good as shall overshadow all party prejudice, all class struggles, all personal selfishness and unworthy personal motives. Consider the example which has been given us by our army overseas. There a Conservative was supported by a Liberal,-a millionaire stood side by side with a labourer; there were no class distinctions no party differences; each was willing- to sacrifice himself for the other; all were willing to sacrifice themselves for Canada. The problems before us to-day are equally great and vital. Let us face them confidently, strengthened by our economic success during the war, and unselfishly inspired by the splendid traditions given us by our Army.
The Government has had the problems of reconstruction under its consideration for many months. The uncertainty of the date of peace has added to the difficulty of the work. I venture to say, however, that no country was better prepared to meet these problems than Canada.
It is gratifying to note that the Government intends to present a bill to establish a department of Public Health. It is essential that we should preserve and foster our greatest resource, the vital energy of our people, which nature, by the vigour of our beneficent climate, gives them in such abundance. During the recent great struggle there has been a greater mortality among children in Canada from purely preventible diseases than the number of our casualties in the war which enables us to appreciate the necessity of legislation of this character.
The proposed Better Housing Bill will be acceptable to the entire country. Anyone who has wandered through the tenements of great cities cannot fail to be impressed with the absolute necessity of government assistance and supervision. Happily in this new country we are able

to institute this measure more in the nature of a preventative for the future, than as a corrective of present conditions.
The Government is to be congratulated in presenting a Bill to assist in vocational and technical education. This is a move in the right direction and a work which will assist materially to the earning power of our people.
A measure will be presented to encourage better highways. Such a measure is essential to improve living conditions in rural localities, and to assist agriculturists and others to market their products without unnecessary cost and inconvenience.
The new Franchise Bill, providing as it does for more effectually enabling women to vote, and conferring upon them the privilege of sitting in Parliament, is a happy measure. The splendid work done by women during the war has entitled them to every power and privilege of citizenship, and has assured this country that their advice and assistance in legislation will be of inestimable benefit.
The Bill to be presented, dealing with desirable immigration, is vital to our national life. It is inconceivable that we should allow further immigration of enemy aliens. From my knowledge of the feelings of our soldiers, I can assure this House that the direst consequences will ensue unless some such measure is enacted. With the sentiments of the soldiers, I heartily concur. We must keep this country British, let our growth be fast or slow. While our soldiers have been beating back the Germans from our front in France, they do not propose that any one shall open the back door admitting them into this country.
All the measures enumerated tend to the creation of better and fairer living conditions for all classes in Canada, and the Government is to be congratulated in moving unfalteringly in this direction.
It is essential that we face squarely the feeling of unrest that prevails throughout the world, a spirit of change which eludes constituted authority, and crosses frontiers at will. I believe we can look at this phenomenon optimistically. We must believe that the curve of human evolution is an ascending curve. We should, instead of defending ancient institutions, turn our efforts towards guiding the new spirit, and be alert to do everything practical to improve economic living conditions for all classes. It seems to me that reconstruction must not stop when we have reached our pre-war basis of stability, but the lessons and inspirations of the war must be capitalized,

and our people must receive the benefits to which their sacrifices during the last four years have entitled them.
Unfortunately a creed has risen in Russia which has become an actual menace to civilization. 'It aims at destroying all industry, all representative institutions, and to substitute autocratic and non-productive rule by a single class. In my opinion, Sir, the new creed is just as dangerous as the one that we have been combatting during the last four years. Canada is happily practically free from this evil, but we should be prepared, should it raise its head in our country, to stamp it out even more ruthlessly and thoroughly than we crushed German autocracy, because it is equally autocratic, and is absolutely opposed to civilization and our representative institutions. Our returning soldiers have already given evidence that they are fundamentally opposed to this doctrine, and can be relied upon for any assistance which might be required if this menace should ever arise in this country.
The most immediate problem which confronts our Government is the demobilization of the returning soldier and his absorption into civil life. This, while an arduous duty, should be, and I am sure is, a pleasant one. A grateful country will wish to do everything reasonably possible to assist its soldiers. I think I can say with considerable assurance that all the returned soldier desires, is to receive such assistance and encouragement as shall enable him to take his place in our economic and social life, freed, as far as possible, from any loss or handicap which his service overseas may have imposed upon him. That I think is not asking a great deal, that much the returned soldier expects. Otherwise I am sure it is his desire to be as good a citizen in peace as he was a patriot in war. The Government has grappled vigourously with this problem. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment has, in my opinion, done its work exceedingly well. The various regulations are constantly improving and the administration of the work is gradually becoming more efficient. However we must take the most punctilious care to see that the soldier is fairly treated, and that he has an opportunity to enter, unhandicapped, into our economic life. Nothing less will satisfy the people of Canada.	_
It must be remembered that our soldiers are changing from a life under a simplified administration, where necessary changes are made instantly in a general order, and results obtained, to life under our compli-

cated and sometimes unnecessarily 'slow civilian system, where what he may desire and indeed, what he may be absolutely entitled to, cannot be obtained without endless delay. Possibly the influence of the returning soldier, trained in a speedy, simplified, clarified form of administration, may have a salutary effect on some of our government departments, and on our system of life generally.
Every precaution should be taken so that needless and harassing delays should not be imposed on our returning soldiers, who are anxious to get adjusted into civilian life as quickly as possible. Our soldiers should not be hampered and irritated by red tape and unnecessary rules. These are purely matters of procedure, but are equally important in their results with questions of principle or legal rights.
The immediate and piessing question is that of employment. Canada owes an absolute duty to its soldiers to furnish them with employment as soon as they are ready for it. All problems centre about this one. Among our half million soldiers are men capable of filling every position under the control of any government. Every opening in every government service, be it military or civil, should be filled by a returned soldier. Provision must be made, and in the Government's building programme is being made to furnish additional employment. Each lesser governing body should have a similar policy and programme, and each employer of labour should, if he is worthy of citizenship, make every possible provision to employ soldiers. Many civilians employed in the place of soldiers should, if necessary, be dismissed.
In this I feel that I am not stating the case too strongly but am simply enunciating the principle that our soldiers have an absolute right to be absorbed into our. economic life, and to have an opportunity to be respected and useful citizens, without any handicap on account of service overseas. This principle cannot be too clearly understood by the people of Canada.
The Government is to be congratulated on the recent Order in Council dealing with land settlement. Our great resource is our undeveloped agricultural land. We wish this land developed by patriotic Canadians, not by the people of other lands who are not in sympathy with our national ideals, and I hope that any scheme presented by the Government to make available our western lands will made adequate reservation for not only our soldiers, but the soldiers of other parts of
the British Empire. In Western- Canada, especially, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of returned soldiers ready for the development of the Government's scheme, and I hope that it will be proceeded with with all possible speed.
The Government will present a Bill improving and consolidating the Orders in Council dealing with pensions. Many laudable improvements were made in the recent Order in Council passed in January last, and doubtless additional improvements will be included in the coming Bill.
T feel that this Government should be congratulated on the splendid manner in which they directed the energies of the people during the last four years of war and on grappling so vigorously with the problems arising in this period of reconstruction But no Government alone could successfully solve either the problems of the war or the problems which are at present before us. During the four years of war they had the co-operation and assistance of all the people of Canada, and I believe that they may rely on similar support and assistance now.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for your courteous attention and for the patience with which you have listened to my remarks.


Mr. ROBERT JAMES MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker,
the duty has devolved upon me, though I fear that I shall all too feebly perform that duty, of supporting my hon. colleague from Calgary East (Mr. D. L. Redman), who has moved the presentation of an Address in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor General.
I should first like to congratulate the previous speaker on the very eloquent and able manner in which he performed his task. Then I wish to thank the Acting Prime Minister and the Government on behalf -of my constituents in the district of Fort William and Rainy River for the signal honour which has been conferred upon them in the choosing of their representative to second the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne.
Sir, it has been the general custom in past Parliaments of Canada since Confederation, though not the invariable custom, that the seconding of this motion be given in the French language. This custom has however, been deviated from on quite a few occasions, the most recent being in the Parliament of 1906 when the Address was moved by Mr. W. E. Knowles, representing West Assini-



REVI8ED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
boia, and seconded by Mr. Wm. Chisholm, representing Antigonish. Previously the custom had not been deviated from since 1896, when Mr. Powell of Westmorland moved the Address and Mr. MoGillivray of North Ontario seconded it. Nevertheless,
I greatly regret that owing to my limited knowledge of French I cannot permit myself to mutilate the beautiful language of Moliere and Racine in a laboured attempt to live up to tradition. I express these regrets in all sincerity, for I should greatly have desired, as a compliment to the French-speaking members of this House, and also as a small offering in the cause of unity, to have performed this duty in French. I hope that the wish may be accepted for the deed, for I am deeply convinced that the establishment of a real entente cordiale in this country should be the desire of all true lovers of Canada. The man, Sir, whether he be a French-speaking Canadian or an English-speaking Canadian, whether he be a Catholic or a Protestant, who wilfully fosters antagonisms of race and creed in this country is neither a true friend nor a loyal citizen of the land we love.
This brings me to say a few words regarding the late lamented leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one whose greatest desire was the promoting of harmony between the two races in Canada. After the eloquent tributes paid here to-day to his memory I feel that any-ting said by me will be almost superfluous. I think I may say that I had the honour of being a friend of his for some years, but for many more years I had the honour of being an admirer and a follower of his. My command of the English language is too poor for me to express adequately my deep feelings of sympathy for his widow, and my regrets that Canada has lost so distinguished a son. What we say of him here to-day will not long be remembered, but his great statesmanship cannot soon be forgotten. Intellectually, socially, morally, and politically, his was a personality that might well serve as an ideal for the ambitious youth of our land for generations to come. Because of his matchless qualities of heart and mind, Canada has lost in him one of her most illustrious leaders. It is my privilege to-day to join that vast multitude of Canadian people of all religions, nationalities and political creeds who are bowing their heads in reverence to the memory of a departed but still beloved leader.
As set forth so simply in the speech of His Excellency, Canada has much to 
be grateful for to-day. During the last session of this Parliament there were anxious days when the hordes of Attila seemed to be sweeping all before them, and victory for us seemed at least in the dim and distant future. But suddenly, to both our amazement and our joy, the tide of battle turned, due no doubt in great part to the unified command under Marshall Foeh, the valorous armies of the Allies swept the enemy toward the Rhine, and almost before the realization could dawn fully upon, our minds, the war had been won. That military genius, Napoleon, on one occasion made an epigram to the effect that the gods fight on the side of the stronger armies; but, Sir, over long periods of time the God of truth and justice usually takes sides, as He did in this case, and sees that the cause of right, not might, is victorious.
The armies of the Allies had for over four years withstood tremendous losses; they had sustained immense reverses; they had encountered the cruel atrocities, poison gases, and unfair tactics of their barbarian opponents, yet they always came up smiling with their faces toward the foe, until at last overwhelming victory crowned their courage, their tenacity, their cheerfulness. And among all those noble armies of the Allies no corps has gained greater renown, no men have brought greater glory or fame to the land of their birth, than the Canadian corps has brought to Canada. Their achievements are inscribed on the most glorious pages of the history of mankind. It is not necessary that I should enumerate the many battles fought and won by the Canadians. It is sufficient to say that, on every occasion on which they were called upon to accomplish a task, even when opposed to overwhelming numbers of the flower of the Prussian army, the citizen soldiers of Canada were victorious. They have placed Canada proudly among the nations of the world, and that should be the epitaph of those of them who lie out there in Flanders fields. It is due to their valour that to-day at that august body, the Peace Conference at Paris, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden sits in equality, as he should sit, with the representatives of the other nations of the Empire and of the world. It is due to them, Sir, that to-day Canada and the other Dominions have taken the position of being nations within the Empire, nations absolutely independent in every detail, bound together alone by the ties of sentiment, by common aspirations and ideals. And that is the surest and most lasting foundation upon which the Empire can be built.
[Stage Direction]
These men who have performed all these wonderful deeds for Canada are now returning in tens of thousands to our shores to display to us in peace the same noble virtues that they have exhibited in war. Now that they are coming back to become once more a part of our civil life, it is our bounden duty to do everything possible to aid them in becoming citizens of peace, and I am glad to see that the Government is doing a great deal with this object in view. For example, the increase of the postdischarge pay up to six months is admirable, as this gives the men an opportunity of resting their nervous systems after the exhaustion due to the turmoil and excitement of battle, and much other legislation already passed has objects akin to this and so deserves praise. I believe that in these matters the Government has done as well as any Government elected by the people of Canada could have done. There has been a great deal of criticism in many quarters, much of it destructive criticism, a great deal of it unjust, some of it, perhaps, just. But so long, Mr. Speaker, as the governments of this world are made up of human beings, mistakes are occasionally inevitable, and so criticism will sometimes be just. The governments of the next world are, no doubt, perfect, but even the most learned of theologians can give no absolute proofs to that effect.
Mr. Speaker, as the Speech from the Throne speaks of the accomplishments of .Canada as a whole in the war, let us look for one minute at what this little country of Canada, little in population although large in area, has done. This country, Sir, which for over one hundred years has known nothing of war, and which has been celebrating in history, song, and story, so-called battles in which a few platoons on either side were the extent of the armies. Here we have a country which, in 1914, had lived in peace and fraternity with its great neighbour to the South for over a century, and which considered a militia force of 3,000 men and a few Mounted Police quite sufficient defence for all possible contingencies, and yet this country of less than eight million people, in the four years and three months of war, performed the following almost unbelievable feats of patriotism, the figures given being in round numbers, but being approximately correct:
Canada enlisted, voluntarily, 465,000 men, under the Military Service Act 85,000 men. Add to this Reservists, and a few others, and we have a total of nearly 600,000 men, of whom nearly 418,000 proceeded overseas.
Our casualties were over 200,000, and our deaths unhappily almost 60,000.
Honours granted to the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, including Victoria Crosses, Distinguished Service Orders, Military Crosses, Distinguished Conduct Medals, Military Medals and a few foreign decorations, number about 12,000, and over 3,000 more were mentioned in despatches.
In shipbuilding, including ships built to the order of the Imperial Munitions Board and other private contracts, we built 103 ships, with a dead weight carrying capacity of 367,000 tons. We built for the Imperial Government over 700 small armed trawlers and drifters of various types; for the French Government over 40 armed trawlers, and coastal patrol motor boats. Why, Sir, in my own ihland port city of Fort William, 1,500 .miles from the Atlantic coast, up there on the shores of Lake Superior, which were explored 200 years ago by French voyageurs and coureurs des bois, we built for the native land of those Frenchmen 12 armed trawlers, which sailed down the lakes and rivers of what was originally New France, on their way to the shores of Old France. What- a historical romance for the pen of a Parker!
In financing our record is as good. To think, Mr. Speaker, that this new pioneer country raised, in domestic loans from its people, the enormous sum of nearly $1,500,000,000, or about $200 per head for every man, woman and child in the country, and yet, at the conclusion of the [DOT] war our savings deposits were approximately $400,000,000 in excess of those of August, 1914. We established credits of over $700,000,000 on behalf of the Imperial Government.
'[DOT] The Imperial Munitions Board placed orders to the extent of $1,200,000,000, the bulk of which was spent on goods which had never before been made in Canada, such as shells, cartridge cases, fuses, and aeroplanes. Why, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the people of Canada had never heard an artillery shell explode, or seen an aeroplane, let alone manufacture them.
Then, Sir, on top of all this, the people gave voluntarily to the Patriotic and Red Cross Funds, Belgian and Serbian Relief Funds, Y.M.C.A. and Knights of Columbus Hut Funds, contributions amounting to a .grand total of some $95,000,000.
This is just an outline, the details of which I have left unmentioned, but take into account only these things I have spoken of, and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a record that we
[Stage Direction]
inay look at in open-eyed amazement, and ponder over with unbounded pride.
It is announced in the speech of His Excellency that the Government is going to carry out many needed public works thus providing employment for the returned soldiers and for those who served in the civil army at home. The Government is to be congratulated upon this, for it is a necessary measure. But the Government can, in its public works, supply only a small portion of the ranks of labour with employment. It must get the cooperation of the provincial legislatures, the municipalities, and the private corporations of the country. For with the huge number of returning men, and the other huge numbers of men thrown out of work, from munition and other factories, the labour market is likely to be glutted with men. The employment bureaux which the. Government has aided in establishing will help the situation; but with the prices of the necessaries of life still high, and the labour demand lessening, the situation demands «all that the Government can' do. To-day in Russia Bolshevism reigns supreme, in Germany conditions are chaotic, and in Great Britain labour troubles are more pronounced than ever in the past. These upheavals are all more or less due to the same cause. And if we are to avoid having our beloved country here become a victim to the same appalling conditions it will be necessary that provincial and municipal governments, corporations, and even individuals, co-operate in assisting the Dominion Government not only to supply work, but to aid in eliminating profiteering, thus helping to control the prices of the necessaries of life.
Fortunately this Canada of ours is blessed by Providence with almost unlimited natural resources, the development of which will aid in re-establishing t our	country on a	pre-war basis.Now	that the war	is over. raw
materials will rule the world of commerce, and Canada possesses these raw materials in abundance. We have millions of acres of fertile land, we have eighteen million horse-power of potential electric energy in the waterfalls of Canada, we have fisheries on all sides, pulpwood in abundance, and minerals of all varieties. Most of these mineral resources are being gradually developed. Our output of silver, nickle, gold, and coal is large. There are large quantities of products from our blast furnaces and steel plants, the only' regrettable fact being that our blast furnaces and fllr Manion.l
steel plants use nearly altogether imported iron ore. Iron and steel, Sir, are the basis of all industry; they are the basic elements of commercial progress. If you will look over the development of any of the great commercial countries of the world-England, France, Germany, or the United States-you will find that their trade der velopment was directly in proportion to their production of pig iron and steel. Among our natural resources I believe that we have hundreds of millions of tons of iron ore in Canada, scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the development of which, when that development does take place, will be another great step toward our commercial prosperity.
It is pleasing to note in the speech from the Throne that the Soldiers' Land Settlement scheme is being whipped into shape. It is gratifying to know that the Government intends to obtain all necessary lands adjacent to the railways to satisfy the longing of any of our soldiers who wish to go back to the land. And that is as it should be, for it would be cruel if the men who risked their lives in the cause of civilization should be denied the opportunity of going upon the land, because, through the mistaken policies of past governments, the needed lands were held idle in the hands of speculators and corporations; and that, Sir, in a country like Canada, which has twice the area of the whole of Europe, leaving out Russia, and yet has a population of only 8 million, as compared with Europe's .300 million.
For we must remember that the real heroes of this war are not that gallant soldier, Sir Arthur Currie, and his staff Officers, not the officers commanding battalions, companies, or batteries, not the medical officers, but the common private soldiers who fearlessly went over the top facing death in all its forms that you and I and our children, and our children's children, might continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty. If I were a sculptor, Mr. Speaker, and were asked to carve a marble masterpiece emplematic of the real heroism of the war, I would erect a statue of a common soldier and the woman that he loved, standing side by side and hand in hand, and looking out upon the world with eyes that knew no fear.
I cannot pass on without offering to the women of our land some slight acknowledgement of the patience, fortitude, and nobility of mind which they have displayed during the war. Perhaps I can offer no higher or more sincere compliment than to say that the wives, mothers, sisters, and
[Stage Direction]
sweethearts of our fighting men are more than worthy to take their places by the side of their mates, their sons, and their brothers in accepting the gratitude of the civilized world. Under these circumstances the proposal in the Speech from the Throne that women are shortly to be admitted as members of parliament can hardly be open to criticism.
As a medical man the proposal to establish a federal department of public health appeals to me, and has appeared for many years something to be desired. Material prosperity either of a man or of a nation is of little avail if the health be not guarded. All the arguments appear to me to be favourable to this project. As a Canadian, the idea that all future immigration be on a selective basis also seems greatly to be desired. In the past the methods of attracting immigrants to our shores have been, all too loose, and so to-day many undesirables are numbered among Canadian citizens. It appears to me that in the future we should especially encourage to our country immigrants from the British Isles and from the United States, that great republic to the south of us whose people have studied the same history as we, speak the same mother tongue as the majority of us, and who respect the same free and democratic institutions as Canadians do.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks I wish to congratulate the Government upon a good deal of constructive legislation which has been put into force, such as the increased post discharge pay for the soldiers, the free transportation given to the soldiers' wives and dependents home to Canada, upon the fact that constructive plans are to be pu( into execution in needed public expenditures; this, of course, depending upon those works being justly and fairly distributed for the benefit of Canada. The congratulations of the whole country are due to the Minister of Finance because of the great response given by the people of the country in reply to his appeals for loans.
The three paramount duties devolving upon the people of Canada at the present moment, in addition to paying homage to our heroes who lie out there under little wooden crosses in France and Flanders, are, first, to repatriate in a proper manner the heroes who are living. History has told us that in past wars heroes and their heroic deeds are soon forgotten. Canada must belie history. Second, to see that governments, corporations, and individuals cooperate in putting Canada back to a peace footing,-a peace footing from an industrial and labour standpoint, and from a cost-of-living standpoint. And, third, that we foster in this country a united Canadian national spirit. Probably, Mr. Speaker, the greatest of these three is the last, for to-day, owing to the diverse nationalities and religions of our people, and owing to the great breadth and extent of our country, antagonisms of race and creed, diversity of views of east and west, are combining against national progress. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Representing as I do a constituency midway between the east and west, let me extend a hand to each. The essence of democracy is compromise for the good of the whole, for the greatest good to the greatest number. Let all endeavour to do away with race and creed antagonisms; let the demands of the west be tempered by the rights of the east, and let the extremists of the east remember that the west deserves justice; let labour and capital bear in mind that they are interdependent, not antagonistic, and let them rather cooperate than do battle; and, finally, let us see that our returning heroes are given justice in every way, are given their reward for the high courage, tenacity, and nobility of character which they have displayed on the battlefield. But at the same time let the returning soldier remember that the vast majority of those who did not go to the front performed worthy and needed services here at home, and not having abdicated their rights as Canadian citizens, also have some claims upon the country.
Sir, if these precepts are acknowledged and practised we will without doubt in the years to come build up on the northern half of this continent a great Canadian nation.
If in this country we sow the seeds of disunion, dissension, and intolerance, we will reap defeat; but if, on the other hand, we sow the seeds of unity, confidence, and enlightenment, we shall garner the fruits of a happy, prosperous, and united nation. Only by following the nobler of these two courses, Sir, can we justify the acts of those great Canadians of fifty years ago, the Fathers of Confederation. I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion for the Address.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this being my first

appearance before this House as the leader of the Opposition for the time being, I think it is only proper that I should explain briefly my position. Those of you who read the newspapers, and you all read the newspapers, I suppose, saw what was done yesterday-that by a unanimous vote I was asked for the time being to lead the Opposition in this House until a proper opportunity is given in the most democratic way possible for the Liberals of all Canada to choose their leader. Until that is done, I am by the request of my friends the recognized leader of the Opposition in this House and responsible for the sayings and doings of that body to some extent. I do not think it is out of place for me to thank my friends on this side of the House for the great honour they have conferred on me. I fully appreciate it, and can only promise that whatever ability I possess will be placed at their disposal, and in a proper way at the disposal of the House. I am now getting to be an old member. I have always had the greatest regard for this institution, which is the highest institution in our country, and I trust that in the future and particularly while I occupy this position of responsibility, I shall so demean myself as to do credit and respect to this institution of which we are all so proud. If there was one characteristic which more than another distinguished the great leader into whose shoes I have stepped it was his great respect for Parliament, for the rules of this House and for everything that went to the upbuilding and maintaining of the best parliamentary traditions. As his successor for the time being, I hope that as far as my capacity will permit me, I shall follow in his footsteps. I feel assured of the sympathy and respect of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I hope I shall do justice to the position which I occupy, and shall conduct myself in such a way as to command the sympathy and respect of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House as well.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, at once address my hearty and earnest congratulations to the two young hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address. I am particularly proud of the way in which they ha.ve acquitted themselves. Their speeches were not too long, but they covered the ground very well; they were full of good material, and well expressed. We are glad to recognize that each of these young men is full of promise for the future. It is a great thing to know that coming up behind us, who are beginning to get old, are young 
men offering such talent and promise to the service of this country. The part of the speech which particularly attracted my attention was the reference to the returned soldier. These two gentlemen, as I understand it, are themselves returned soldiers. Let me say for the Opposition and for the people generally, that we have in our hearts a very warm spot and the greatest respect for every returned soldier of this country. They have done great things for us, for which we are proud and glad and thankful. I hope we shall not be remiss in our duty to show a proper appreciation of what they have done for us by looking after their interest in a proper and becoming manner. These two young gentlemen were bold enough to rather find fault with the way in which things were done. They may not have meant that, but I, as an ordinary plain blunt person sitting on this side of the House and watching the performance rather closely, reached the conclusion that they were not quite satisfied with the way in which the Government was moving, and rather suggested that a little speed should be put on, if that could possibly be done. To my hon. young friends, who no doubt are alert to their own interests and to the interests of the country, and full of youthful animation and ambition, let me say- not by way of discouragement at all, but by way of helping them along,-that if they have any stimulant to stir up this Government to do something vvithin the life of any man that is livihg to-day I shall be very glad indeed if they will apply it. We on this side of the House, in our own mild way, have been coaxing them along; we have been offering them every inducement and every promise that we can offer, consistent with our position in opposition, but they do not seem to take our bait.. But our good friends are returned soldiers, and possibly the Government had better beware lest some of the means which soldiers use to produce results may be used in their case. There is a warning given' to them to-day, and I trust that something will be forthcoming before very long.
I do not wish on this, the first occasion of my addressing the House as leader of the Opposition, to be unduly critical, but the Government has thought proper to place in the Address the subject of dealing with' returned soldiers. We heard of the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department last winter. We were very hopeful that something would come of it, but so far I have not been able to hear of any particular establishment, except, forsooth, the salary of the minister-I suppose that is

established. We have in this House a distinguished young member from the Province of Nova Scotia, full of business and enthusiasm, and a capable man. Because of his enthusiasm, his business tact and ability he was chosen to be a very material part of that establishment. Yet I find, to my astonishment, that he does not remain there. He would be the last man in the world to unduly find fault with this Government. He has been wedded to them as closely as human being could possibly be. He was willing to bear their sins of omission and commission, and to be, if necessary, the scapegoat for them on many an occasion. But matters have come to such a pass that he has written a letter to the public press of our province, announcing his resignation from that institution because nothing was done. Mr. Speaker, now is the time and the place for us to make a mild inquiry, how it comes, when we have an establishment of this kind, instituted at the request of the Government, backed up by Parliament, supported by all the necessary money and means and services and support, that the man who, I believe, was next in importance to the minister, has had to resign because nothing was being done.
I call this to the attention of the young gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address so that they, having the advantage of being supporters of the 'Government, may make inquiry and find out where the weak spot is, try to brace it up and see that the proper things are being done in the interest of the returned soldier. The returned soldier is not expecting anybody to unduly look after him. I remember our good old friend from Dundas, Mr. Broder, whose memory we all revere ,and who is much missed by the House, speaking once upon a time about the farmers. He said: The farmers' of Ontario do not want anybody to take off their clothes and put them to bed, they are able to look -after themselves; all they want is a square deal and fair play. I believe that the returned soldier who has come home in such a physical condition that he is able to look after himself, does not require, and does not want, anybody to take off his clothes and put him to bed; all he wants is a square deal. Of course, there are others who have been mutilated and maimed in the war to such an extent that we must look after them carefully and tenderly and to whom greater attention must necessarily be given than to those who came through safe and well and in regard to whom we thank God that they escaped the fate of the others. Without
following this subject any longer, I will merely say that I trust and hope that the Government have at last reached -a conclusion as to what they are really going to do and that something substantial' will be done. I might remind my enthusiastic young friends again that there is one divine attribute in connection with this Government and that has reference to the question of time. To them one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. They must not lose sight of that fact. Further, they have a good many lawyers among them, and keen lawyers too, and they have always taken care that time is not of the essence of any contract they enter into.
As far as making provisions for the couii-try generally, the soldiers and others, is concerned, the great thing for us as a Parliament, and for the people whom we represent, is that we should try and make Canada a good, comfortable country to live in; that we should so marshal our forces that the best results shall be obtained; that we should so utilize our opportunities that our people may become productive. One of the great curses of over protection in this country has been too much crowding of people into our cities and towns and the neglecting of our farms. We have too many people in the factories and in the towns and too few people producing in the country the food that is necessary for those who are crowding into the towns.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman wish to reduce the number of factories?


Mr. McKENZTE:: If there are too many factories-yes, certainly. I am not in a position to speak as to that, but I am saying to my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) that what has been happening in our part of the country is that people have been rushing to factories, steel works and all that sort of thing, and neglecting the farm entirely. I am not blaming any Government particularly for that but I am simply saying that that is the condition that exists and that the party in power will, to the best of their ability, have to deal with it. If there is anything that can be done to make the farm more productive than it is, to induce young men to stay upon the farm, and the people who come into this country as immigrants to go upon the farm instead of crowding into the factories and towns, if such a condition can be brought about that at least two blades of grass shall grow where only one grows now, we shall be moving in the direction of greats

production and of/reduction in the cost of living. That is what I have had in mind all the time. There is no great benefit in a man being able to get $5, or $6, a day when everything that he buys for the support of his family is three times more expensive than it was when he was getting 12 or $3 a day. What I want to impress upon the Government is that if there is anything they can do to make this a cheap, free and comfortable country to live in, and to carry on our industries as they have been going along in years gone by, that is a consummation greatly to be desired.
I want to say something about the glorious achievements of our soldiers. The part played by our gallant Canadian soldiers in this great war is something that should not be lost sight of. This is the first time really that Canadians have had a wide opportunity of distinguishing themselves in this way. Canadians have distinguished themselves in other walks of life. They have been great theologians, doctors and lawyers, and they have played an important part in the industrial world. It has only been in this -war that they have had the opportunity of proving themselves great upon the field of battle. They have distinguished themselves in such a way as to render glorious for all time to come the history of Canada in connection with this war. I thank and congratulate our boys, our generals and our officers upon their achievements in this great struggle. I want, on behalf of the Canadian people, and as far as I can do so, to thank our Allies for the position that they have taken and the splendid victory that they have achieved, for justice, right and humanity. I wish also to thank our neighbours to the south, our great American friends, for the position which they have taken and the marvellous help they have given us in connection with the great victory we have won.
I hope that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken so well and so eloquently this afternoon will continue to stir up our friends of the Government and to see if there are no means that they can be induced to take to establish some sort of machinery that will produce something else than Orders in Council. Of those they have been producing a surfeit. I would say to my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burn-nam) that that is one factory that I am willing to stop.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few things with respect to the subjects dealt 
with in the Speech. The first thing that caught my eye was the reference to a Franchise Act. In this country we are all interested in the franchise. Every man wishes to be enfranchised, and the desire of every province is that everybody who is entitled to exercise the franchise in this country should be given that privilege. It is a new and striking revival, it is a hopeful sign, that this Government is talking of extending the franchise to anybody. Formerly the policy seemed to be the contraction of the franchise and the disfranchisement of as many as could possibly be struck off the lists, Hut now that sunshine and prosperity are ahead of us the Government is willing for a season-for a season, I say-to give us the franchise again. I would point out to the Acting Prime Minister and to the Government generally, that not one cent of money should be unnecessarily expended in this Country at the present time. We had one experience with a Dominion Franchise Act during the years from 1885 to 1898, when there were revising barristers to carry out the Act. In every province of the Dominion, I believe, there were two sets of voters' lists: one list prepared by the revising barristers in question for the election of members to the House of Commons at the expenditure of hundreds and thousands of dollars, and another set of lists for the election of members to the various provincial legislatures and to the municipal councils in the different towns and cities. That I think was an unnecessary waste. However, in 1898 the Dominion Franchise Act was repealed, and we reverted to the old system of one voters' list for the election of members to the Federal, the provincial and municipal . bodies. I submit that if it is the intention of the Government, through the medium of the promised Franchise Act, to reintroduce- the expensive method of preparing voters' lists which prevailed in years gone by, it is making a mistake, because it will mean not only the expenditure of a large amount of money but the imposition of unnecessary labour and worry upon the people in getting their names, not on one, bqt on two lists, and of fighting battles to get those two lists into shape, whereas there should only be one. If my advice is any good to the Government I suggest there is one course whereby duplication of lists and machinery can be avoided. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a very simple way of preparing these lists. 'In the cities of Halifax and Sydney, and in other towns of that pro-

front. The tribute which they have so eloquently paid to the courage, sacrifices and achievements of the Canadian Expeditionary Force will be proudly and gladly responded to by the people of this country. *From Ypres to Mons, an unbroken series of victories, often against the most, desperate odds, attests the valour which has won the unstinted admiration of the world, and which will for all time be the most cherished tradition of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, when this House prorogued in 'May last, it is not too much to say the destiny of Canada, of the Empire, of the world, and of civilization as we understand it, hung visibly in the balance. The enemy, after his successful attacks with massed and overwhelming forces in March and April, was pressing down the Somme towards the sea. It was clearly his intention to , throw the British troops into the Channel,-to roll up the French line upon Paris and, as he thought, to bring the war to an end with one stroke. That was what the German Emperor had in mind when, a few months earlier, he predicted a victory for the German arms and, as he termed it, a good German peace. We all know what kind of peace that would have been. How serious the situation was, how nearly the plan came tb realization, may be known to members of this House when I say that, at the time when the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues visited England in early June, Allied strategists were carefully studying the problem involved in a possible evacuation of the channel ports and even the withdrawal of the Allied line to the south of Paris. But in July, by one of the most sudden and extraordinary reversals of fortune in all military history, the change came, and at the second battle of the Marne; under the genius of Marshal Foch, there was established a new turning point in world history, and the Allies in,all theatres ,of action were able to take the offensive.
Then followed in dramatic succession the unconditional surrender of Bulgaria, the collapse of Turkey, the capitulation of Austria-Hungary, and finally, after most desperate' and sanguinary fighting, the surrender of Germany on November 11, 1018. Without any desire to boast, we must not fail to bear in mind the mighty part played by the British Empire in this great struggle. It is not too much to say, Mr. Speaker making all allowance for the efforts of the other Allies, and particularly that of France, whose courage and heroism have been sublime, that the very shield and buckler of world defense against Prussian DSir Thomas White.]
tyranny and aggression have been the naval and military forces of Great Britain. The casualties, Mr. Speaker, show the degree of participation of the Allies in the closing battles of this war. It was, according to Marshal Foch, the illustrious and magnanimous generalissimo of the allied forces the hammer strokes of tt.a British army, including the Canadian divisions, which broke through the Hindenburg line and brought Germany to her knees, and it will be an eternal source of pride to tne people of this country that the first troops to enter Cambrai, which was the great bastion of German defence on the west wore the uniform of Canada. It will also be a source of noble pride to the people of this country that on the last day of the war Canadian troops entered Mons from which the British forces at the beginning of the war had been driven by overwhelming enemy forces. The old saying holds true, that Great Britain always wins the last battle in any war in which she is engaged.
It is a great thing, Mr. Speaker, to be' a citizen of the British Empire to-day, and it seems to me that in addition to the pride which this war must give us in our British citizenship there must also be a distinct gain in the sense of Canadian national unity by reason of our achievements in this war, and particularly those of our Canadian expeditionary forces overseas. The heroism, the sufferings, the sacrifices and common endeavours of Great Britain, of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, of South Africa, and of India, must also it seems to me bind together for all time, as with links of steel, those component parts of the Empire in loyal, loving, and indissoluble union.
Mr. Speaker, the war is over, and the Peace Conference is engaged in dealing with the most momentous questions which have ever come before a congress of world's statesmen. It would be premature to discuss the conclusions to which that conference should arrive. Suffice it to say that there are seated there the ablest statesmen in the world to-day. Canada is represented by the experience and wisdom of her Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, and those of his colleagues who accompany him. The task is, indeed, a heavy one- the settling of the terms of peace, the recasting of the boundaries of European countries, the re-grouping of nationalities, and the establishment of guarantees and securities for that permanent peace of the world which is necessary if civilization is not to be wholly destroyed. There are, however, two observations which I desire to make.

In the first place, it is clear that this was a wholly unnecessary and avoidable war. All the bloodshed might have been spared. All the treasure which was spent, all the prodigious effort which was put forth, might have been devoted to the higher purposes of advancing civilization. All the suffering on land and sea, all the unspeakable anguish of wives, of mothers, and of families, need not have been. What caused this war? Who is responsible for this war? It is clear that responsibility for this war lies with the German people in their lust of dominion, and in the criminal and insane ambition of their Emperor and the military caste surrounding him. And if this is so, must not justice be done? I put forward the view that if those who are responsible for this war are not brought to punishment it will be the greatest failure of retributive justice in the history of mankind. The indictment before an international tribunal of those in authority in Germany and the other countries allied with her, before and during the war, their solemn trial for conspiracy against the liberties of nations, for breach of public law, and for the barbarities and atrocities which have been perpetrated by land and sea, would in my view do more to prevent th'e possibility of repetition of an attempt at world dominion on the part of any nation than any league of peace that can be devised by the genius or resourcefulness of statesmen.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, and that is that Germany and her allies by reason of their responsibility for this war, should be made to pay to the extent that they can pay for the war expenditure to which the Allies have been put, and 1 am glad to observe that that is the position taken by Great Britain. Canada did not desire to enter this war; we were forced to take part in order to save ourselves and to assist in saving the world. It seems to me therefore that those who are responsible for the war should be made to pay to the extent that they are able to pay for the expenditure to which Canada has been put. There is no sign, so far as I can observe, of repentance on the part of Germany to-day. On the contrary, there seems to be a certain degree of arrogance by reason of the fact that Germany was not invaded. A war indemnity spread over a long period of years would do more than anything else to bring home to the German people the enormity of the offence which they have committed against civilization. That is an
argument which I am sure they would understand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the armistice having been declared, the Government of this country, like the governments of all other countries, was at once confronted with the problem of reconstruction. The Government could not, of course, forecast events. But we had taken concerted measures, to be put into effect immediately after the conclusion of peace. Those measures related to two principal things, demobilization and reconstruction. The problem was a great and difficult one. In one sense it is easier to get from a peace basis to a war basis than from a war basis to a peace 9 p.m. basis. We have a longer time to get to a war basis from a peace basis than we have to get from a basis of war to a basis of peace after the war. We had four years to mobilize,- four years to organize the industry, the agriculture, the commerce, the trade and finances of the country, upon a war basis. We have had a few weeks to demobilize and reconstruct, so that the country may be once again upon a peace basis. Consider the problem involved in demobilization. We have over 300,000 soldiers overseas, and 50,000 dependents, to be brought home, all naturally desirous of returning to their homes and their dear ones as soon as possible. It has been the policy of the Government, notwithstanding . the economic problems involved, to bring those men home just as quickly as possible; in order that they may again meet their friends from whom they have been separated for years. That has been the policy of the Government, and since November, 1918, over 50,000 soldiers have been returned to this * country, and some eight or ten thousand of their dependents. In addition, there have been demobilized in Canada, struck from off the strength of units here, some 50,000 additional. So that there have been demobilized, since the conclusion of the armistice, over 100,000 of the troops of Canada, and many thousands of their dependents. Consider the situation,-the scarcity of shipping, troops to be returned, not only to Canada, but to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India. There are forces still in all the principal theatres of war. Transport is required for supplies for those forces. There is a great shortage of world shipping. Notwithstanding that, notwithstanding the fact that it is winter, that we have but two ports on our Atlantic coast, that we have limited railway facilities, we have been bringing back our men at the rate of 25,000 to

30,000 a month. In addition to that, many convalescents have been brought back. Many thousands have been tieated in our hospitals. The problem is a great one, complicated by after-war conditions, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, to this House and to the country, that it is proceeding quickly and satisfactorily. Then, consider the question of reconstruction.	Canada
had engaged in munitions and in other war industries some 200,000 men and women. Immediately after the armistice was declared 120,000 or 130,000 of those immediately lost their positions, and became unemployed. They were engaged in munition industries and in other war industries, which necessarily ceased as soon as the war came to an end. The problem for the Government was to find business to replace business represented by the output of the munitions and war industries which had come to an abrupt cessation. In addition to the 120,000 or 130,000 out of employment there were returning, as I have said, some 25,000 or 30,000 soldiers per month. It was winter. The problem which the Government has had to deal with has been to find, so far as possible, employment for all those men and women who lost their positions and for the soldiers who are returning home. That is the problem to which we had to address ourselves.
I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the verdict of results. I do not know of any country today, whether it is Great Britain, France, the United States or any other country, that is in a better position, or has less industrial unrest within its borders, than Canada to-day. The hon. gentleman who preceded me referred to the labour situation in Canada, and -I desire to say this, not only as showing the efforts which the Government has made, but the attitude and loyalty of labour, that there have been,
I believe, less labour disputes in this country since war broke out in 1914 than in any other country in the world. Take the situation in Great Britain to-day, take the situation in Belgium, the situation in France and the situation in the United States-there is great industrial unrest. We have, Mr. Speaker, considerable unemployment in this country, but I believe that when the measures of which I shall now inform the House are in full effect and operation, as they will be within the next few weeks, all the slack of unemployment will be taken up, and that there will within the next two or three months be an actual' shortage of labour in many parts of Canada.

What are the measures which the Government have taken in its reconstruction problem. Let me mention a few of them. When the munition industries ceased our steel plants found themselves without a market for their product. We at once took up with the railways of Canada the question of placing orders for steel rails, and within a short time after the conclusion of the armistice, orders had been given by the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, on behalf of the Canadian Pacific and on behalf of the/ Grand Trunk system, for 200,000 tons of steel rails at a cost of $13,000,000, as the Minister of Railways (Hon J. D. Reid) informs me. We took up also with them the question of placing as many orders as they could for rolling stock and locomotives, irrespective of the question of expense, because it was an immediate and urgent matter, having regard to the labour conditions. The Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway are manufacturing their equipment in their own shops. The Government railways have given orders for 2,500 cars and 25 locomotives. That will keep our car equipment industries, with those businesses that are allied and associated with them, very busy. In addition to that, the Government will present to this House within the next few days, estimates providing for an extensive programme of railway betterments and improvements and the construction of branch lines, especially in the West.
To give an idea of the amount of money which will be involved in the programme which I have outlined, it will be sufficient to say that it is estimated that there will be required $35,000,000 for rolling stock and material such as steel rails. In addition to that a sum exceeding $20,000,000 will be needed for railway extensions and more than $10,000,000 for betterments and improvements. The Government lost no time in taking up these important plans which are useful and advantageous from the national standpoint in adding to our national railway plant and equipment and which will, at the same time, provide employment for thousands of men.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the Government provided by an Order in Council, for a loan of $25,000,000 to the provincial governments for the purpose of promoting better housing conditions throughout the Dominion, and this action Parliament will be asked to approve. I am happy to say that the loan will be taken advantage of by all, or nearly all, of the provincial governments.
FEBRUARY 25, ISM	31
I have been so advised. It will not only materially improve the living conditions and the health of the people but in carrying out that policy there should be provided work for thousands of those who lost their positions when our munition and war industries came to an end and of our soldiers returning from overseas. In addition to that the Government at once resumed the great public work of the construction of the Welland Canal and the completion of the Trent Valley canal. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) will tell you, when he addresses the House, of the programme which he has in view and of the preparation of the plans and specifications in anticipation.	.
Then, in order that Canada may be in a position to participate in the export trade arising out of reconstruction in Europe the Government promptly constituted a Canadian trade mission in London, with its counterpart, a Canadian trade commission in Ottawa. It is necessary to-day, and it will be necessary possibly for some years to come, for Canada to provide credits to a large extent, in connection with the business which we shall obtain overseas. In order that our agricultural and manufactured products may be sold, it will be necessary, owing to the condition of exchange between Europe and America, that Canada, like the United States, shall provide credits from which our products shall be purchased. We have actively and continuously taken up the question of furnishing credits for the purchase of our agricultural products, of our wheat, our meats, our cheese and our other products from the field. In addition, we have offered to provide credits whereby France, Belgium and some of the Balkan countries, shall be placed in a position to buy of the products of Canadian agriculture and industry. The figures involved in these transactions are large. I desire to say that I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition ip his expressions regarding the desirability and the necessity of spending no money wastefully or unnecessarily, but I also desire to say that for the next year, two years, or three years, those in charge of the Government of this country will require resourcefulness and courage to raise whatever money is necessary to establish the credits which will enable this country to market its products. The people will stand behind the Government in that. It is absolutely vital to the continuance of our agricultural and business prosperity.
I have spoken of several of the measures which the Government has taken in order to meet the situation which has arisen owing to the sudden conclusion of the war. The speech from the Throne indicates the further measures, all of a constructive character, which we are taking for the purpose. A Bill is to be presented providing for aid in the construction of highways. I do not know of any more useful or immediately productive public work that could be undertaken by the Government than the improvement of the highways of Canada. This is a country of enormous resources, the greatest being agricultural. The significance and importance of good highways in connection with our farming communities are too well known to this House to make it necessary for me to refer to the matter at any length. A large amount of money will be provided by the Government for the purpose of aiding, by way of subsidies, the several provinces, in the improvement of their highway system. That will not only be beneficial to the country itself, but it will provide a great deal of work for those who need employment.
It will not be necessary for me to speak on the other features of the speech from the Throne-the department of Public Health, to which reference has been made by hon. members who have spoken before; the measures which we shall take in the interest of returned soldiers, and the other policies indicated in the Speech. These matters will all be taken up in due course when they come up before the House for discussion.
My hon. friend has spoken about the Franchise Act. He is evidently of the opinion that there is machinery in all the provinces whereby women are enabled to vote. I think he is in error as to that. In Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island I believe they do not have that machinery. Further than that, I understand that the measure brought down at the last session of this House was declaratory of the principle and that it does not provide the machinery which will effectually enable women to vote in Dominion elections. There is another reason why a Franchise Bill is necessary at this session. The War Time Elections Act was to last during the war and during the period of demobilization. It should remain upon our statute books until a satisfactory Act takes its place.
Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with what my hon. friend said in regard to the importance of taking our duties in this House with high seriousness. The world has come


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, when a death occurs in a family the sympathy of friends is always precious, and to the Liberal family sitting on this side of the House the sympathy extended by our friends, irrespective of party allegiance, is a very dear and precious thing, and I wish on behalf of hon. gentlemen sitting to your left, Sir, to tender my sincere and hearty thanks.
To the eloquent eulogy to the work done in the field by our Canadian army offered by the leader of His Majesty's Government, I say, Amen and Amen, but may I be allowed to add- something else. There is another side, alas, to the medal: during the last four years we have often thought of John Bright's great saying, when, speaking in regard to the Crimean War he said:
The. Angel of Death is abroad in the land. One can almost hear the beating of His wings.
To the members of this House, and to the men outside the House-aye, and the women too-who have lost their dear ones, I think it is only proper that the representatives of the people at large should give their humble, their hearty, their sympathetic condolence, and the prayer that the Comforter of all will comfort them in their grief.
I w'as delighted to hear, Mr. Speaker, the adherence of the leader of the Government to the plan of a League of Nations, because I believe that without a League of Nations, without some international organization for the enforcing of peace, we are likely to have a recurrence of war. I agree with him when he says that the immediate cause of this conflict was the boundless ambition of the German empire and its military caste, and

the desire for domination of the Prussian people. Yes, that was the immediate cause, but there were underlying causes deeper than that, Mr. Speaker. There was first f all this fact-that we lived in a world where force was the ultimate arbiter, and until we live in a world where force is not the ultimate arbiter, that is to say force used by one nation against another, wars are almost bound to occur. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that before the war broke out the civilized world was like a western mining camp, where each man was dependent for his own safety and security upon the revolver or the bowie-knife he carried. But in a western mining camp the good sense of the community revolted at such a condition of affairs, because it always led to murder and sudden death. Therefore, they erected Judge Lynch's Court, and Judge Lynch called upon the respectable citizens to band together and put down the outlaw, the bandit and the desperado. That is the situation in the world to-day. Judge Lynch's Court, the League of Nations, is in process of formation, and it is for all the well-intentioned peoples of the world to rally round a league to enforce world-wide peace. And it is something to be said for the North American continent that the great protagonist of that idea comes from this side of the Atlantic. I refer to the work of Woodrow Wilson whose name will go ringing down the ages as that of a man who tried to reconstitute the world on a better basis. He has been supported by nearly all the great men of the Motherland-by Lloyd George, by Lord Robert Cecil, by Viscount Bryce. Viscount Bryce said in a letter which he wrote to a great meeting for the purpose of promoting the ideal, "we must destroy war or war will destroy us." Not only was the fact of force being the only arbiter one of the causes of war, but there was the vast interest which certain classes in every civilized nation had in manufacturing armaments; there was a personal interest in keeping up international friction in order that private gain might ensue. And last, but perhaps not least, was secret diplomacy, the international relations of practically every country in the world being conducted not by the representatives of the people, but by a small group in each country. Time after time this was the case; instance after instance might be cited where the different civilized nations of the world did not know to what their governments had committed them.
I have a suggestion which, in view of the financial experience of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) and my own inexperience, I offer with a good deal of diffidence, but it has such a common sense ring about it that I believe he and 'the rest of the members of this House will regard it as reasonable. We have a vast expenditure outlined. I do not believe that the Canadian people know to-day in what financial position we are, and I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister, who carries also on his broad shoulders the heavy burden of being Finance Minister- a burden which, I am sure, is grievous to bear these days-will bring down and place before the House at the earliest possible moment a succinct statement of the liabilities of this country. It is quite true that we may have to spend vast sums for reconstruction and in order to provide employment during the term of reconstruction.
But we must be careful about it. A large amount of this money will be borrowed. If we borrow too much the lenders will begin to look askance even at our boundless resources and even at the ability of those who are conducting the affairs of the country, and say: We cannot lend you any more money. That would be a sad condition; so I think it would be proper and fitting that such a statement be laid before the House at an early date.
We all hate taxation. In a few days I will have to write a cheque, with great regret, to the order of the Receiver-General of Canada for income tax. Although personally I am glad that it is as small as it is, as a citizen I know that it should be a great deal larger; and if I may offer advice at this time to the Finance Minister it is that the income tax of the country should approach the scale of the income tax in the United States and in the United Kingdom. So far, the rates of taxation imposed on large incomes in Canada have been away below the rates imposed in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
It has been stated that the War-Time Elections Act should remain on the statute book of Canada until it is superseded by some other Act. I take issue with that statement, and I believe that my feelings will be shared by many sitting on the opposite side as well as by those sitting on this side of the House. The War-Time Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, is a blpt on the statute book of 'Canada. I am not allowed, I believe, to characterize as iniquitous, legislation passed by the House of Commons and the 'Senate and signed by the Governor-General. But I will take the



words of the minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean)- now, there are so many ministers that I have forgotten what department he is in charge of, but, he acted as Minister of Finance last session, and in bygone, happier days he acted as financial critic of the Opposition. He said, when this War-Time Elections Act was under consideration that it was a horrible Bill, and I believe that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Carvell) who sits beside him, characterized it in even stronger language. I call upon these men and I call upon every man who loves liberty and justice and British fair play to see to it that this War-time Elections Act is wiped off the statute book of Canada at the earliest possible moment. It was passed for the purpose of winning an election. It was a tampering with the electorate by a body of men who proposed to appeal to the electorate after it had been tampered with. It goes to the very root and to the very basis of our representative institutions. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to he worthy of himself; I ask him to be worthy of those high ideals which he has placed before us with such eloquence and, I believe, with such sincerity, and not to allow his leadership to be sullied and besmirched by the retention of this Act upon the statute book of Canada.
Now I pass to a more agreeable task-I would far rather be complimentary, Mr. Speaker, than denunciatory. It is, perhaps, presumptuous for me, a member of the same age as the member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) and the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), to attempt to say anything about their remarks. But their speeches were of such high quality, so eloquent, and breathed such a true spirit of harmony and unity and proper national aspiration, that I must be allowed to give them a meed of praise. Their tone was admirable. Both asked for national harmony and national unity, and the member for Fort William and Rainy River, who showed that the Surgeon in Arms is as eloquent with his tongue as with his pen, told us, almost in the words of Abraham Lincoln, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. May I continue the quotation. Abraham Lincoln went on to say that this house shall not fall; it shall cease to be divided.
There are divergent influences among the Canadian people. There is a difference of faith; there is a difference, apparent rather than real, of economic interest, and there is a difference of tongue. All these5 differences lead to misunderstanding. The

French have an expression: De tout com-prendre est de tout pardonner-to understand everything is to forgive everything. What can we do to bring the nation together, to promote understanding?
As far as religious differences are concerned, the solution is very easy. We have only_ to put in the background everything that divides us and to put in the foreground everything that unites us. Although I come of Scotch Presbyterian parentage, I do not pretend to be a theologian, but I suppose some remnant of theology is in my blood, and I submit that the things upon which we are in accord are infinitely more important than the things upon which we differ. I, therefore, imagine that the way to get over the unfortunate differences which have existed between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the past is to think more of our common Christianity and less of the differences in our creeds which divide us. As far as our economic differences are concerned, those differences would be better got rid of by the application of the principle of liberty and freedom than by the application of the principle of restriction. As far as the language difficulty is concerned, why, it is no difficulty at all. I am very familiar with that part of the province of Quebec where French-speaking man and English-speaking man live side by side on neighbouring farms, and there is no difficulty. Why is there no difficulty? Because they understand each other. I remember once being called upon to visit a small place lying on the boundary between Quebec and Ontario. I went into a Scotch woman's house, the house of a Scottish Canadian. I was talking to her son, and he was not only bilingual, but trilingual. He spoke French and he spoke English, and he had the Gaelic. I say this, Sir, that never have I come in contact with English-speaking people living right amongst French-speaking people but I have found that both not only respect but like each other. Why? Because they know each other. I would suggest, as one means of healing all breaches which may have existed in the past, in order that we may go on rejoicing to that future which I hope Providence has in store for us, that we English-speaking people should endeavour as far as possible to learn and have our children learn French, as the Frenchspeaking people in this country learn and nave their children learn English.
The statement is made that Labour is not altogether satisfied in this country. I

agree with the Acting Prime Minister when he says-and he does honour to the workers of Canada when he says it,-that during the war there was less labour disturbance in Canada than in any other country in the world. But is the worker entitled to be dissatisfied as things have been in the past? I put this to you, Sir. Before the industrial revolution, when the man,-the journeyman and the apprentice,-worked side by side with his master, the man, as a general rule, had a modest sufficiency to eat and to wear, and he lived on a basis of more or less equality with his master. Then came the industrial revolution, and mankind harnessed the power of steam, and afterwards harnessed the power of electricity and he increased his power of creating wealth ten times, aye, I think, twenty times. But what resulted to the worker? The worker did not live with his master; he did not work side by side with his master; but he was depressed into a mere " hand," and the master became the great factory employer or great manufacturer. The worker, although by his skill, aided by electricity and steam, he was able to create twenty times the wealth that he did before, remained very little better off than he was before the industrial revolution began. That is to say he had a fair, but not an adequate sufficiency of clothing and of food; and before, by the force of trade-unionism, he raised his pay by combining against his master, he was not as well off as he was before the industrial revolution occurred. Now, the workman feels that he is living in a new world. The British workman, the French workman, the Canadian workman, each feels that his sacrifices on the field entitle him to expect that the world will be a better place for him to live in; that no longer will the great portion of the most arduous work in the world have to be performed for a bare pittance. I, for one, do not blame him. I, for one, want to see the workman get a greater proportion of the wealth which his labour has created. There will, in this connection, have to be co-operation, and I feel certain that members interested in this subject, as well on the Government side as on this side of the House, will be glad to study the Whiteley report in which is outlined the system of industrial councils in which men representing the masters and men representing the workers will sit for the purpose of a common management of the industries in which they are engaged.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) spoke in somewhat severe terms of the Bolsheviks. The popular idea of a
3i
Bolshevik is a wild-eyed anarchist looting a bank. I am not sure whether the common view taken in this country of the Bolshevik is altogether correct. I think that perhaps there is another side to the question, and as this is the great forum where truth and exact knowledge should be brought before the people, I take the liberty of referring the House to some articles which are appearing in the Manchester Guardian from an eye-witness from Russia. I think the Manchester Guardian will be admitted by all to be one of the very great organs of public opinion in the old land. The writer of the articles which appear in the Manchester Guardian was, since the autumn of 1916, engaged in relief work under the auspices of the Society of Friends' War Victims' Relief Committee, and he spent a large portion of his time in Russia, learned the language completely, and has a great deal of interest to tell us. I believe that the House will be interested if I read a short extract from an article which appeared in the Guardian on the 22nd of January of this year. It is entitled " A Rural District under the Bolsheviks." The writer says:
Of all the industrial and economic enterprises in the district none suffered less change than the Co-operative Society, which had been started before the war under the old regime, and which continued unchanged under the Provisional and Kerensky Governments, and enlarged its membership 500 per cent under the Bolsheviks. In the time I speak of the Cooperative Society had virtually become a monopoly, and had either put out <xf business or absorbed the small traders. It could get credit from the Soviet, was recognised by the railway officials as a Government department, and could undertake purchasing operations on a large scale and look to guarantee of transport. It had an organisation of sub-branches in nearly every village, and could distribute and sell its goods without having to get permits and licenses from the Soviet. The Government decided to purchase wheat and rye in Siberia ' for seed and consumption.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) is here, he will see that when he bought seed for distribution and consumption in the Northwest, he was acting just like a Bolshevik.
-and naturally placed the order with the Cooperative Society. Purchase of medical requirements in Moscow for the numerous Soviet hospitals was done through the same channel, members of the Soviet often travelling with the buyers in order to guarantee good faith.
The profits of the Co-operative Society, which were reduced to minimum, but which on the millions of roubles of turnover amounted to a considerable sum, were devoted to educational purposes. Evening classes were started in modern languages, geography, history, and the Russian language; in bookkeeping and business training; subsidies were granted for agricultur-

al colleges and schools, and scholarships were founded for the gymnasia (secondary schools.)
The educational programme of the Bolsheviks was ambitious, but it was this ambitiousness which commended it to the people. The Bolsheviks aimed at starting a school in every village and increasing the number of gymnasia in the district and founding a university, but in this project they were stopped by lack of teachers.
"The article goes on to say:
Under the stricter clays of the old regime the Boy Scout movement was not permitted in Russia, but latterly was allowed a certain amount of liberty under police supervision. Under the Bolsheviks, however, it flourished, and troops were formed in many of the cities and department towns.
It will be interesting to those who live in the dry province of Ontario to know how the Bolsheviks dealt with the illicit liquor traffic:
The Russian public had not been accustomed to reliable law courts or a just police administration. Under the Bolsheviks, as under the Provisional and Kerensky Governments, the villages appointed their own police when necessary, choosing the oldest men as those most Hkely to have wisdom and discretion in human affairs. As an instance of this may be mentioned the way in which the old regime and the Bolsheviks dealt with illegal vodka distilling. In the days of the Imperial police anyone caught in the act was arrested by the police, but, as everyone knew, each offence had its price, except that of political propaganda, and a sum of money amounting maybe to several hundred or several thousand roubles, would settle the matter, and until the time of blackmail came round again the business could continue unmolested, however much the public might be against it. Under the Bolsheviks a man found distilling vodka would not be punished but his still would be taken from him, the public would be informed of his guilt, and the amount of grain which the food committee would allow him to buy would be limited to that needed , for his o\Vn domestic use.
I am placing these facts before the House, "not because I am here to defend the Bolsheviks, but because I think it is well to realize there may be two sides to every question, and we should not be carried off our feet in denunciation of other people before we really know what they are doing. As I understand it, Bolshevism is a form of socialistic government in which the lower classes-I should not use that expression because it is obnoxious in this country-in which the manual workers have assumed to take the whole control of the government to the exclusion of the intellectual and trading classes. I think that is morally wrong because it is government of the people by only part of the people, and I think it unwise because it eliminates from the government classes which might have [Mr. MoMaster.l
a considerable contribution to offer. It has been suggested that Bolshevism must be put down. What is meant by that? Does it mean we are to send more men to Russia for the purpose of fighting? If that is so, I would say first of all that it is a course the wisdom of which is very doubtful. Outside interference may tend to solidify the people under the Bolsheviki, and perhaps in endeavouring to put down disorder we may possibly trample on liberty.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the situation at the time of the French revolution. You will remember how the French revolutionaries were denounced, and properly so, not only for their excesses but for other things as well by the civilized countries of Europe. You will remember how kings banded themselves together for the purpose of putting down the French revolution and how the revolutionary spirit of France, the free spirit of old France, enabled the barefooted armies of the republic to conquer all their enemies, and they were not conquered until the first republic had become an Empire and until Napoleon had seized the reins of power and turned the enthusiasm of the French revolution into channels for his own imperialistic benefit. And therefore I say, we come to this:	We have Canadian soldiers today fighting in Russia; we have sent Canadian soldiers to Siberia, where they are fighting. I do not propose at this moment to condemn the Government for sending them, but I say that the Government must at the earliest possible moment let the Canadian people know why Canadian boys have been sent there. Certain explanations which have been given do not explain. It has been suggested by some one that they are sent there for the purpose of promoting Canadian trade. I for one would rather that in all the future history of Canada we never sold a single mowing machine or any other article of manufacture or commerce there than that the blood of a single Canadian lad should be spilled in vain.
There is another matter in this connection which must be inquired into. It is a relatively small force that has been sent. I do not know whether my opinion is right or not, but I believe I am right in saying that this force was so small that it could have been recruited through the voluntary system. I believe I am right in saying that drafted men who expected to be sent to fight the enemies of civilization in France



FEBRUARY 25, 19.19

[Stage Direction]
or Flanders have been sent off to the snows of Siberia to fight other men, who, it is a strong chance, are also fighting for freedom, but in their own way. Without fuller investigation, I shall say nothing further on that matter but this: It is the duty of the Canadian people in Parliament assembled to have the reasons for this expedition set before us as early as possible, and I say that it would have been proper and fitting before this expedition was sent at all that Parliament should have been convened in order that the people's representatives might have been consulted.
How are we to overcome the dissatisfaction and unrest in this country? First of all, let the Government, at the earliest possible moment, get rid of their Orders in Council. Let us re-establish parliamentary government at the earliest possible moment. Do hon. gentlemen on the Government side realize that the Canadian people, and in fact all people, are looking with a searching eye to representative government, to authority of all sorts, and the Government which will meet with their approval is a Government which will truly represent them. Constituted authority is on trial. They had an election in England recently, at which about fifty per cent of the people voted, and during that election, and I believe since, what has happened? They are having direct action in England. People are not looking to Parliament for redress as they did in days gone by, but are taking the law into their own hands. That is a very sad condition. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that some organization-I forget which, for the moment, but I think it was the Socialists-wished to hold a meeting in Alberti Hall. At all events it was a meeting of an organization which did not please the owners of Albert Hall, and tney cancelled the contract with the Socialists; they broke meir agreement. Then what did the Union of Electrical Workers do? The representatives of that union went to the owners of Albert Hall and said, " Unless you keep your contract with our friends of such and such a union or Socialist organization and let them have the hall we will see to it that you have no electric light when you have the great Victory ball on such and such a night.
The owners of the hall thought it best to keep their word with the group to whom they had leased the hall. But that is a bad business. Those people were imposing their will, in a right cause, it is true, on that occasion, but that is direct action. That is the sort of thing we want to avoid.
You know these orders in council have not increased .the prestige of the Government in this country. My friends from the Maritime Provinces will agree with me when I say that a ship beating into harbour, especially a fore and aft ship, is a beautiful sight, as it beats in, tacking with the wind, taking advantage of every slant in the wind, by the action of the skilful helmsman. It is a grand sight to see it at first go-off on the starboard tack, and go round and get into the eye of the wind, and then go off on the port tack. But, Mr. Speaker, a man or a party proceeding to an objective in that manner ^s not a beautiful or dignified sight. What have we had? We have had orders in council galore. As a matter of fact, we have had so much information by way of orders in council, and such like, given us by the Government, that the Government felt that the old vehicle, the Official Gazette, was too small to enable them to do justice to the situation, and therefore we have at this time, when economy should be the slogan, the Canadian Official Record, a small paper, and strange to say it is exactly the shape of an American publication of the same sort, and it contains some priceless articles of information. They reproduce things which are already in the Canadian Official Gazette, and then they will tell us that Sir Robert Borden greatly enjoyed a nine-penny lunch that he had in England at such a time, or that James Jones, of Richmond, Que., has had his bakery establishment closed for three days for allowing two batches of dough to go bad and be wasted. That is the sort of thing the Canadian people are regaled with, in order to keep up their interest in the war.
I come now to the last subject of my remarks. I wish to speak concerning the matter to which the acting Premier referred when he concluded his eloquent remarks. He said he believed that a party government should be set aside for the time beinij in Canada, because he believed the problems which we had to face were so complex and so difficult. I agree with him that the problems are complex and difficult, and just because they are complex and difficult there are bound to be differences of opinion upon them, and if we are going to have good government in this country, we must have party government, if those who are at one on the principles along which the Government should proceed are in one party, and those who believe that the Government of the country should be carried on along
[Stage Direction]
other principles are in the other party. We have had a great dividing line, between the two parties in Canada for more than a generation, and we have those who believe that the tariff of this country should be a low tariff, primarily intended for the purpose of raising a revenue, and we have those who believe that the tariff should be a machine for protecting the manufacturers and other interests in the country. There is room for differences of opinion. Honest men may be on both sides of the question, but I say that now, when we have returned to peace, cleavage in opinion is bound to arise. What is the situation in Canada to-day? We are face to face with an appalling debt and before the war we had pushed our urban railway development to such an extent-and here I will not ask you to decide with me, or discuss who is responsible for pushing it to that extent-that we had outstripped, I think, by a generation our rural development. We built railways, and several of those roads are bankrupt. We had last session to consider the taking over of the Canadian Northern railway, which was a tremendous liability on the back of the country, a railroad which will not carry itself for years to come, and, by the way, we had to spend $8,000,000 for the privilege of taking over that liability. We find to-day that the Grand Trunk Pacific is not paying its way, and that the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, the parent company does not want to implement its obligations in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. We are face to face with this, situation: that our financial and economic future is in. danger unless we augment by fifty to one hundred per cent, the rural population of this country. That is the way to look at it. It is not a question altogether of high tariff or low tariff; to use an expression time and again given me by safe and sane men, "It is a condition and not a theory that confronts us.'' Now, how are we going to increase the rural population of this country? Good roads are a good thing, better schools are a good thing, and co-operative societies are a good thing; but what we need more than anything else is to give to the agriculturists of this country as advantageous conditions under which to operate as are given in any other part of the world, and notably in the United States. In order to do that, we must so arrange our tariff that what our agriculturists require to buy, they can buy at a reasonable price, because certainly, as far as our western agriculturist is concerned, he has to take the world's price for what he has to sell, and
LMr. McMaster.]
it is not fair that he should have to pay a quarter or a third, or in some cases almost half as much again, as the natural price for what he has to buy. I say that that is the first great argument in favour of the lowering of the tariff, and I do not think that, with all the best will in the world, the interests represented, and ably represented by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, are prepared to go that far with me in regard to the tariff question. There is an issue between us, and there will be a healthier condition in Canadian public life when that issue is practically admitted. Then I say that protection is merely State aid given by a community to certain industries. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity any more than you can pull yourself up by your boot straps. It imposes a tremendous burden on the consuming public of this country, and that burden is a good deal greater than the amount of money which finds its way into the treasury. There are those in this country-and I think their number is increasing from day to day-who say that the tariff should be swept away altogether. Although I believe thoroughly in the principle of free exchange, I do not think that would be fair or wise. It would not be fair to invested capital, and it would not be wise, because a very moderate tariff should be retained as a means of collecting revenue, but a 42i per cent tariff is not a means of increasing revenue. It is a means of keeping goods out of your country. I hope I shall not be accused of pro-Germanism in advocating the policy and practice of free exchange. I saw during the recess a speech made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) in which he said that if the war was on he would accuse those who advocated a lower tariff of pro-German feeling. It is somewhat difficult for me to follow the mental processes of the monopolists of this country because I had been taught that Great Britain was the great example of. free trade and that Germany was one of the great protectionist countiies of the world. Every protectionist government in the last war, with th^ exception of that of the United States, which had a vast internal area of free trade, had to have recourse to the necesssity of borrowing for the purpose of meeting its debts while Great Britain financed not only herself, not only her incomparable effort in the war on land and sea and in the air, but financed her Allies and her dependencies very largely through taxation raising from a quarter to
[Stage Direction]
a third of the amount spent on the war out of the pockets of her own people.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Did not Great Britain borrow four billion dollars from the United States of America?


Andrew Ross McMaster: She did. She borrowed very heavily. I do not pretend for an instant that she did not have recourse to borrowing, but the main point is that Great Britain borrowed less and raised by taxation more than the other countries that have followed the protectionist practice. Why should the lamp shine in the window, why should the latch string be on the outside of the door, because we know that there are men in this House who differed from us on the question of how best to raise men for the Canadian army? They had .the right to their. opinion. We had the right to ours. I would, on this occasion, follow the generous example set by the leader of the Government who said in substance that where he differed from the late, lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier on public questions, he would leave it to history to decide, that we were too near events perhaps to arrive at a proper judgment. We will follow that example and we will leave to history to decide whether the way of raising an army advocated by gentlemen on that side or the way advocated by us was the proper and better way. But that day has passed. That question is settled, please God never again to be raised in our lifetime.
The great question before the Canadian people in this era of reconstruction is going to be the tariff. Some people say: Leave the tariff alone until we have reconstructed. What a ridiculous suggestion that is! Here is a house that has been blown down by a cyclone. Some people say that the house should be built of wood and others that it should be built of brick.' Those who want to built it of wood say: Do not discuss the question of whether it shall be built of wood or brick until we have built it again of wood. That is the position of people who advocate that reconstruction should ante-date the decision of this question.
What is the attitude of the Liberal party on the question of the tariff? I know7 that an hon. member from Alberta and an hon. member from Manitoba were somewhat critical in their remarks upon the success which the Liberal party had achieved in reducing the tariff. I frankly admit that I wish that during the years from 1896 to 1911 we had reduced the tariff more. But you saw', Mr. Speaker, just as soon as the
guiding hand of the Liberals was taken off the tariff how the duty was increased by 7i per cent even in war times. We are just and fair, and, of course, as former Liberals, you cannot help being just and fair. You will also remember that there was a great reciprocity campaign. Some bird has whispered that the loss of some of those who were identified with the Liberal cause prior to 1911 was due to that reciprocity campaign of 1911. Be that as it may, you remember that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party went down to defeat on the issue of reciprocity in natural products with the United States. After all, my friends, if the Liberal party is not giving- satisfaction in the direction you would like, there is no reason why you should hang back with the crowd that is going in the other direction altogether. This is the view of the tariff taken by the Liberal party and voted upon by every member of this House on the 23rd of May, 1917:
That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
I do not know whether trading in wheat with the United States is quite as disloyal a thing as it used to be because I understand that not so very long ago an Order in Council was passed allowing trade in wheat with the United States. But then, shortly after that, I think the millers will tell you, there was some sort of an embargo placed upon this trade which prevented the carrying out of that Order in Council.
That farm Implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining-, flour and saw-mill machinery and repairs for .same, rough -and .partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
Of course, there will be the retort in some LTnionist's mouth:	We have put tractors
on the free list. Yes, tractors have been put o* the free list up to $1,400, hut if you put the tractor on the free list, why did you not put the plough, which has to be pulled by the tractor, on the free list? How could you logically differentiate between the tractor and the plough? Surely it is not because it is only the comparatively well-off farmer who can afford to have a tractor while every poor fellow who goes on the land requires a plough? Surely that is not the reason? I do not believe it is. It is just due to that fact that I described before; there was just a little wind rising in the west and the helmsman took advantage of it to throw the boat's head a point or two to starboard. But, let me continue:
That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor, be admitted into Canada free of duty

when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.	.
That substantial reductions be made in the general tariff on all articles imported into Canada, except luxuries.
That the British Preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff.
I say to my separated brethren: Go to the Acting Prime Minister., who is also the Finance Minister, place the Hansard containing my few humble remarks before him and say to him: Now, Sir, are you willing to go as far as the Grits will go? Then govern yourselves accordingly. Do you remember that old story in ancient writ of how the prophets of Baal and Elijah worked together one day on Mount Carmel? You remember how Elijah said: "If Baal be the Lord serve him, and if Jehovah be the Lord serve Him." If your principles are for liberty and low tariff you know on which side of the House you should sit. If protection and high tariff be your God, then stay where you are.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he has the number of votes cast in that division, and if he can tell me how many members of the then Liberal party voted for that resolution?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have not that information. I was not then a member of the House, but I am sure the information is within the knowledge of my hon. friend.
Just one other remark and I shall have finished:	There are perhaps those who
are exercised in their minds whafc they should do. Perhaps a feeling of loyalty- mistaken, I think-to an absent leader may have some effect upon them. To them, through you, Mr. Speaker, I address these words: Let it be not said of them, as was said of Lancelot by Tennyson:
His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith, unfaithful, kept him falsely true.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Carvell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
Wednesday, February 26, 1919.


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

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Militia Council for the year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon Major-General Mewburn.
Copies of General Orders, Appointments, Transfers and Promotions in the Canadian Militia promulgated between January 1, 1918, and February 1, 1919.-Hon. Major-General Mewburn.
Copies of all Routine Orders of the Canadian Expeditionary Force promulgated from January 2, 1918, to February 22, 1919.-Hon. Major-General Mewburn.
Report of the Minister of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918.- Hon. Mr. Carvell.
Dispatch from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor-General transmitting copies of a parliamentary paper containing extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Imperial War Conference, 1918, and papers laid before the Conference.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Report of the Postmaster General for the year ended	March	31,	1918.-Hon.	Mr. Rowell.
Appropriation Account, 1917-18, Royal North West Mounted Police.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Orders in Council with reference to the work of the Director and Associate Director of Public Information.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Fifty-first Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the fiscal year ended	March	31,	1918.-Hon.	Mr. Maclean.
Statement of Harbour Dues collected during the fiscal year 1917-18.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Statement of leases of wharves, piers and breakwaters	under	the	control of	the
Department of Marine and Fisheries.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Statement of fees received on account of Sick Mariners' Fund during the fiscal year 1917-18.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Orders in Council passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce since the last session of Parliament.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Copy of an Order in Council dated the 14th August, 1918, passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, 1914, relative to the certificates of Masters and Mates -Hon. Mr. Maclean.

William Thomas White: That a Special Committee composed of Messrs. Pardee, Nickle, Lemieux, and Currie be appointed to consider and report upon the question of systematizing the work of compiling the Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the House of Commons with a view to economy.
He said: A committee was appointed last session to consider and report upon this subject. Not having had time to consider the question fully, it reported on the 21st of March, 1918, and recommended that during the recess the Chief Clerk of the Journals Branch should work out the details in connection with the subject. This has been done, and it is now proposed to appoint this committee immediately to consider the question again and to report at its earliest convenience in order that the change, if approved, may be carried out without delay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to authorize a further extension of time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Railway between Gagetown and Westfield.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Hon. Mr. REID:: It is simply to extend the time for completion until the end of the present year. The time expired in December last.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are the operations proceeding now?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the work of construction has been going along. Not much is being done, of course, in the winter, but the work will be completed during the present year.


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


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, February 25.
Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the mover of the address in reply
to the speech from the Throne (Mr. Redman) and the seconder (Mr. Manion) on the manner in which they fulfilled their duties yesterday, and in doing so I assure them that this is no perfunctory compliment. I felt that rarely in my somewhat lengthy experience in this House have I heard the mover and the seconder of this motion take such lofty grounds or grasp as intimately as they did the great problems confronting the country.
After all, the greatest problem which this country has ever faced-I assume that the same is true of all those nations of the civilized world which have been engaged in the great war-is thkt of getting back from a war basis to a peace basis. One would be surprised if he could sit at the Council table and listen to the demands and complaints and suggestions that are coming in every day from every part of the country, due entirely to the condition in which we find ourselves on account of the war and on account of its having terminated much sooner than most people anticipated. Fortunately, the Government-and when I say "the Government" I mean the country, because the people .must do their part as well as the Government-were in a fairly good position to get back to peace. Probably no warring nation outside of the United States was in a better position than that in which Canada found herself on the cessation of hostilities-I am even somewhat doubtful that the United States were in a better position than we were at the close of the war.
But very great problems must be faced and very great difficulties must be overcome in getting this country back to a peace basis. In my judgment, it will be years before we get back, if we ever do, to exactly the same conditions as existed before the war. One hundred years ago, when the great European war of that period was brought to a close, no doubt things looked blacker to the people than they look to us to-day, although the financial obligations of the nations of the world were then as nothing compared with what they are now. The war which has just ended has been the greatest medium for the expenditure of moneys that the world has ever known and probably ever will know-we all hope so, anyway. The world, therefore, has a different problem to solve from that which faced it a hundred years ago. But in the peoples of the world there is a wonderful amount of vivacity, a wonderful amount of recuperation, and just as the people of old overcame their difficulties, so shall we, in the course of a few

years, overcome ours and get along just as well as we got along before the war. The only thing I want to talk about to-day, therefore, is what is involved in our getting back from a war basis to a peace basis.
It is idle for any one to say that abnormal conditions do not exist throughout the country. We hear it said that the wounded or disabled soldier who returns from the battlefields is in an abnormal condition but while that may be true, he is not alone. There are just as many other abnormal people and I think a good many more in Canada to-day as there are amongst returned soldiers. An abnormal condition exists in the minds of a very great body of the people of Canada. It is called by various names, varying, I presume, to some extent according to the degree to which they are abnormal.
Sir 1S1AM HUGHES: Not in the Government, though.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no, not in the Government-I am speaking now about the rest of the people. Just here in passing, while I do not know that this has much to do with the Address, may I say that I was somewhat surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) last evening in discussing certain matters, because I may say he and I are not very far apart on many of the subjects discussed by him. I wish to refer to this statement that the popular and erroneous idea of a Bolshevik is a wild-eyed anarchist looting a bank. Well, if he had gone a little further and said that a Bolshevik was a wild-eyed anarchist looting a bank, shooting down all the Bourgeois or property owners in the country and carrying off their wives and children, he would have come nearer to the definition of a Bolshevik than he did. He says that this parliament is the great forum where truth and exact knowledge should be brought before the people. He gave us very frankly the Manchester Guardian as the source of information from which he derived somewhat lenient definition of a Bolshevik. I can only say that is not the information which I have, and I think there are very few people who have any personal knowledge of the Russian situation to-day who will agree with the definition of the Manchester Guardian. During the last month we have had before the Government people who have been in Russia, who have lived there since the revolution, who know the condition of affairs, and they give us a very different idea from that given by the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, from which

my hon. friend quoted yesterday evening. The conditions which are depicted to us as existing in Russia are such that, in my judgment, Russia is a proper place to keep the Bolsheviks in for some years to come, and the only thing that worries me is how soon we can get some of their ilk back to their fatherland, wdiere they may enjoy some of the benefits of the new civilization set up by Lenine and Trotzky, men who, the moment they attained power in Russia, did not hesitate to turn their backs upon the Allies, upon the great civilized nations that had been trying to save Russia from the barbarism of Germany, and upon the civilized nations which had furnished the people of Russia with war material and had put them, in the spring of 1917, in a posi-* tion to have carried this war on as they never were in a position before and, I believe, to have brought the war to a close in the summer of 1917 if Lenine and Trotzky had not proved traitors to the Allies. If those be the men whose ideals we should follow, then I shall part company with my hon. friend so far as that is concerned. But I am sorry to say that we have, in a very large degree amongst certain classes of people in Canada, a state of unrest-I do not call it Bolshevism, but I believe if such people were in Russia, they would go further than they dare go in Canada-and it is to meet this condition of unrest that the Government has, since the armistice was signed, been bending its eneigies. And, we intend bending our energies in this direction as long as it is necessary, in order to do everything which we can reasonably do to get Canada bach to its normal condition.
The speech from the Throne has told in a general way what are the proposals of the Government. The Acting Prime Minister yesterday referred to a good many of the measures which are being put forward by the Government as a means of meeting this condition of unrest. He referred to the tremendous amounts of money which th Government purposes asking Parliament to vote in order that it may be expended upon railways, highways, and certain other public undertakings, but he did not refer to one great expenditure, which is to be incurred, in the building of ships. As the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), in whose department this is, is not here,-and we shall all be glad, I am sure, when his health enables him to return to the House-I may be pardoned for referring to it. The Government is spending a large amount of money this year-I am not sure as to the exact

amount, but I imagine it must be twenty or twenty-five million dollars-and it expects to spend about thirty million dollars during the next fiscal year in the construction of steel ships in Canada. I know there will be criticism of this; at least, I assume there will during the session, because criticism has already been launched in the public press, and, so far as I am concerned, I want to meet it here and to give my views very plainly. It is always a very easy matter to be wise after the event. A year ago there was nothing which the civilized world needed so much as shipping. A year ago shipping was more vital to winning the war than were men or shells or anything else. The greatest cry of the allied armies a year ago was for ships, ships to carry American soldiers across the ocean and ships to carry food to the allied armies. The Canadian Government decided to undertake a shipbuilding programme which involved the construction of fifty-two ships varying in size from 3,500 tons dead weight to 10,000 tons dead weight. Some of those have already been completed and are in service. I do not deny-I do not for a rnonent try to conceal the fact that those ships are going to cost more than they would have, had the Government gone out into the open market after peace was declared and bought the ships. But buying the ships after peace was declared would not have helped furnish ships in order to carry on the war; and if the war had continued, as most people expected it would, over another winter and another summer, two-thirds or at least one half of those ships would have been at the service of'the country. Even to-day, while we admit that the war is over and the crying necessity for those ships has ceased to exist, the construction of those ships plays an important part in many portions of Canada in furnishing labour to the unemployed, a task which I look upon as the paramount duty of this Government and of the government of every province and every municipality at the present time. So far as I am concerned, -and I can speak for my colleagues, so far as we are concerned collectively,-in the allocation of the public moneys we have taken into consideration practically altogether the probable requirements to take care of unemployment in the labour world generally rather than the advantage which a particular work or expenditure of money will be to the people in the vicinity in which the work is done or the money expended. That has been the underlying principle in the making up of the estimates. The ships are being built to-day at Montreal, at Toronto, at the head of the Great Lakes, at Port Arthur and Fort William, and at Vancouver and Victoria. Were those works not going on in those localities, especially on the Pacific coast, you would find a very different condition of affairs from what exists to-cfay. I, therefore, make no apology. No apology is required. I am simply pointing out that we are doing this in order to try to meet the pressing requirements of the moment and to place the country in a position to get back to a peace basis.
The Acting Prime Minister referred to another matter to which I desire to give a small amount of consideration, and in doing so to give it my heartiest endorsation. I refer to the highway policy which will be laid before the House by the Minister of Railways and Canals. I fear that my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) had not carefully, read the resolution which is on the Order Paper before making his remarks yesterday evening.
I remember quite well a former occasion when a proposal was made in this House to grant assistance for the building of highways, and my hon. friend was quite justified in the reference he made to some of his former colleagues, but if he will read over the resolution which is on the Order Paper today and was there yesterday, if I mistake not, I think he will come to the conclusion that it is as fair a proposal as could be put forward. In case he has not read it, I want to state to this House, and I hope it will get to the country, that the proposal put forward by the Government is that during the next five years the Government of Canada shall grant to the several provinces the sum of twenty million dollars for the purpose of building practically permanent highways, at the rate of four million dollars per year. The money will be expended by the provinces in the way suggested by the leader of the Opposition last night, namely, by their organizations and through their officials, but before any of the money can be expended an agreement must be entered into between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments setting forth the character of the road to be constructed and giving a general description, specifications, and practically the location of the road, although I believe the word "location" is not included in the resolution. The word "description", however, is included and before a dollar can be expended the location of the road, its character and description, and the specifications, must be agreed upon, and after that has been done the road must

be built under the inspection of engineers of the Federal Government as well as of the Provincial Government. All these safeguards must be carried out before the money is payable, and when they have been carried out I have no fear whatever there will be anything but an honest expenditure of the public money. The money will be spent on the roads on which it should be spent, not on by-ways by any means, but on highways -the great arteries of the. country- and I know of no other manner in which public money could be better expended during this reconstruction period. I need not argue the necessity of good highways, for there is hardly a man in this country to-day who has business to do or who seeks pleasure who is not aware of their necessity.
Reference was made yesterday to the. highways in the state of New York and other states of the Union. I do not know that we can hope to reach the degree of excellence of their roads within the next five years, but we can do something towards it. I had the pleasure last year of travelling over a part of the highway in the province of Quebec constructed by the Provincial Government in recent years, and I can only say that if we extend that class of highway through every province in Canada we shall have accomplished wonders. My hon. friend had evidently not read the resolution, because he did not seem to realize the method of distribution. He is right in saying there are only two possible methods. One would be on the mileage basis, and the other on the population basis. Both of these methods were considered, and it was decided to distribute the money on the basis of population, but in view of the tremendous proportion of the population of this country located in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario it was thought unfair to the smaller provinces- and I use the word simply with reference to their population-to make the distribution simply on that basis, and therefore we have set aside eighty thousand dollars per year for each province, large and small alike. In this way about twenty per cent, or $720,000, of the four million dollars per year will be appropriated, and the balance is to be divided among the provinces according to the last Dominion census; that is to say, according to the census of 1911 for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and according to the census of 1916 for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to figure it out, I think they will find the Gov-
[Mr. Carve 11.1
ernment proposal to be absolutely fair, and it ought to satisfy everybody. I only hope that every province in this Dominion will take early advantage of the proposal, not only for the benefit to themselves, but because this work will provide a tremendous amount of employment for the unemployed in different portions of Canada, and that, after all, is a matter of very great importance.
I have been talking about other departments, and it would be a very logical question for some one to ask, "What is your department going to do?" That is a question which, in view of the tremendous number of inquiries which have been put to me in the last three months, I think I ought to answer. I am afraid when the Estimates are brought down, as they will be at the close of this debate, there may be some minor disappointments in the minds of members and greater disappointment in the minds of municipal bodies and different organizations in Canada who have been looking forward to the construction of public works throughout the country to a very large extent during the coming financial year.	-
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the Public Works Department is concerned I am adhering strictly to the principle which I laid down some few minutes ago, namely, that we are not constructing public works simply because they would be a good thing for the community, but we are constructing them primarily because they will provide employment for the unemployed, although of course they will also be of economic value. We are going to start work in the large centres, where we know unemployment now exists, at the earliest possible moment. We intend to start the construction of public buildings in the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and probably Hamilton, within the next ten or fifteen days. I said "probably" with regard to Hamilton, because we may not be able to make just as early a start there as in the other places, but there will be only a few days difference.


Samuel Hughes: Where is Hamilton?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Somewhere on lake
Ontario, I believe. I am also going to take the responsibility of starting these works before the money has been voted by Parliament, because I believe Parliament will concur in our views and vote the money in order that we may relieve a certain amount of the unemployment that already exists in the large centres. It is the

duty of the Government to relieve that unemployment as far as possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will these works be
constructed by the Government, or by tender and contract?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: By tender and contract, most certainly. Perhaps I should qualify that statement to this extent: there may be some buildings which will have to be torn down to clear the site for the new ones. That work possibly might be done by the Government, but it would only be a small proportion of the work to be done, and so far as the main works are concerned that will be done by tender and contract.


Mr. ROSS:: What is the nature of these buildings?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In Montreal, an
extension to the Custom House. One-half of the Custom House there was built some years ago and the foundation prepared for the other half, we are now going to complete the building. In Toronto the building will be-I don't like to use the word "Custom House," as I do not like the term-but it will be a general Federal building which -will include the Custom House, and the same may be said of the building at Hamilton. In Calgary, the building will be for a post office primarily, but it too will be a Federal building to be used for Federal offices like the buildings in the other cities. Not only will these particular works provide employment, but the buildings are actually required to house the public servants in the cities I have mentioned. I wish I had sufficient money to erect buildings of this class in every large city, because one of the things that has surprised me greatly since I took charge of this department has been the rentals we are compelled to pay for offices for public services in different parts of the country. The rentals are simply tremendous. It would be a good business proposition, if we had the capital, to erect buildings in very many cases other than those I have referred to this afternoon. In the other branch of the Public Works Department, the Engineering branch, we are doing repair work and maintaining the works. There were some places, particularly down in the lower St. Lawrence, where tremendous damage was done by storms last year. In such cases repairs must be made, but I may as well tell the House that we are not putting in new works of a very extensive character, simply because we believe we can expend the money on other work, such as highways, railways and canals, shipbuilding
and such things as these which will produce better results and give more employment. Yet I think that hon. gentlemen will see from the estimate I have given that due regard has been had to maintaining the public service. If hon. members will consider the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister yesterday as well as the statement made by myself to-day, they will perceive that we are launching on a programme which involves the expenditure of a tremendous amount of money. We are asking Parliament to commit this' country to $20,000,000 for roads during the next five years. We are asking also for $25,000,000 to be spent on the housing programme to which I have not referred, and to which not much reference has been made. This programme means, so far as we are concerned, only loaning the money to the provinces at 5 per cent. We are pledging the credit of Canada in order that the provinces may be able to carry out this much-needed work. I do not know that the time has arrived in all parts of Canada when it is necessary that a public body should go into an extensive housing scheme, but there are, without any question whatever, conditions existing in some of the big cities which must be ameliorated. Perhaps unsanitary and improper housing conditions are the greatest breeders of unrest and anarchy which can exist in any country, and I think there are places in all Canada where conditions of this kind exist to a greater extent than they should. If the Dominion, the provinces and municipalities can do anything in these troublous times to put the people in better living conditions, they will be doing a wonderful work to make them happy and prosperous, and people cannot be happy unless they are fairly prosperous. But it means an expenditure of probably $25,000,000, which sum the Government must provide during the next three or four years for this housing scheme. In addition, there is the educational scheme which has been referred to by other speakers, involving a very large amount of money. My hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister yesterday afternoon referred to the tremendous sums we propose expending on railways during the coming year. I did not figure that up. I thought I had a citation of it before me, but it must amount to $70,000,000 or $80,000,000. It is so big that a matter of $10,000,000 does not matter much one way or the other.


Mr. ETHIER:: Is an amount for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal included in the programme?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not on the programme for the present year.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Is there any provision made for the construction of branch railways in Nova Scotia?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think not. I would not be positive about that however. I am speaking from memory, and did not expect to be asked about this railway question particularly. There is provision, as I recollect it, of about $10,000,000 for the construction of branch lines in the West. I think that this expenditure for the West will be pretty well confined to lines already partially constructed. Many of these lines have been graded and are only waiting for the steel. In general terms, the idea is to extend those lines already under construction, but, in addition, very large sums are to be expended on betterments over the whole Government system. This will distribute the money all over the country and will provide employment. After all, provision of employment is the great problem which we have to face in Canada to-day.
Having gone over some of the methods by which we propose to spend money, I do not know that I would be out of place if I touched upon the financial situation of the country, although not in the way of a budget speech. I was somewhat impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) last evening, when he said we ought to take stock, and see where we stand. I think that is a very good suggestion. I think the country and this Parliament could very well afford to take stock and learn our exact position. Mr. Speaker, we have been going through the greatest eruption the world has ever known. Canada has accomplished, in the way of providing an army, what would have been thought an absolute impossibility had anybody suggested it four and a half years ago. If any hon. gentleman had stated in this House in the session of 1914 that armies of half a million men could be raised in Canada in four years he would have been looked upon as a lunatic. Yet it has been done, and it could only have been done by lavish expenditure of money. Therefore, if our public debt has gone beyond anything we ever dreamed of, it is because it had to go; as long as the war was on there was no use in arguing, the money had to be provided. It has been provided. And remember another thing, Mr. Speaker, you cannot carry on any war without wasting money, because war is all 
waste; money has to be wasted. However, having gone through the war, and I am happy to say having gone through it successfully-I am talking now about the business affairs of the country and hot speaking of the war particularly-I think it behooves us as business men to take stock, and see where we stand. I am making these statements first for the careful consideration of the members of the House of Commons, and, secondly, I hope, for the careful consideration of the public at large. If there is one thing that has impressed me more than another since the signing of the armistice in November last, it has been the tremendous demand made upon my department and the Government generally for the expenditure of public money. I wondered at first what it meant, and, even to-day, I am not able to comprehend its meaning, but, having analysed it to the best of my ability, I think probably the war has had something to do with it. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that for four years the great businesses of this country have been carried on from an entirely different standpoint from that existing before the war. Formerly men had to look after their own business, do their own buying, do their own manufacturing, lookout for trade markets, and do their own collecting. But the war came on, and we had the Munitions Board and other Government activities, and the great majority of the banking business of the country has been carried on by the Government. This Government furnished the funds, the manufacturer furnished the goods, handed them over and got his cheque. The manufacturer, the farmer, the fisherman, the producer of all kinds of wealth simply furnished the goods, the Government paid him for them and he got it into his head that this was going to go on forever. He comes along and says: What is the trouble; we are not getting the orders that we got last year; why are these cheques not coming along as usual?
That is the only reason I can give for these tremendous demands which have been made upon the Government for money. We were asked almost to assume the role of commercial travellers as soon as the armistice was signed. It was believed that it was the duty of the Government to go to Europe, to Siberia, and all over the civilized world and get business. We are doing the best we can. We are not getting as much business as the business men of Canada would like us to get, and I might, perhaps, say that if the business men of



FEBRUARY 26, 19D9

[Stage Direction]
Canada would do a little more for themselves than they are doing they might get a little more business than they are getting. The time must come when the Government must cease acting as a foster father to the business institutions of the country.
We realize that it will be our duty for the next five or six months, or possibly a year, to do all we can to secure business for the country and we are doing that. But it is not as easy to get business on the other side of the Atlantic as we thought it would be. We thought that all we would have to do would be to go over and say: We have a million feet of lumber to sell; who will give us the most for it? The trouble is not that Europe- would not like to buy our lumber and the other produce that we have, but they have not got the money to pay for it. That is the real difficulty. As my hon. friend the Finance Minister stated yesterday, we are compelled to furnish credits: that is, we have to put up money in Canada to buy the goods from our own people, then turn around and sell them to foreign countries and take our chance of getting the money back. We will get it back in time, but it means a heavy financial burden that the Government has to carry.
Now, to come down to the more locdl conditions, to the demands for public works; I do not know how many millions of dollars I have been requested to spend in the last three months, but I think I would be safe in saying that it would run from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000. That is impossible under present conditions unless the Government and Parliament-because it gets back to Parliament in the end-want to lay down the policy of going out into the markets of the world and borrowing money for the purpose of expending it upon public works of a local character. If Parliament wants to accept that policy, the Government is here to carry out its directions.
But, before we launch upon that policy, I want to make my position clear because I believe it is my duty to lay before the country the condition of affairs as it exists at the present time. I have shown you how our debt has gone up, due to causes over which we had no control. I do not know exactly what the public debt is at the present time but I have no hesitation in saying that when this war is over and when the accounts are all paid and the balances are all struck-because you must remember we have been furnishing a very large amount of money for the British Government in Canada to be used in buying supplies and munitions and the British
Government have been paying our troops and furnishing them with supplies and munitions on the other side of the water and this is a question of accounting-1 do not think I will be very far astray when I say that our public debt will be $2,000,000,-
000.	Two billion dollars is a tremendous amount of money for a country like Canada and yet an amount of money which we can pay without any trouble, or upon which we can pay the interest, if we do not lose our heads and if we exercise business methods in carrying on the affairs of the country. I am not staggered; I am not surprised at the size of the amount. I am only pointing out that it is there. If I am anywhere near right in my figures this is going to mean to Canada an annual expense of about $110,000,000. Before the war, the interest on the public debt was only $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 and that was something that nobody ever thought about. It played no important part in our financial arrangements and if the Government, or Parliament, wanted to spend $1,000,000 or $2,000,000, or $5,000,000, or $10,000,000, on a public work, they could do so as far as the public debt was concerned. But here you have to face a very substantial sum and I do not think I am far astray when I say that it will mean an annual charge of $110,000,000. That is going to go on as long as you and I are on the earth and probably longer. I do not know whether I am right or wrong in my estimate but I think I am right when I say that pensions will eventually cost $50,000,000 a year. They are going to cost at least $30,000,000 during the present fiscal year and there are to-day in France and England over 20,000 sick and wounded (Canadian soldiers who have not even yet been brought home. When those 20,000 men come home a very great proportion of them will be entitled to pensions and no matter what other services in this country tare pinched, no matter what other services are going to be pared, pensions cannot be cut down. The men who stood between us and the extinction -of our civilization are entitled to fair treatment at the hands of the people of Canada no matter what differences of opinion there may be as to the scale of the pensions. There will be fault found by individual persons because the scale is not high enough. These things will continue but at least the policy as laid down with regard to pensions must be carried out and I do not believe that it will be a dollar less than $50,000,000 a year for years to come.
There is another new source of expenditure in connection with the war, and I am only
[Stage Direction]
dealing with war expenditures, which perhaps the people have not commenced to realize. I am sure my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) did not commence to realize it when he yesterday referred in the way he did to the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department. After pensions it is the greatest problem which the people of Canada have to face in so far as the soldier is concerned. I do not know but that it is even a greater problem than that of pensions. A pension goes to a man who is able to look out for himself. He takes his pension and uses it as part of his living expenses. But, we have, unfortunately, thousands of brave men who have been wounded, who have been sickened, who have been gassed, who come back not able to take care of themselves, not able to live even on their pensions and who must be taken care of by the State. The Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department has been created for the purpose of taking care of these men, if they are sick and trying to give them some sort of technical education in the hope of enabling them to take care of themselves and, in a general way, acting as a sort of godfather to the whole body of invalided soldiers. It is going to cost next year $25,000,000 to take care of the work of this ope department. The amoupt will probably be a decreasing sum. I believe that as time goes on it will take less money every year but it will go oh for the next forty or fifty years because just so long as there is a returned soldier who requires medical treatment just so long must the people of this country provide ways and means by which that man can receive such treatment. Under the regulations as they exist to-day, no matter whether it be this yeaT, or next year, or twenty-five years from now, every soldier who is sick, whether as a result of his war activities or not, is going to have the right to go to these institutions and receive medical and professional treatment. Therefore, these institutions must be kept up.
Now I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, only three items of expenditure which we must face as a result of our war activities, and they amount to the sum of $185,000,000. Think of it, $185,000,000, which we did not have to pay four and a half or five years ago-or perhaps I should say $175,000,000, because there are about ten or eleven millions of dollars of interest included in this estimates-of absolutely new expenditure which we must face. On taking the other side of the account and looking at our income-and I am only .going to give you a few of the big items,-I am not enumer-
	1	>
i
ating these figures for' the purpose of discussing the financial situation from any standpoint except to throw out to the people some ideas which will perhaps set them thinking along these lines and therefore I may not be absolutely correct in my figures-I will state now the receipts from three sources:	Customs, Excise, and Income and Business Profits Tax. Customs this year will yield about $140,000,000. I may be two or three million dollars astray, but I am not very far out of the way, and I believe that the Customs receipts this year are bigger than they will be next year. I want it to be remembered that I am not now discussing the fiscal situation of the country in any shape whatever-I am keeping away from that, another opportunity will probably be afforded before next July when these matters can be debated- I am just taking the fact that the buying powers of the people of Canada are greater at the present time than they have ever been in the past, and greater than they will be in the future for some years to come. We have imported more goods than we shall import in the future, and in addition to that everything costs from fifty to one hundred per cent more to-day than it did in the past. Therefore I think when I state the customs receipts as $140,000,000, I am giving you almost the top notch figures which we may expect to receive from this source, and I will be very much surprised if during the next few years they are not very materially reduced from that amount. The receipts from excise during this year will probably run up to $25,000,000. They may go a million or two above that sum, because it is pretty hard to estimate absolutely accurately the receipts from this source, but I think I am not very far from the mark when I place the receipts at the sum mentioned. The receipts from Income and Business Profits Tax I place at $30,000,000, and I think that is as high as we can possibly go. Now, Mr. Speaker, I see no way of increasing these three principal sources of revenue to any very great extent. No doubt the Income Tax can, and will be, increased. I agree with what my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) said with respect to this tax. Like him, I too will have to write a cheque for Income Tax. Like him also, I am glad it is as small as it is, and yet for the country's sake I wish it were four or five times as great.
I am a firm believer in the Income Tax; in fact I am one of those who believe that the scope of this tax should be very largely extended. I believe the scope of this tax should be extended
[Stage Direction]
upward and downward so that it might take in practically every man and woman who earns income in this country. I do not mean to say that the Income Tax should be made so great as to become absolutely burdensome; but I would like to see every man who earns $1,000 paying an Income Tax-not a very big tax, but enough to cause him to realize that he is helping to pay the taxes of this country. I know of nothing that will conduce to better government, and the more honest administration of public affairs, than the fact that the common people realize they are paying a straight tax into the coffers of the Government. However, that is only a statement by the way, in speaking as I do I am only giving my own personal views. I do not believe that the revenue from the Business Profits and Income 3 p.m. Tax, while it probably can exceed the figures I have mentioned, will do so to any very great extent. Possibly I may be pardoned here, even though the present debate may not relate to the Budget, in stating that I see very grave difficulty in continuing the Business Profits Tax. That tax was all right during war time, but in peace time-* I am only giving my own individual view's, and not in any way speaking for the Government-it is an improper method of taxation to apply. During war time men make tremendous profits, and should hand back a portion of those profits to the Government. But upon the restoration of peace, I have some doubt whether industry will flourish, whether men will invest their capital to any great extent in the carrying on of business if they see that a very great proportion of their profits is going to be taken away from them in the shape of taxation. Therefore Parliament will have to consider very carefully this question of Business Profits Tax. The question of Income Tax should also be considered very carefully; but be that as it may, the amount of money which we can obtain from these sources is somewhat limited. The three items which I have already given you as representing our three chief sources of income during the present fiscal year are practically accurate, and it is therefore apparent that the moneys which we must pay out each year for many years to come amount to almost as much as the total revenue from the three principal sources referred to. In addition, the affairs of the country must be carried on. All the different departments of the Government must be maintained. The militia, whatever there
may be of it, must be carried on. The Naval Department, whatever there may be of it, must be carried on. The railways must be carried on, and from present indications it is going to take some money to maintain and operate those railways in Canada during the next ten years. The public works of'the country must be carried on-all the activities of life, in so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, must be carried on; and I want to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that this cannot be done for less than $125,000,000.
I have shown you that practically the whole liquid revenue of this country will be taken up with the debts, or with demands, directly due to the war. The question then arises which every business man must ask himself-where is the other $100,000,000 to come from? That is the question which I want the people of this country to ask themselves when they demand the expenditure of public moneys because in their opinion it would be a splendid thing to nave that money spent in their respective communities. That is put up to me in my own province, it has boen put up to mo from every province in Canada, and I know it has been put up to every member of this House. There is no question about that, I have the evidence so far as a great many of these demands are concerned. Demands of this character are put up to members of Parliament. Their constituents come to them and say: "We must have a building here, we must have a wharf there, we must have a breakwater somewhere else." 1 want the people of this country to realize the situation, and I want them to ask themselves the question, " Where is this extra $125,000,000 a year coming from?" If they make satisfactory answer to that question I am prepared to go on and build public works for them. No man who ever occupied the position of Minister of Public Works would like any better than I would to do so, I wish I could build ten times as much as I am building; but I try to look upon governmental affairs as a business proposition; and when I cannot see in sight the money with which to carry out these public works I am compelled to ask myself: Am I justified in going out into the money markets of the world and borrowing money for this purpose, or am I not? That is the question which members of this House must ask themselves, and that is the question which the people of Canada must ask themselves and answer before, as a matter of policy, the Government can reach a satisfactory conclusion on the question.
[Stage Direction]


Now, I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not consider that I am a pessimist because I have given to the House some little indication of the financial position of this country, because, as a matter of fact, I am not. An hon. gentleman behind me makes the observation that he has heard more cheerful speeches. I want to state, Mr. Speaker, that when I started to make these few remarks I resolved that I would not be an optimist. For that reason I have made the remarks I have this afternoon. I wanted to set hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) thinking. He usually does some thinking, and I hope before this debate is concluded we shall hear some of his thoughts; I am sure he will give us thoughts along good business and economic lines. However, if anybody conceives the idea from the remarks which have fallen from me this afternoon that this country is bankrupt, that it cannot pay its liabilities and cannot go and borrow money if it wishes to, such an impression is wrong. We are in nothing like the condition of European countries. I read in the newspapers-I think it was yesterday morning- that there is very serious talk of repudiation of public debt in Europe.
I hope it is not true, but we see it in the newspapers. There seems to he no doubt whatever that Germany will repudiate her public debt. Personally, I hope that she will repudiate it for about fifty years, until she has paid a proper indemnity to the rest of the civilized world. I am not worrying at all about the repudiation of the public debt of Germany or of Austria. But a very serious condition exists in Great Britain. They have a debt which is so large that one sometimes wonders how they can pay it; but I believe that they can. I am happy to say that Canada is in a different position. Our debt is large, but with our tremendously valuable natural resources and with the possibility of obtaining immigration after things settle down, we shall be all right. We want immigration if we can get the right kind. Those who come to this country must be hand-picked,. I admit, but we want immigration; we want to settle our vast fertile areas in the Northwest. W7hen I was in that country last September and October I was amazed at the amount of land that is not being cultivated. I had been there before, hut I had never realized the extent of it. There are chances enough out there to double, treble and quadruple the present output of the country, and with that wonderful heritage at our hand I see no difficulty whatever in getting more immigration.

I went over the Transcontinental last year, and I saw people taking up the forest land in the province of Quebec and hewing out homes for themselves in the wilderness! I found the same thing in the northern part of New Brunswick. When I was in British Columbia I visited the copper mines, and found them to be simply marvellous. When we consider the resources of our country, a man would be out of his mind to insinuate for a moment that we cannot pay our debt, and at the same time carry on the public services. But we have to adopt cautious business methods in order to tide ourselves over the	next four	or five years.
We have to consider all our expenditures. This year we are expending money, which, we admit, is borrowed money -borrowed, it is true, from the people of Canada, but borrowed just the same- money which must be repaid, principal and interest. But the expenditure has to be made; therefore I am not halting a moment in proposing the expenditure which we are asking Parliament to vote us for the present year. But I am asking the House to look carefully into the condition of affairs before the coming financial year is over, with a view to seeing what we are going to do in the future, and to look carefully and from a business standpoint into the question where we are going to get the extra $100,000,000 of revenue which we shall require after this fiscal year.
I believe that Canada will go through the reconstruction period in better condition than any other of the warring nations except the United States, and possibly we shall be in as good a position as that country. We have some unemployment, but, I am happy to say, not very much. When all the works which the Government of Canada is proposing and will propose in the Estimates to be brought down in a few days, as well as the works which are foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne, are carried out; when the provinces and the municipalities do their share, and when the manufacturers and employers of labour do their duty, we shall make some progress. I think that here I ought to say what I have said in public on two or three occasions. Hundreds of firms in Canada have grown rich through carrying on war business, and it is their duty to employ every man they possibly can employ during the reconstruction period, whether they make profits or not. I do not say that they should do that to the extent of losing their capital, but if they do no more than break even, it is their duty to keep on employing men, to assist
[Stage Direction]
in avoiding unemployment throughout the country. The watchword of the governments, federal and provincial, and municipal; of business men, farmers, and all who can employ labour during the next year or two, ought to be, keep unemployment out of the country if you possibly can. If we keep every man employed who ought to be employed or who wants to be employed, it is a very small question to us what our debt may be or what our method of taxation may be. If we keep our people employed for the next year or two we shall have no Bolshevism or anarchism and many of our difficulties will be solved; we shall have no trouble in getting back to ordinary conditions of civil life, and there is no reason why Canada should not go on and prosper.
Having said this, I have said all that I wish to say; I simply wanted to throw out this warning. I have faith in the ability of our country to overcome all obstacles.
I am confident that the people will do their share, and if this Parliament does its duty during the next year or two I have no fear for the outcome; Canada will be back to a peace basis, a richer, prouder and happier nation than ever.
Peter H. McKenzie: The minister has invited a question, and before he concludes I want to put it to him. He asked three or four times how we were going to get this $100,000,000. Perhaps the minister, having some inside information, will tell us what he himself thinks about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I stated that I was not making a budget speech; that I was simply asking the House and the country to do some thinking. By the time the Budget is brought down, my hon. friend, as well as members on this side of the House, will have had time to give thought to the matter and the question can then, perhaps, be answered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: So far, the minister
does not know.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and . Guysborough): Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my old room-mate and intimate friend (Mr. McKenzie) on being appointed temporarily to the position of leader of the Liberal party. Knowing him as I do, I feel sure that he will fill the position with great credit to himself as well as to the men who have honoured him with their confidence.
I wish also to be permitted to thank the leader of the House (Sir Thomas White)
for the very generous and eloquent tribute he paid yesterday to my departed leader. The speeches yesterday were of a very high order indeed and quite worthy of the traditions of this House. I wish to add a few words on behalf of the old Liberal guard of Nova Scotia. The leader of the Opposition spoke for the Liberals of all Canada, but I want; to speak for a moment specially for the Liberals of Nova Scotia as to the loss that we have sustained in the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I believe that in no province of Canada, unless it be the province of Quebec, did the departed leader have a more loyal and devoted following than he had in Nova Scotia. Throughout his long career he has been admired and trusted by the Liberal party of that province. Since the days of Joseph Howe no public man has secured the confidence and devotion of the Liberals of Nova Scotia to the same extent as Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was to the Liberals of that province what the trusted and revered Highland chieftain was in the old days to the clansmen in the Scottish glens.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to miss any of the speech of the hon. member.
I would like to hear what is said. We cannot hear very plainly, and I would, therefore, ask my hon. friend most respectfully if he would speak a little louder.


John Howard Sinclair: I shall endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. friend. I am not now referring to the leaders of the party in the province of Nova Scotia; I am referring chiefly to the rank and file. In that province, in the farm houses on the hillsides and in the valleys, in the homes of the fishermen in the harbours and coves along our rock-bound coast, in the huts of the lumbermen in the forests, as well as in our more populous towns and cities, there are tens of thousands of men and women who are feeling a deep sense of personal loss in the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If, Sir, you will permit me a personal reference, I have known Sir Wilfrid for a quarter of a century. I had the honour of his friendship, and it was one of my most precious possessions. I have seen him scores of times when he was dealing with questions of more or less difficulty in his own room with his friends around him, or in the secret caucus of the party, where a man is bound to show his hand, and I have never known a single occasion, whether I agreed with him or not, on which I did not believe him to be actuated by the highest and best motives.

He had in marked degree two qualities that every great statesman must possess, namely initiative and courage. In 1911, with two years of his Parliamentary term yet to run, he staked all on a great issue and lost. To be satisfied that he was right was more to him than to be successful, and time has amply vindicated his course in regard to that great question. His followers, when that contest was over, all greatly admired the cheerful way in which he accepted his defeat, and at the age of seventy again hoisted the flag on a new battlefield. He was a good loser. He was great in victory, but he was even greater in defeat. He was a true democrat; was always willing to accept the verdict of the people. His lifelong ambition was to stamp out racial and religious strife from the public life of this country, and to help build up on the northern half of this continent a great, prosperous and united Canada, a land where there would be justice for all, free scope for all, a fair reward for labour and a new home for freedom. He always stood firmly for British connection, but he used to say that loyalty is the child of freedom, and that if British connection is to be built on an enduring foundation, the Canadian people must maintain the right to manage their own affairs.
Many things have been said about Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his time, but no Canadian worthy of the name ever doubted his honour or his patriotism. He was a great Canadian, but he was more than that. His reputation was wide as the Empire itself, and his memory will be cherished by men everywhere * who love liberty and admire courage and devotion to duty. He died in harness, with his heart still young and his intellect unimpaired. The manner of his taking off is, I am sure, what he would himself have chosen. Our grief is not for him; it is for his sorrowing, stricken and lonely widow', and for ourselves. He was a diligent student all his lifetime and his mind was well stored with the classics of both languages. His English models were Shakespeare and the Bible. Amongst his heroes in the affairs of State were such men as Bright, Gladstone and Lincoln. He also had great admiration for those doughty reformers of his ov'n mother land, Mon-talembert and Lacordaire. He had a firm grasp of current literature and current events. I have frequently heard him talk in his own delightful way about books and men and events, and on such occasions I have often thought, what a pity that death will some day come and make an end at one stroke of all this accumulated store of 
knowledge and experience. The stroke came and left us only the memory of his life and the inspiration of his example; but those are precious things to possess, and we are glad, even in the midst of our sorrow, that we knew him when he was here. We can say of Sir Wilfrid what was said by an English poet of the late Lord Roberts:
Clean, simple, valiant, well-beloved.
Flawless in faith in fame.
Whom neither ease nor honours moved A hair-breadth from his aim.
And yet from life a new life springs Through all the years to come,
And glory is the least of things That follow this man home.
Mr. Speaker, I wish, in referring briefly to the Address, to associate myself with the sentiment expressed in the Speech from the Throne regarding the successful ending of.the war. After four years of what looked at one time almost like a hopeless struggle, victory at last came. Our troubles, as the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) has said, are not yet over; but it is a splendid thing amidst all our anxieties that the casualty list is closed and the guns are silent. This country has reason to be proud of its record, and it has a special reason to be proud of its soldiers. When their achievements in this war are recorded there will be no more splendid story in the history of this or any other country. Kipling says that this is the first time since creation when the whole world has united to fight the devil, and we have every reason to rejoice that the world has been successful. Prussianism has been beaten into the dust by its own weapons, and its brute force has been overcome by the valour of free men inspired by the knowledge that they were fighting for right against wrong. To my mind, the most hopeful feature of the situation is the destruction of autocracy in Central Europe. War lords never flourish in a democratic country. England was very loath to go to war; so was France,; so was the United States. The establishment of responsible Government in Central Europe is the best guarantee that we can have for the future peace of the world. As I have said, we have every reason to be proud of and to rejoice in our victory; but it is not a time to tighten our purse-strings or to relax our efforts, especially in so far as our soldiers and their dependents are concerned. More than ever, now that the war is over, we must make our soldiers feel that we are not indifferent to or ungrateful for the splendid work that they have done for us during the past four year?

I would like to be permitted to quote this plank from the platform of the Liberal party in Great Britain, adopted at a conference held in Manchester in Novembei last:-
This committee pledges itself to secure that our sailors and soldiers shall have the first claim upon the consideration of Parliament as they already have upon the gratitude of the nation; that none of those who have served in the national forces shall be allowed to fall into distress either from lack of employment or from any other defect in our social organization ; that those who have been incapacitated from following their old occupations shall be freely assisted to train themselves for new employments, and shall be further assisted by the State in every practicable way to establish themselves in business or as wage earners; that the pensions from the State to disabled men and to widows and children shall be sufficient in amount to secure a satisfactory standard of comfort, and that the Pension Fund shall be generously and sympathetically administered.
This language expresses the needs of the hour so clearly that in my judgment the Liberal party of Canada could not do better than adopt it, and bend their energies to enforce it. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) in which he informed us that large grants were to be made for certain local improvements, including highways in the provinces, and housing. He told us that the Government intends to control the expenditure of this money, that conditions are to be attached to the expenditure, and an agreement is to be made between the local and federal government before the money can be expended. I wish to enter my protest against that proposal. I do not think there should be any dictation on the part of the federal government as to how the money is to be spent by the local governments. The local governments already have their machinery; they have highway organizations, and highways by the constitution have been placed absolutely under their jurisdiction. If this Government can afford to advance the provinces' money for that purpose, well and good; but I consider it a mistake to attempt to control the local governments in any way in the expenditure of the money that is placed in their hands. To my mind it is' an insiduous way of securing control over local affairs. I have noticed in recent years when grants have been made by this Government there has been a tendency to encroach on the rights of the legislatures in the various provinces. There is no reason why this Government should direct the expenditure of highway money any more than the expenditure of money for education. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) has in his way been a sort of champion of provincial rights. He has been claiming for the Western provinces their natural resources.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But has not got them yet.


John Howard Sinclair: But that is his policy.


Mr. CALDER:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: Now he is a member of this Government. Why, then does he not stand up for the rights of the provinces. Why is he asking for the natural resources to be given to the West? I assume it is in order that the Western provinces may be put in a position to manage their own local affairs. Then why not allow rll the provinces to control without Federal supervision the money that is to be expended on their highways? I submit that this policy oi attempting to control the expenditure is wrong, and while I do not wish to be understood as opposing at the present time the grant for highways, I say it should be a free grant without any strings to it. If we have money to give to the provinces, I submit, the proper way to give it would be to increase the provincial subsidies and allow the provinces to manage their own affairs. The provinces are not mendicants. They are not asking for money that does not belong to them. The money comes from the provinces in the first place, and the Provincial Governments can be trusted to expend this money just as wisely as the Federal Government possibly could.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend advocate the expenditure of mis money?	.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, but I am opposed to any conditions being imposed by the Federal Government in connection with its expenditure. The Minister of Public Works also referred to the construction of ships. He told us the Government had embarked on a policy of building ships, and that a very large sum of money was to be expended. He admitted he could go into the market at the present time and buy ships cheaper than he could possibly build them. If that be true, why pay more than they are worth? As far as my information goes, I believe that he is paying under these contracts about four times the normal value for the ships he is proposing to build. In normal times ships could be built for about $50 per ton dead weight; but in the contracts I have seen the Government is paying something like $200 per ton. The Government will never see

their money again; I fear it is an improvident proposal. It took the Government four years finally to make up its mind to purchase ships. The time to purchase ships if they were to be of service in the war was in 1914 when the war broke out, but the Government waited until the war was about over, and then embarked on a very expensive programme of building ships for which they propose to pay four times the normal price. Such a policy is not at all likely to promote the building of ships in Canada. If the Government could devise a way of promoting and assisting ship-building in Canada, that .would be a very wise and proper move to make, but to buy ships at four times the normal price is certainly not likely to stimulate the building of ships by private enterprise. I am not in favour of Government ownership of tramp vessels; I do not think the policy a wise one, and I do not think it will do much to solve the problem of providing employment which I understood the Minister to say was the main reason for its adoption. If that is the Government's object, I can say that I know of no other industry that gives so little employment of labour for the amount of money expended as the building of steel ships. The production of the plates and other material call for a large amount of labour, but the material in the case of the present contracts is to come chiefly from the United States. The Government could easily have found some other industry where they could have employed a larger number of people with a smaller expenditure of money. Is there not something we can do in this country that would bring us in some return? Would it not be better, for instance, to buy tractors and plough np the western prairies and produce wheat?


Michael Clark: We would need the ships to carry the wheat.


Mr. SINCLAIK:: I am afraid if we make the rates of freight correspond with the outlay on the ships the wheat would be too expensive. Would it not be a saner policy to expend part of this money in building branch lines of railway in Nova Scotia? I can show my hon. friend places in my own constituency where by the construction of a branch line, he would open up the country and encourage production and help at the same time to make the Intercolonial profitable. Building branch lines of railway where they are needed would be doing something for the country, and would be a far better policy than buying expensive ships for which there does not seem to be any future to justify the expenditure involved. 
So much for the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. The return of peace creates a new situation in this country, so far as the two old political parties are concerned. The Union Government was formed ostensibly to carry on the war. Thousands of patriotic people voted for it because they believed that to be the real reason back of it. My humble opinion is that these people were deceived. What are the results? Our brave soldiers did their full share toward winning the war, but I am not so sure about the record of the Union Government. What they have done to win the war remains to be shown. If you say they won it by means of the Military Service Act, that statement will require to be substantiated; we have yet to learn that any substantial number of the soldiers conscripted under that Act ever reached the firing line. We on this side were not deceived. We were well aware that the Union Government was formed, not to win the war, but to defeat the Liberal party and win the election. There was a zig-zag streak in it from its inception. It is obvious that if it was a war move it should have come three years earlier. But it came on the eve of the election when it was clear to the Prime Minister and to everybody else that the old Conservative-Nationalist party could not win the election. But even if, for the sake of argument, we say it was formed to win the war, the war has been won and the reason for its formation no longer exists. What is wanted now in this country is a strong and efficient government, with a united party behind it. I do not think any one will pretend that this Government has a united party behind it. The supporters of this Government, like old Gaul, are divided into three parts. There are, first, the Unionist Liberals, a distinct class by themselves. Then there are the Unionist Conservatives, who, I am told, have no great love for some of the Unionist Liberals In the third place, there are the real Conservatives, who, I am also told do not waste any affection on either of the other two. Now on all sides the question is asked, will the Prime Minister, now that the war is over, attempt to keep this ramshackle party together. It is not for me to answer that question. If it is contended that Union Government should be kept together for the purpose of reconstruction I beg to take issue squarely with that proposition. To put forward such a contention would be to take refuge in an indefensible line of trenches. Will

any one seriously contend that a Cabinet dominated by the big interests and led by a dispenser of titles is likely to give an efficient lead to the work of reconstruction on democratic lines? Besides this, Union Government is regarded, even by its chief supporters, as a temporary makeshift. My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) at Toronto, on January 12th, informed his audience that the Union Liberals proposed to remain until the soldiers got home. I understand this to mean that when the last transport ship touches the wharf at Halifax or St. John the whole combination will fall to pieces like a house of cards, and after that it will be every man for himself-and let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the fate that is said to overtake the hindmost will not overtake any of them. But, speaking seriously, is it reasonable to expect any progressive or constructive legislation from a government with a death sentence like that hanging over it? You know, Mr. Speaker, that a man who is in prison awaiting his execution is most likely to spend most of his time preparing for death. Apart from this, the reconstruction party may well last for four or five years, and I submit it should not be left for a moment in the hands of a government that is not now, and never was, representative of the Canadian people. The Parliament that deals with reconstruction should be a parliament fresh from the people, elected without any switching of ballots, without any aid from the War Franchise Act, and without resort to the rusty tools of the bigot or the fanatic, and without any manipulation on the part of the press or the big interests. The Military Service Act, which was made a pretext for smashing the Liberal party, is no longer a live issue. Its usefulness, if it was useful, practically ended with the firing of the last gun. This gives rise to a new situation. The question arises, what will be the ultimate fate of the Liberals who strayed away from the fold? The question was raised yesterday, will these wanderers come back or will they end up by taking refuge in the bosom of the Prime Minister? These Liberal Unionists will have to decide that question for themselves. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) in his speech yesterday left the latch string out, and a light in the kitchen window. I want to warn these old friends of mine, however, not to make the mistake that the prodigal made, for he stayed so long in the far country that his new master put him to work at a very undignified and menial task. It
would be a positive grief to me, Sir, to think that any of these old friends of mine, who sat with me for so many years around the fireside of the Liberal party, should ever be set to work to fatten pork barons or other animals of that class. Permit me to suggest to these gentlemen that if they are coming back, the sooner the better. Besides, there is a limit to the time that the fatted calf may be kept waiting. The Union theory of government has had its day. It has been tried, and I submit that it has been found wanting. In 1917 certain wily politicians, assisted by the newspapers and a few energetic millionaires, spread the doctrine that in politics there should be no party, and that we should all be of one mind and do just what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance told us to do. The result of their proposals was to establish in Canada an autocratic government somewhat similar to the government that existed in Germany before the war. With the help of the War Franchise Act they succeeded. The result is that we have had an Administration that has thrown Parliament overboard and assumed more absolute control over the life and liberties of the people of this Dominion than was ever claimed by the Kaiser of Germany over his people. We must not lose sight of the fact that this country belongs to the people and not to the Union Government. The fact is that to-day in Canada we do not enjoy the blessings of responsible government. We are living under a government of party bosses, who, in secret conclave and behind closed doors, decide among themselves what we shall have and what we shall not have. The members of this Parliament are not masters of anybody. They are the servants of the Canadian people. What would you think, Mr. Speaker, of a servant who would not tell his master what he was doing? They have governed this country by orders in council, a system which has been aptly desciibed as law-making in the dark. Thousands of these orders have been passed, all in secret and behind closed doors. So arrogant did they become that some of these orders in council, of vital concern to the people of this country, were passed while Parliament was in session, without consulting the people's representatives. One of these secret regulations affected the liberty of every workingman in Canada, but it was passed without notice and without any opportunity for discussion. The theory of this Government evidently is that all the people have to do with the laws is

' to obey them and leave the making of them to their betters. So much for the methods of the Union Government. The old party system may be denounced by superfine philosophers but it is the best guarantee we have for good, clean, honest and progressive government. It has produced the soundest constiution in the world and worked that constitution in the Mother of Parliaments without a serious hitch for over two hundred years. The result of all this is the splendid fabric of British liberty, no part of which can be placed to the credit of the Mugwumps. An alert Opposition is always useful and desirable and is just as necessary in wartime as in times of peace. There is such a thing as checking graft and stopping extravagant and wasteful expenditure by prompt and courageous action on the part of the Opposition. We on this side frankly confess that we regarded it as a fitting thing that while the war was on, and the State was fighting for its life, no pains should be spared to promote a calm and friendly atmosphere and thereby focus attention upon the war and the issues arising out of the war. But even this can be carried too far. Everybody knows now that the easy-going method adopted by the Opposition during the early months of the war produced evil results. Graft became rampant. Millions of money were stolen and millions more wasted and the patronage system had spread so that the efficiency of the army was threatened. Then came the investigations and exposures. These exposures were of immense value to the country. No man can estimate their value. For example, after the investigations before the Public Accounts Committee, and the Kyte charges, and the exposures that followed, the operations of such grafters as Benjamin Franklyn Yoakum and Col. John Wesley Allison became impossible.
These recent experiences warrant the conclusion that an alert Opposition is the only safety and the first requisite of a decent democracy. The man who repudiates the party system, denies the doctrine of the sovereignty o* the people.
Reference has been made to the success of the Victory Loan, and it is certainly a matter for congratulation that the response was so cordial. The last two domestic loans aggregated over a billion dollars. The annual interest charge on these loans alone will exceed $50,000,000. This very large sum has been made absolutely free from taxation and in my judgment, improperly so. The large interest rate was ample without this concession, and if the Finance Minister had

trusted the people, if he had appealed to the patriotism of the people instead of their greed, he would not have been disappointed. Taxation or no taxation makes no difference to the small investor. It is in the case of the super-tax where the pinch comes. The small investor pays no super-tax. Why then were the bonds made free? There can only be the one answer. It was done to accommodate the plutocrats, or as Disraeli would say, " The paladins of High Finance."
Referring back to the election contest of 1917, what shall we say of a political party that was pledged to the hilt to the conscription of wealth, and when they secured power not only failed to conscript wealth but went so far in the opposite direction as to make wealth free from taxation? The result will be that while the returned soldier will have to pay, the millionaire and the profiteer will be free from the burden of the war. The hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has good points about him but he started wrong. If	he will	excuse me for	saying so. He entered public life, not as the representative of the people, but as the representative of	the	big interests. Underhis	management	the	manufacturers	havebeen treated tenderly; so have the banks, the	millionaires	and	the profiteers.	Myhon.	friend has been at the head
of our financial system for the past eight years, but so far as I know he never yet showed any disposition to drive any of the money changers out of the temple. This last act of freeing the war bonds from taxation is quite consistent with his past record and is what the people of Canada had every reason to expect. There appears to be no end to my hon. friend's borrowing. He has become a sort of political Oliver Twist. No sooner does he finish one plate of soup than he begins to clamour for another.
A few months ago he announced that in order to tide him over the year 1919 he would require about $300,000,000. A little later he hinted that he could make use of $500,000,000. By offering an extravagant rate of interest and freedom from taxation, he secured from the Canadian people about $687,000,000. But he was not satisfied. No sooner had he secured this enormous sum of money than he wants more. Without stopping to take breath he organizes a new borrowing scheme by means of thrift stamps. If this abnormal appetite for "more" continues, T suppose we shall have to resort to the old remedy of brimstone

and molasses. I am not saying that I object to thrift stamps, but the thrift will be very one-sided if there is no thrift on the part of the Government. Why should we ask the little children and old women in the country to save up their cents and invest their savings in war stamps in order to give money to a Government that will not take care of the money or use it properly when they get it?
Just a word on the food question. People everywhere are asking why the Food Board, which has been in operation for years, has failed to control prices, while the Food Boards in Great Britain and the United States have succeeded. It would be interesting to know the reason. The prices of food have gone sky-high, but only a very small part of the increase has gone to the farmer or the fisherman. The big millers and the pork barons and the middlemen have grown fat and flourished under the very noses of the hoard. While our soldiers were fighting the Hun in Europe, the Government gave the Hun profiteer at home a free hand to fleece the Canadian people. What does the hungry labourer with a large family to feed, and flour at $14 per barrel and bread at 14 cents for a 2-pound loaf, think when he reads in the papers that the Ogilvie Flour Mill Company has distributed to its millionaire shareholders 12 per cent dividend and 15 per cent bonus last year? When the labourer remembers how tenderly the celebrated pork baron of Toronto was treated after the O'Connor exposure, and when he sees these flour barons pocketing 27 per cent on their investment, while his family is feeling the pinch of these outrageous prices, is he not driven to the conclusion that in some way or other these big interests are under the protection of this Government?	_
There has been enormous expenditure of money in connection with the work of this Food Board, there Jiave been investigations and cartloads of advice, but I am not aware that any poor man in Canada, or any soldier's wife or widow, has been able to buy a pound of beef, or a loaf of bread, any cheaper by reason of the expenditure of all this money and all this energy. The question is naturally asked, What is the'fi to show for it all. I read a story recentlj in an English paper that a conservation orator over there was deploring the fact that Great Britain is compelled to import so much timber. " It is my belief," said the speaker, " that there is hot a man in this vast- audience who ever did a single thing to prevent the destruction of our forests." Thereupon a man arose in the
rear of the hall and said: "I beg your pardon, Sir, I have shot woodpeckers."
I will not say that the Food Board has accomplished nothing, but considering the money expended, the results have certainly been meagre. The control of prices was the most important task committed to them, and in this they have signally failed. If you want proof of this, I can furnish it from themselves. We have their own admission. On page 5 of the Canadian Food Bulletin of November, 1918, I find the following:
Plainly, the fixing of prices cannot he done by a centralized control at Ottawa, and it is worth noting that all food orders must, under our Constitution, be made for the whole of the Dominion; the only way to limit their application to one area is to make exceptions of all other areas. That is, the order must be chipped and whittled down negatively to the rer quired size if it is to be localized. If prices are to be fixed in a way which shall not cut off supplies, it must be done by local power. What other power better represents the people than a properly elected municipal council?
There you have it. During the past four years we have this highly paid organization fooling and fiddling over the prices of food, and at the end of it all we have the helpless admission that they cannot do anything at all, and that the only institution that is capable of doing anything is the municipal councils. Now, that may be true, but why, let me ask, go through all this solemn hocus-pocus covering a period of four years, to reach this conclusion? Mr. Speaker, >vhat do you think of this Food Board, and what do you think of a Government that during the whole four years of the war has tolerated this muddling and tinkering with a question so vital to the Canadian people?
Reference has been made in this debate to the prevalence of industrial unrest. I want to make the statement that the chief cause of industrial unrest is the high cost of living, and the general belief in the existence of profiteering. Wages have increased, but wages have not kept pace with the high cost of living. Under these circumstances what should the Government have done? They should have taken these profiteers and middlemen by the throat and compelled them to reduce their demands. What did the Government do? They took a short cut, they went behind closed doors and passed an Order in Council making it a criminal offence for a working man to strike, while at the same time the chief offenders were allowed to go scot free. They did more, they appointed a Director of Public Safety, and organized a

force of Dominion Police, so that if the hungry man clamoured too loudly for more wages they could furnish him with a pair of handcuffs. I want to say to my hon. friend the leader of the Government that we will never build the New Jerusalem in this free land of ours by resorting to these Hun methods.
This Administration has claimed a great
deal of credit for abolishing patronage and reforming the Civil Service. It would appear that some good people actually believe that they did these things. I have seen a report of a meeting of clergymen where they passed a resolution thanking the Lord that the Union Government had the grace and strength given them to effect these reforms. My own idea is that the Lord had nothing to do with it, and judging from the amount of deception practised in connection with the matter I am inclined to view that it came from the opposite quarter. The trouble with some well-meaning clergymen . is that their bump of credulity is abnormally large. The western farmers evidently do not think patronage iias been abolished. At their meeting in Winnipeg in November last, they placed the abolition of patronage as one of the chief planks of their platform for the next election. The trouble with the Civil Service is that it was debauched after 1911, and reform is impossible without first cleaning out the stable. It has not been forgotten that within two years after the Administration came into power, they crowded the Civil Service with 25,000 new appointments. There were only about half that number of vacancies made by deaths and dismissals. This new army was not needed, and they demoralized the whole service,
4	p.m. and this condition still prevails and cannot be remedied by organizing a board to make new appointments.
If the Government cannot muster the courage to send their unwelcome friends back to productive employment, the only thing to do is to wait for ten thousand funerals before any remedy is possible. Prof. W. L. Grant, who has been studying the situation, suggests as a partial remedy that no new appointments be made for the next five years. In this connection permit me to quote from The Civilian. The Civilian is the only paper in Canada that is wholly devoted to the Civil Service, and should be the best authority on that question. The item I refer to is a report of an interview between the executive of the Civil Service Association and Sir George Poster, relating to the distribution of a proposed war bonus. 
When the question arose as to what the total expenditure would amount to if this bonus were paid, we find the following statement:
This, of course was a mere matter of multiplication-so many civil servants at $350 apiece, total so much. But the difficulty Is in the first factor in the calculation, for, as was pointed out by Mr. Burling and others, nobody knows how many civil servants there are. The Civil Service Commission is carrying on at this moment a most elaborate inquiry partly with the object of ascertaining exactly what persons are to be counted-as belonging to the Service.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, from this item that the chief trouble is that the Government has crowded the departments with employees to such an extent that nobody can say how many civil servants there are, and they frankly confess their inability to count one another. I am informed that the Government actually employed a firm of experts in the United States to count and classify them. We must also remember that this is the condition of affairs in the year, of our Lord, 1918, after four years of war; and during that whole period the Government had been crying out about the scarcity of labour and imploring old and young, women and children, to volunteer to work in the fields and factories so as to save the nation and win the war; and all the time they had battalions of chairwarmers in their own offices paid at the public expense to do' nothing; and in the very months that the war ended, these employees were still so numerous that they themselves recognized the difficulty of counting one another. All I have to say is that the clergymen who thanked God for what the Union Government accomplished in connection with the Civil Service were satisfied with very small mercies.
Curious things have happened in this country the past year. A certain Rip Van Winkle by the name of Parsons, who, I am told, was recently the official head of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, has been attempting to raise the old, discredited cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees. That cry, as hon. gentlemen will remember, did good service for him and his associates in 1911. The only explanation of his reverting to that cry now is that he must have been asleep during the last four years. In the face of all our recent experiences to the contrary he again quotes the worn-out remark of ex-President Taft that an exchange of products between the two countries would make Canada an adjunct of the United States. This argument had its origin in prejudice, and found a ready market at the time among men of

low intelligence and high credulity. But after the experiences of the past four years I feel confient that even this class will regard it as out of date and refuse to accept it. It was never contended that the reciprocity agreement was not a fair bargain: its opponents frankly admitted that it was absolutely fair. Besides, it contained a clause enabling us to withdraw from it at any time we . saw fit to do so. Still, with all these precautions, certain hon. gentlemen opposite, of whom the leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) was one, professed to be alarmed about our fiscal independence. It does not take much to frighten some people. It has not been forgotten that a few years ago some hon. gentlemen opposite used to smell annexation and treason in every potato or codfish that crossed the boundary line. Why? Was it because they did not trust the United States, or was. it that the United States, being the stronger, would take an unfair advantage of us? The fact that since that time the Finance Minister went to Washington, hat in hand, to get leave to borrow $100,000,000 in New York shows that he did not really fear any of these things and that the campaign of 191| was nothing more than a hollow sham. Besides all that, a nation that has been compelled within the last year to submit to the humiliation of depending on the United States navy to protect its coast and its commerce and its fishing fleet is hardly in a position to harbour suspicion as to the good faith of that same power in regard to less important matters of trade and tariff. There is no serious opposition today among the rank and file of the Canadian people to reciprocity with the United States in natural products. There is no lerious opposition to it even by the Government; as witness their recent decision to place potatoes on the free list. I doubt if there is a single narrow-gauge statesman in Canada to-day'who is prepared to raise the old, worn-out cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees"; it has been buried in the same grave as their opposition to a Canadian navy and to the British preference. The attempt to stir up ill-feeling between Canada and the United States in 1911 had all the appearance of a skilfully-contrived German propaganda.


Samuel Hughes: Who made the first proposal in 1911 for the annexation of Canada to the United States? Was it not made by American speakers?


John Howard Sinclair: I never heard of any proposal being made for the annexation of
Canada to the United States; it is all news to me. I was saying that the campaign of 1911 had the appearance of a skilfully-contrived German propaganda, and we all ought to be thankful that the conspiracy failed and that our relations with our great neighbour to the south have never been more friendly than they are to-day. Time has amply vindicated the policy of my late revered leader in regard to reciprocity with the United States as well as in regard to that very vital question, the establishment of a Canadian navy.
The question of the franchise has been mentioned in the Address. This is a matter of vital importance. Three attempts have been made in the history of Canada to gain an unfair advantage by legislation in connection with the franchise. The first was what is called the gerrymander of 1882. The second was the Franchise Act of 1885, providing that a revising barrister be appointed in each constituency in Canada to compile the electoral lists. The third was the WarTime Elections Act of 1917. I am happy to say that those three attempts to gain an unfair advantage by legislation in connection with the franchise were all made by the same political party. One of the most serious charges to be laid at the door of the Union Government is this War-Times Election Act-it is known in my province as the War-Time Tammany Act. The leader of the House told us yesterday that this Act was not to be repealed until something else had been provided in its place. I trust that the other thing which is to be provided in its place will be fairer and more respectable and decent than the War-Time Elections Act. This Act is a disgrace to Canada arid should be repealed at once. It is customary for the police, when the row is over, to confiscate the sling-shots and the sand-bags and the brass knuckles; why should there be any distinction in this case? The Act should have been repealed last year; every day that it continues on the statute book of Canada, it serves to perpetuate our disgrace. Frankly, I was disappointed last year when I saw man after man, each a Liberal-Unionist, stand up in his place and vote for the continuance of this Act; I thought that there would be some conscientious objectors among them. What is the situation up to date? We on this side of the House stand for fair elections; hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stand for the War-Time Elections Act. These positions are as opposite as God and mammon; no man can hold to the one without despising the other. I dislike as much as any man to refer to

these matters, but it is our duty as representatives of a free democracy to challenge the methods by which hon. gentlemen won the election of 1917.
I want to lay down the principle that absolute fairness in the use of the ballot is the first requisite and the only safety of a decent democracy. Fair play has always been the biggest word in the Anglo-Saxon's creed, and when men outrage that principle, they must take the consequences. It is as much our duty to hold these people up to the public gaze as it is the duty of the Allies to expose the Hun outrages of the last four years. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that red-letter day in the history of Great Britain, when, in November last, a string of German naval ships twenty miles in length steamed slowly up through the North sea and surrendered to Admiral Beatty in the Firth of Forth. No ceremonial courtesies of any kind were paid to the vanquished enemy. Admiral Beatty gives the reason. The following contains an extract from the official order that was flashed across the sky from the flagship of the Grand Fleet the night before the surrender:
At midnight Admiral Beatty signalled that while courtesy toward the enemy was obligatory, the methods by which the Germans had waged war should not be forgotten, that no international compliments should be paid.
In the same way, it is obligatory upon us to keep before the Canadian people the method by which hon. gentlemen opposite won their seats in 1917. We on this side of the House will follow the example of Admiral Beatty. There will be no ceremonial courtesies so far as the War-time Elections Act is concerned.
Let me quote an editorial from an Australian paper to show what our great sister Commonwealth thinks of the conduct of the election by which this Government came into power:
Canada stands in the unhappy position of having had her ordinary constitutional government overthrown by what is practically a military revolution.
The recent elections in Canada were simply a farce and a fraud from a legal and constitutional standpoint, as they were conducted under war precaution regulations, which permitted great numbers of unqualified persons to vote, and denied the franchise to large numbers of legally qualified Canadian citizens.
The ordinary Canadian electoral roll was set aside, and a manuscript roil compiled by specially appointed officials acting under military regulations, was used.
An election controlled by military despots, and carried out in defiance of electoral law, Is something quite new in the annals of British constitutional history, and by no stretch of imagination can the present Borden ministry claim 
to be the constitutional representatives of the people of Canada.
It must he apparent that, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, the recent Canadian election is null and void, and the Parliament so elected has mo constitutional authority for its acts.
Our local conscriptionist politicians are now bewailing the fact that they did not adopt the tactics of their fellow-conspirators in Canada, but it would be a dark day indeed if the frauds perpetrated there could be repeated here.
Canada now stands as the shocking example of what organized force is capable of, even in a British community, and emphasizes the good sense of the Australian people In their refusal to exchange constitutional government for military despotism.
Considering the distance from Canada at which this editorial was written, it is surprising how correctly the writer was informed.
Having said so much about the sins and follies of the Government, let me say that the fact that during this session on which we have entered we have to deal with the present and the future rather than with the past, is obvious to us all. We on this side fully recognize that the task confronting the Administration is not an easy one. The returned soldiers have the first claim on the gratitude of the nation. They must not want for anything that the country can do for them. The dependents of the brave men who have fallen in our service must also be tenderly cared for. The claims for pensions must be adjusted in a generous spirit.. Labour problems must be dealt with. Taxation must be fairly and equitably levied in order that money may be found to meet the enormous financial obligations of the country, and it is the duty of every member of tne nouse, I care not on whicn side he sits, to contribute everything he can to the solution of these problems. But the Government must of course take the lead. The first requisite? of an Administration is initiative; the second is efficiency. If the Government fails in those, it fails in everything. The collapse of initiative on the part of this Government is proved beyond doubt by the resignation of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of the' Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Why did the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) resign? He resigned, first, because the Government had failed to grapple with the problem of the returned soldier; second,, because the different departments of the Government failed to work together. My hon. friend from Colchester has been careful to use diplomatic language, but his real meaning is that the Administration is incompetent, and he refuses any longer to be-

responsible for its failure to do its duty. The returned soldier is the greatest problem before the Canadian people, and if the Government cannot grapple successfully with that problem, then it should make way for some Government that can.
So much for initiative. We come now to the question of efficiency. You say that this Administration is an efficient instrument to grapple with the grave problems that are confronting the country at the present time. We say, judging from its past record, that it is not. That creates an issue, and the. burden of proof is on you. I submit that in all the speeches that we have yet heard from hon. members of the Government, the proof is not forthcoming. A good example of inefficiency and drift is pointed out by my hon. friend from Colchester in his letter of resignation. When the question of soldiers' pensions became urgent in 1916, the Government had no solution to offer. When pressed to take action, they appointed a committee of private members to take evidence and report. This committee did its duty well and made a comprehensive report which, according to the hon. member for Colchester, the Government pigeon-holed and up to the date of his resignation no more was heard of it. The hon. member for Colchester is not a man who would say or do anything reflecting on his party without having ample and serious reasons for doing so. It is, therefore, for the Government to explain-and it has not yet done so-what justification the hon. member fo>r Colchester had in the action he took.
'With reference to the efforts of Great Britain in this war, the remark has been made that in the old land they did every thing but talk. The opposite is the case here. This Government talks, but very little else is accomplished. Everybody knows that there is nothing that weakens a Government so much as bold talk and feeble action. We have been putting our trust in Boards, Committees and Royal Commissions. What we really need is men at the head of affairs who can do things themselves and who have the courage to take the whole responsibility. Nearly every important matter that comes up, instead of being dealt with by the responsible minister, is turned over to some irresponsible commission of busybodies who in turn travel the country, collect information and make a report which is duly pigeon-holed and forgotten while the country has the pleasure of paying the bill. Let me give a few examples:
1.	The Trade Mission to London which should have been attended to by the trained experts of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
2.	The National Advisory Council for the employment of labour. Where, let me ask, is our Department of Labour?
3.	The Royal Commission on Wheat Supply. Have we not a Department of Agriculture in this country?
4.	The Department of Public Safety. Has this country ever been so dangerous a place to live in that the Department of Justice could not protect the citizens?
5.	The National War Savings Committee, consisting of fifteen men from different parts of Canada selected to deal with the question of thrift stamps. 'Surely this is a matter that should be dealt with by the Finance Department. What do we keep a highly paid staff of experts in the Finance Department for, if we have to resort to a committee of fifteen from the outside to attend to such a simple matter as thrift stamps?
These are only sample bricks. There are hundreds of these so-called commissions. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) himself informed us in the House that they were as thick as blackberries, and the number is increasing day by day. If everything is to be turned over to irresponsible commissions, what is left to the twenty-one ministers of the Crown and their departments to do? When these gentlemen were elected, the people of Canada who voted for them expected them to be useful as well as ornamental. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) is smiling at that, but that is a. fact. Lord Macaulay was right when he said that war could not be carried on successfully, by a debating society. The same is true of Government. If the Government of this country is to be of real service to the people in the anxious period that confronts us, efficiency must be the watchword in every department. The work must not be turned over to irresponsible outside committees
Permit me to say this, that the party that will do the greatest service for this country in the future will be the party that will stand above all for good faith and honesty, and public honour. We have talked so much of late years about tariffs and bonuses and bounties and shipbuilding and wheat and steers that we are apt to run away with the idea that these are the principal things and to neglect the weightier matters, such as faithfulness to our pledges, and even-handed justice be-

tween man and man. In my judgment no party can any more succeed in this country that seeks to serve itself. The people will demand not only sincerity on the part of its representatives, but also a frank recognition of the rights of the ordinary man.
1 was much struck with a paragraph in Lloyd George's recent election address referring to labour and capital. Permit me to quote:
I say to Labour: You shall have justice; you shall have fair treatment, a fair share of the amenities of life and your children shall have equal opportunities with the children of the rich. To Capital I say: You shall not be plundered or penalised; do your duty by those who work for you, and the future is free for all the enterprise or audacity you can give us. But there must be equal justice. Labour must have happiness in its heart. We will put up with no sweating. Labour is to have its just reward. And when the whole nation sees that wealth lies in production, that production can be enormously increased, with higher wages and shorter hours, and when the classes feel confidence in each other and trust each other, there will be abundance to requite the toil and to gladden the hearts of all. We can change the whole face of existence.
We can do the same here. Precisely the same task awaits us here in Canada, but when we speak of labour we must include not only the workmen in the factories and the mines and on the railways, but also the tillers of the land and the toilers of the sea. Surely it is not beyond us to develop a system of government by which quiet, industrious men can live and labour and enjoy the fruit of their own industry.
Mr. Speaker, before taking my seat, permit me to say that, representing a constituency that in common with others has made great sacrifices in this war, I am here to support any proper measures looking towards reconstruction. My constituents will expect me to demand so far as lies in my power, honest and progressive administration, and fair and generous treatment for the men who have survived and for the dependents of the men who have fallen in the great struggle.
The only desire of members on this side of the House is to guard the public treasury, to see that Canada plays her part with honour, and to assist in such measures as will establish on a firm foundation in this free land of ours the principles of democracy that our soldiers fought so bravely to maintain.
Hon. J. A. 0ALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization): Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I desire to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for an Address in reply to the

speech from the Throne. The task that was assigned to them was a difficult one. As every member of the House knows, the atmosphere in this Chamber in the early days of the session is just a little tense, somewhat frigid, and the task of breaking the ice, so to speak, under those circumstances is by no means an easy one. I am sure every hon. member will agree that the choice made in selecting these two young men to undertake this responsibility was a very happy one. They had both seen service overseas; they had come in contact with conditions "over there," and their experiences I am sure were such as will enable them to speak with authority on many of the questions which must be considered by the House during this session. I am sure we ail feel that their addresses will be exceedingly helpful to us in the work of the session.	-
'I wish also to express my thanks to the other hon. members who have spoken both on that side of the House and on this. The session now under way will, I think, prove to be the most important session of Parliament ever held in the history of Canada. The problems that are now staring us in the face are in my judgment the most difficult problems Canada has ever had to deal with, and for that reason it is very desirable and very important that we should have at this early stage of tire session the viewpoint of every one on the prevailing conditions. It is quite true we may not agree with all that has been said by our hon. friends opposite. Nevertheless, I think it is very desirable, _jn order that we may lay down proper foundations for our work this session, that we should have their views, that they should state to this House quite clearly and definitely whatever criticisms they may have to offer, that they should tell us the feeling in the country as they see it, and state whether in their opinion the work that lias been done by the Government has been done properly or not. That necessarily is very helpful, and particularly helpful to the members of the Government.
I have been connected with public life, not here but elsewhere, for a period of some fifteen or eighteen years, and I have never during all that time objected to criticism -or attack. I like attack to be fair, and I like criticism to be constructive, not merely destructive, and I am sure it will be helpful to every hori. member who is desirous of carrying out the responsibility cast upon him at this crisis to get the views of other hon. gentlemen in the House.



FEBRUARY 26, 101.9

[Stage Direction]
Naturally, our friends opposite, particularly the last speaker, have drawn a pretty dark picture. He in particular dipped his brush pretty deep in the browns and the grays and the blacks. To him all is gloom; the whole horizon is filled with dark clouds, with scarcely a gleam of light anywhere. Well, I hope before I get through to say something that will at least assure our friends on this side of the House that all is not so black, that there is a little light somewhere, and that the people of this country may reasonably hope for something.
The great war is ende'd. Thank God for that! I say, thank God, not because "the light is in the window and the latch string on the outside of the door," but because the curtain has rung down on the greatest tragedy in all history. I am not going to take up your time, Mr. Speaker, in dwelling upon the misery and suffering and sorrow	of the last four	years. I
shall not deal with the causes of the war or the ideals for which we fought. Much as I would like to speak of our own boys and what they did, the battles they fought, how they fought their way through from Ypres to Mons, I am not going to deal with that matter to-day. Those questions have been dealt with by previous speakers. The mover and seconder of the Address dwelt upon them and spoke more fittingly than I could. I wish rather during the time at my disposal to speak of what lies ahead, of the work that confronts us, of the tasks that we members of Parliament must undertake during the months that lie before us. The armistice was signed on the eleventh day of November. Hostilities ceased suddenly. It was not thought that the war would come to a conclusion s'o early. There may have been a few, very few, who understood the conditions and knew exactly the situation, but, so far as the great majority of the people of this country were concerned, they little expected the war would end last year. I well remember the conditions in Europe when I was over there in the midsummer of 1918. The Acting Prime Minister referred to those conditions yesterday afternoon. When we landed in London in the early part of June, you would scarcely meet a man anywhere with a smile on his face. I never saw such dejection and despondency in my life. In all the circles of government over there, where they had a clear knowledge of the situation on the continent, there was not much indication of the end of the war then. Hon. gentlemen will remember how the fifth army was
smashed. You remember the talk of the Huns breaking through to Calais and Paris. That was exactly the situation. The men who were responsible for the conduct of the war at that time were seriously considering the problems that would arise when the Huns did reach Paris and the channel ports. That was the situation then, and was the situation during the whole six or seven weeks I was over there. I went on board the ship, and we were two or three days from shore when we got the despatch that the Germans had renewed their attack towards Paris, and a few days later we heard of the Allied offensive and their successes in driving the Germans back. There was not a soul on that ship who was not very much surprised, and when later on we received the news that the Hun was being beaten back, those of us who had been in England in June and July, knowing the conditions which had been depicted to us, simply could not believe that these things were actually taking place. With our knowledge of the situation " over there," as we saw it in England, and as we were told about it, it seemed to us impossible that there should be any end to the war in the year 1918. At that time the whole energy of the British Government and qf the French Government was devoted to devising ways and means to prevent the Hun from reaching the sea, the channel ports, and Paris. So there was not very much talk at that time about preparations for after the war, and we must not be very much surprised in this country if, in that respect, the whole duty of the Government was not completely performed.
There were other things we had to consider, as was the case with the other nations who were very much in the same position as we were. Our Government was intent at that time on doing all they could do in supplying the sinews of war. While some work iwas done in preparation for peace I must admit frankly that all was not done jjhat might have been done. But hostilities ceased much sooner than had been expected. There is another thought that was also given voice to by the Acting Prime Minister yesterday. The problems that now stare us in the face are, in my judgment, more difficult than the problems of war, and I will tell you why. It took something like four years for Canada to build up her war machine. We were working month after mcftith and the machinery was being added to all the time, growing in size, and it became a huge machine. In the process of making it the people of this country were affected directly
[Stage Direction]
and indirectly in a multitude of way®. The problem that now faces us is the unravelling of the conditions created. We must remember that that problem came upon us all at once, and I can assure my hon. friends that the problem is not by any mean® simple. From my knowledge of the situation at the present time, I am thoroughly convinced that the problems that this nation now have before it, in connection with the unscrambling of our military organization and the re-adjustment of conditions which have arisen as a result of four years of war, are very much more difficult and complex, and the result much more far-reaching than the problems that had to be dealt with during the war period itself. I am absolutely convinced of that, and I desire to impress the fact upon every member of this House. The immediate problems.that are confronting us now, staring us squarely in the face, will not wait. These problems, in my judgment, are the most difficult problems which a nation has ever faced, and if they are not attended to properly, unless we find proper solutions for these problems, well, God help Canada; no man can tell what the consequences may be. We have a little unrest and some dissatisfaction, and there is great pessimism in some sections of the country, and it may mean something very much worse. I do not wish to frighten anybody and I do not wish to be over-pessimistic, but right here in Canada we have conditions that are akin to conditions that exist elsewhere, and it is very necessary that every member of this House should understand his responsibility in relation to the solution of these problems.
Very shortly after the armistice was signed, and our people began to think of this new situation, there were a great many who began to wonder, as my good friend from Antigonish.Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I suppose, must have been wondering, as to whether all was well at Ottawa- whether the Government had made plans and preparations to take care of this new situation. As you know, there were all sorts of rumblings and rumours about our muddling along, drifting along, not being prepared, and all that sort of thing. I do not wonder at that. It is really not surprising that ignorance should exist in the country, as to the actual work of government when we find responsible members of the' House making statements such as we listened to yesterday and to-day. We can hardly blame the "man in the street."
The Government from the very first was seized of its duty. We always understood

that the war was going to end, that it would not last forever. As I stated, the end came suddenly, but, nevertheless, a good many preparations had been made and a good deal of thought and study had been given to many of the problems that would naturally come up when the war would close. There had been much spade work done. Some of the foundations were laid and in some cases even the superstructures were erected. In other words, we were not all adrift. Something had been., accomplished.
I am not going to take up your time to-day in attempting to cover the situation, because that would take too long. Nor am I going into details, but I simply wish, by way of illustration, to mention some of the matters that had received attention before the end of the war came and to touch very briefly ujjon the relationship of these matters to the problems now existing.
In the first place, as regards demobilization itself. The demobilization of our forces is by no means an easy matter, and careful thought had to be given to the methods by which tha,t could be carried out and the machinery which must be set in motion. We do talk about these things very glibly; we are all inclined to do that. We do not know what the job actually means. Personally, I do not begin to know what demobilization means in the way of creating machinery and seeing that that machinery is operated in such a way as to cause the least possible trouble. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mewburn), and his officials, spent weeks over that problem. They went overseas, consulted the British and French authorities and spent further weeks in working out all these details in anticipation of what would eventually happen. You know what has happened. As far as I have been able to learn, the plan has been so well worked out, and the machinery has run so smoothly, that there is practically little or no criticism left in the country as to the manner in which the work is being done.
I am speaking now solely and only of demobilization, of actually getting the men out of the army. The Minister of Militia told me the other day of an instance that occurred within the last three weeks in which some 500 men had been returned. They were taken from the ship to the dispersal area, and within half an hour after these men had arrived at the dispersal area they walked out as civilians once more. That was by no means an easy task. It involved grave study and a careful arrangement of the details in order that it might be done.

[Stage Direction]
We had this afternoon and yesterday some little slam at one of the departments that was created at our last session. I refer to the department of Soldiers Civil Re-Establishment. It was created for a very specific purpose. It took the place of the Military Hospitals Commission. It has been at work for something over a year. Its expenditures for the past year will amount to something in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000. We had a mild intimation to the effect that it was created very largely for the purpose of providing salaries for somebody. That is the usual, old criticism. We have heard it a great many times. I have used it myself. It will be used as long as parliamentary institutions exist. No, that department was not created for that purpose. It was created for a very definite, a very specific purpose. It was created with the object in view of caring for every disabled Canadian soldier who came back to this country. The work of the department has two sides, one medical, the other vocational. As a result of the work, in the first place, of the Military Hospitals Commission and later of this department, we have now, scattered throughout Canada in every province, something like one hundred and fifty institutions. I need not go into the details. The members of the House are just as familiar with them as I am, and they know where these institutions are and what they are doing. Something like 2,000 or 2,500 young Canadian boys, who were " over there " and who were disabled and maimed as a result of the war, have come back, have gone through these institutions and have been refitted for life as far as it is humanly possible to do so through medical treatment and vocational training. Those 2,500 young men are now back to civil life in this country as a result of the activities of that department. In addition, there are something like 2,000 or 3,000 men actually undergoing treatment in these institutions at the present time, and there are some thousands being fitted for new employment. I am now speaking of men who cannot, on account of their disability, their injuries, their sufferings, go back to their old employments. Thousands of them are now undergoing treatment at these institutions.
I do not wish to leave the impression upon this House for one moment that all is well with that department or with any other department of the Government. In the making of war, and in the dealing with * these problems of which our country had no experience and for which we were not at all equipped, it must not be wondered at that mistakes have been made. There
will be criticism, some of which will doubtless be ventilated here. Hon. gentlemen opposite have even hinted at criticism from within our ranks. Be that as it may, all I wish to do is to leave the idea with the House that the department referred to was created for a definite purpose, and in my judgment it has carried on its work well-not perfectly, but nevertheless well; -and if, as a result of our deliberations during the present session, we can devise ways and means whereby that department's operations may be bettered, I am sure the members of the Government, including the minister who has it in charge, will welcome any such assistance.	.
Again, Mr. .Speaker, time was taken by the forelock some two or three years ago in connection with another very important phase of the returned soldier problem. The matter was taken up a,t an interprovincial conference in this city called by the Federal Government, at which I was present as a member of the Saskatchewan Government. We sat here for two days with the federal authorities deliberating over the problem of the returned soldier to see if there was any responsibility or any work the provinces could undertake or carry on. After full consideration and full consent by the provinces it was agreed to establish what are known as Soldiers' Aid Commissions, and if I am not mistaken every province has by statute created a body of that character. These have been for some time in operation, and have done splendid work in connection with many of the problems that arise in connection with the returning men. I have visited some of these institutions, and the member for London (Mr. Cronyn) can speak of my visit to the Soldiers' Aid Commission in that city. I talked with the young man in charge, who has a staff of some six or eight persons assisting him, went through the office files, and saw the nature of the work which is there being carried on. Work of a similar character is going on throughout the length and breadth of the 'Dominion, and has been in progress for the last two or three years. These institutions have yielded splendid results. There is a great field of activity for them.
During the session there will doubtless be discussion on the question of soldiers' settlement, a very vexed and most difficult problem. If there was but one Government in Canada in which the ownership of the public domain was vested, the problem would be very much easier of solution, but hon. gentlemen know what the existing conditions are. There are nine provinces scattered over an enormous area,
[Stage Direction]

and in these provinces varied conditions prevail, some owning their Crown lands, and others not. I can assure hon. gentlemen that the evolving of a satisfactory soldiers' settlement scheme under such conditions was a most complex and intricate one. I am not going to discuss the subject now, because ample opportunity for that will later on be given, but the problem was one which demanded from the Government very great consideration. We had numerous suggestions-I might say hundreds, and even thousands-from all over the country with respect to the matter; everybody had a scheme professing to afford an easy solution, but most of these suggestions were not very satisfactory because they were not very practicable. So far as I can see the Government have dealt with the question in the only practicable way that could be found.
It will be remembered that last session a Bill providing for assistance to the provinces in connection with the establishment of Labour Bureaus was presented. That action was not taken without due thought and reflection.	As a matter of fact,
at an interprovincial conference, called previous to last session, that question came up for	consideration.	It	was
only after thorough consideration by the premiers of the various provinces, who were accompanied in some instances by a number of their colleagues, it was only after the whole situation had been reviewed in all its aspects and the conditions likely to arise after the war reviewed, that the conclusion was reached, jointly with them, that the best way of handling the problem when it arose would be to make
5	p.m. provision for the establishment of bureaus of this nature throughout the Dominion. Hon. gentlemen opposite must not imagine that we forced this policy upon the provinces, or that we endeavoured in any way to interfere with provincial autonomy in connection with this matter. The subject was considered deliberately, coolly, and calmly with the provincial governments, and it was agreed, with the full consent of the various provincial authorities, to deal with the situation in the manner that I have described. In consequence, last session's measure providing for assistance to the provinces was submitted, and this year, on account of the conditions now prevailing, a very much larger assistance than was -anticipated at that time needs to be provided. Speaking broadly, about fifty of these bureaus are at present in existence and all our work in connection with finding employment not only for [Mr. Cal-dcr. 3
the returned soldier, but for the civilian in Canada as well, is concentrated in these organizations. The danger was that if some action of this kind had not been taken we would likely have had chaos in this country in regard to the. employment problem. While the system may^ not be working to the entire satisfaction of everybody in this country, nevertheless, so far as I have been able to judge from the representations made to me, it will reasonably meet the existing situation.
We must not forget that in this country- and the Government were thoroughly cognizant of the fact-there are- a large number of organizations, patriotic and otherwise, that were simply sitting waiting, willing and ready to undertake any work that might be placed upon them just as soon as the nature of the problems requiring treatment was made manifest. Very shortly after the armistice was signed, the Government realized that the whole situation had changed, and that -it was necessary to deal at once with the new conditions which had arisen. As hon gentlemen know, a new committee of the Cabinet was constituted.	In this connection I may say	that I	am
not afraid of committees or of commissions. If you have a reason for doing a thing, do not be afraid to do it simply because some one talks about it. We have had a number of committees and a number of commissions, and the great majority of them have done very useful and very necessary work, work that no government and no member of a government could carry on during these strenuous times. Very shortly after the armistice was signed we cieated a new committee of the Cabinet called the Repatriation and Employment Committee, which was appointed for the purpose of co-ordinating the work of the different departments of the Government and of all the various organizations outside of the Government machinery that had to deal with this problem. We had a pretty busy time for a while; during some six weeks we had a great many meetings. I am free to admit that there was a good deal of overlapping; that a good many toes were being tramped upon, through nobody's fault, by different organizations and by the departments. This committee and those associated with it found it necessary clearly to define the work of the various agencies that were brought into being to deal with the problems of demobilization and repatriation. I have had something to do with the work of this committee. I know a little
[Stage Direction]
of its organization and of its administrative activities, and I think I can say truthfully that we have in Canada from ocean to ocean an organization handling this problem of repatriation such as does not exist in any other belligerent country in the world. It is a very complex organization; thousands of people take part in it- it is very necessary that that be so.
There has been a good deal of talk in some countries with regard to this problem. Much has been put down on paper and many fine reports have been got out and committees and commissions formed to enquire into and deal with the subject. We have had to make inquiries as to what is being done elsewhere, and we have gathered some information. When I say that we are well in advance of the other belligerent countries in this work, I think I am stating just what the situation is. The work is not perfect; many mistakes have been made, and perhaps more mistakes will be made. There will still be a good deal of criticism, and there will likely be room for it. There has been no work just like this in history; consequently we have had very little to guide us: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) referred this afternoon to the great war of 1812, but that war was simply a baby as compared with this giant. You cannot look into past records and get much assistance from them, because the world has never experienced a situation such as this. This war has had far-reaching consequences; it has touched practically every home; it has touched practically every aspect of our national life. To say, therefore, that in dealing with matters arising out of these new conditions mistakes should not be made or cogs should not slip-well, after all, the Government and its agencies and the private organizations that are dealing with this problem are merely human, and these things will happen.
The immediate problems which confront us naturally fall under two headings, reconstruction and repatriation. The term "reconstruction" as used in Europe at present has a somewhat different meaning from that which it has here. Something has happened over there that has not happened in Canada. A smashing and demolishing of things has taken place; there has been a devastation over there, that we have not suffered. I have only to picture in my mind what I saw in the neighbourhood of the Somme to have some little realization of what the building up of that country means in the way of labour and expenditure that will be necessary
during the next few years. But the term "reconstruction" has a real meaning to us, a very deep and a very significant meaning. While it does not mean to us what it means to the people over there, nevertheless our people have learned some lessons from this war. They have learned that all is not well in the world; that some reforms are necessary. Our people clearly understand that work is ahead of this nation in that regard. In my opinion reconstruction, as applied to Canada, embraces the adjusting of the affairs of the nation so as to meet the new social and economic conditions that have arisen as a result of the war. Do not make any mistake about it, new conditions, social and economic, have arisen in our country as a result of the war, and we must adjust the affairs of the nation to meet them. Reconstruction involves also a national stocktaking of all our policies and laws that affect the well-being of our people, with a view to placing the nation in the position she should occupy as a progressive, democratic community. Every member of the House will place his stamp of approval on that statement. Reconstruction further means the taking of a long step forward through the adoption of measures and policies truly conceived and effectively and honestly administered in the interests of the great mass of the Canadian people. Reconstruction, if it means anything to us, must mean the adoption of higher ideals of citizenship, the searching for measures that will have an ever increasing tendency to unify and harmonize our many conflicting interests. They are here; we have heard a little about them so far, and I may touch on them myself before I sit down. Above all, reconstruction involves the creating of such social and economic conditions as are necessary to the comfort, happiness and prosperity of our people as a whole. Reconstruction means a going forward, not a standing still. It means progress, not stagnation.
I am but a young member of this House, and I naturally hesitate to give advice or even to voice a warning; and yet I feel that, I must do this if I am to discharge the responsibility that I bear as a member of the House and as a member of this Government. Many people in this country have the idea that our problems consist in getting back to the conditions that existed prior to August 1, 1914. Any man who holds that idea has failed to learn the lessons of the last four and a half years. I have stated on the public platform at two or three meetings that I have held, that Canada will
[Stage Direction]
never again be the same old Canada. The people of this country by the thousands, aye, by the hundreds of thousands, have suffered during the last four years. The lessons of this war have been burned into their very soul. The people of Canada as a whole are thinking differently, and let us not make any mistake about it, they are going to act differently when they have an opportunity.
Some 'Hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. GATHER:: other countries that are troubled with problems such as we have at the present time.
I might just say, in conclusion, that I did not last session avail myself to any extent of the opportunity of speaking in the House. I think I probably acted wisely in adopting that course. Being new here, I was very anxious to get to know the members and to learn a little about the atmosphere and all that sort of thing. I must thank the House for the indulgence that it has shown to me to-day and the attentive manner in which it has listened to my very rambling remarks.
On the motion of Mr. L. J. Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), the debate was adjourned.


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

Thursday, February 27, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth Report of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada for the year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Certain Orders in Council respecting Housing.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act.
Charles Murphy: Explain.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: This Bill is for the purpose of compelling the boats on our inland waters and coastwise trade to come under the control of the Railway Commission. At present the only boats that are under the control of that commission are those that are connected with the large railway corporations in our country. They are compelled to file their rates, tolls, tariff grievances, with the Railway (Board, while the other 4,500 boats-because there are 4,500 boats on the Canadian Register-are allowed to charge whatever rates they please, call or not at any dock or port as they please, and are a law unto themselves. When we take into consideration the fact that the people of Canada have spent nearly $350,000,000 in deepening our waterways, buoying and lighting our harbours and rivers, building our docks, piers and canals throughout the country, and then find themselves without any control
so far as Government control is concerned, we cannot help realizing that we are placed in a somewhat humiliating position. This is, however, practically the only public utility in Canada that is not under some form of Government control, and Canada is practically the only country in the world that has not absolute control over her shipping on inland waters and coastal trade. I hope, when this matter comes before the House, hon. members will give it every consideration and that it will become law at the earliest possible date. I understand that a Bill for the consolidation of the Railway Act has already been introduced into the Senate, and I hope it will come before the House in the near future. If it does, I trust I shall be allowed the privilege of placing an amendment in that Bill containing the principles contained in this Bill which I have now laid before the House.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Irrigation Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to authorize the reclamation of Dominion lands by drainage.
Mr. BUREAU:: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill, which is of some importance, provides for the establishment of a reclamation service for the purpose of reclaiming Dominion lands by drainage. The woiik contemplated to be done under this Bill is to be done under the Drainage Acts passed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to which provinces the Bill alone applies. After a series of conferences a division of responsibility as between

Federal and provincial governments has been arranged. This Bill is to take care of the Federal responsibility.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Dominion Lands Surveys Act.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jacques Bureau: Explain the Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave an opportunity to do so on the introduction. It is not [DOT] competent to do so on the first reading.


Jacques Bureau: You are going too fast.
Bill read the first time.



ALLEGED TRADE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Alexander Robb: I desire to bring to the attention of the Government a question of national importance. In the Montreal Gazette of to-day, Thursday, February 27, there appears this cablegram from its resident correspondent in London:
Canada's trade handicapped in favour of the United States. Trade Commission lodges protest with Lloyd George. Change unlikely soon. Until brains of country get back on jobs discrimination will continue.
London, February 26.-Until the Peace Conference is over, and the brains of this country are back on their jobs again in Great Britain, there is little hope of the discrimination against Canada in the matter of imports being removed, declared I. N. Jones, member of the Canadian Trade Commission, to-day.
In support of this opinion Lloyd Harris and Mr. Jones have addressed strong representations to Premier Lloyd George and Sir Albert Stanley, president of the Board of Trade, showing clearly where discrimination exists.
I wish to know what is the nature of this discrimination, and whether Mr. Lloyd Harris and Mr. Jones have authority from the Government of Canada to make such representations to the Prime Minister of England direct.


William Thomas White: The news item in question was drawn to my attention only a few moments ago by my hon. friend. I have no official information in confirmation of the report,

and I must take the liberty of doubting that Great Britain would discriminate against Canada in favour of the United States or of any other country. My experience in the negotiations which the Government has during the past few months been conducting with the British authorities respecting the purchase of our agricultural and other products has been such as to assure me, if assurance were needed, that Great Britain is doing everything possible to facilitate and promote the trade of Canada with the Mother country. I am unable to say whether Messrs. Jones and Lloyd Harris made any such representations or not. Their powers and duties are defined by the commission which appointed them as Trade Commissioners Overseas. From time to time they take up with the British authorities matters relating to trade, but not having any official information as to the particular matter in question, I am unable to make any further comment. I shall he glad, however, to look into the matter.



THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On the front page of the Ottawa Evening Journal of yesterday, under the heading, "All deserters appear again for heavy fine-minimum fixed at $250, and the new law is to be retroactive" there appears this statement:
It is further understood that this order in council will be retroactive, that is to say, that any deserter who has already given himself up and been let off with a fine less than ?250 can be re-arrested and re-fined at least to the minimum amount fixed in the new order. This will mean that hundreds of Quebec deserters who have been let off with a five dollar fine are liable to re-arrest and re-fine.
I should like particularly to know whether this is a proper representative of the Order in Council, and whether under its provisions those who have already been tried will be subject to re-arrest and re-trial.


Arthur Meighen: The Order in Council to which the extract refers does not provide for the punishment of any person who has already been punished in accordance with the law. There is a class of cases, however, of those who registered and were refused exemption who subsequently failed to report on being ordered to do so, and for whose cases, in the opinon of the Justice Department, as to which I think there can be no

dispute, no provision was made for a fine at all. The only punishment appearing in the regulations which it was open to magistrates to inflict in the cases was imprisonment. It is stated with regard to this class that there have been in many cases convictions where fines have' been imposed. The Order in Council is designed to enact that wherever in such eases fines of sub-tantial character have been imposed consistent with the magnitude of the offense- and the limits are fixed at $250 and $5,000 -those convictions are ratified as legal. The Order in Council does not go beyond that to ratify any conviction as legal, nor does it make illegal a conviction which when it was made was in accordance with law.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Wednesday, February 26th.
Mr. LOUIS JOSEPH GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, before
entering upon the ground I wish to cover this afternoon it is my intention to make two preliminary remarks. First of all, I wish to tender to the Government of this country, and especially to the Acting Prime Minister, my sincere thanks for their broadmindedness in honouring as they have done the memory of our late beloved Chief. They have sympathized with us fully in our sorrow, and it is only right that we should proffer them our gratitude.
I also wish to tender to the mover and the seconder of the Address my congratulations for the able manner in which they have performed the arduous task that was allotted to them. Not wishing to risk a breach of the rules of the House by falling into tedious repetition, I shall confine myself to endorsing all the good things that have been said of these two hon. members. Their speeches, which were delivered with masterly skill, showed marks of deep thought.
Coming now to the subject before the House, I shall first answer some of the statements that have been made by two hon. ministers of the Crown, namely the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). The Minister of Public Works informed us that numerous complaints were reaching the Cabinet every
day about after-the-war conditions, and his message to the people of Canada was to do away with unemployment in Canada. By this remedy, I suppose, he expects to avoid the complaints which threaten to overwhelm the Cabinet, and that peace will replace unrest. Is that a real remedy for the evil? Taking the picture he drew so vividly, with Canada called upon to borrow from $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 for a number of years to come, and with a net debt of two billion dollars, does he believe that his remedy will put a stop to the complaints which are pouring into Ottawa from all parts of the country? Does he believe that the feeling- of unrest will cease in view of the policy of extravagance which he has offered to the House, involving an expenditure of money by the millions of dollars? According to his statement, we shall be compelled to borrow every year the enormous sum of from $100,000,000 to $125,000,000.
I say, Sir, that we knew the evil as well as he did, but I regret to be compelled to confess that I do not believe the remedy he is offering will cure the situation, or that peace will replace the unrest that he told us existed in this country. This Minister of Public Works made a statement to which I have listened with a great deal of attention. I find, in perusing Hansard this morning, that the sentence he uttered in this House has been altered. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but I cannot, on account of those who heard the statement and who have not read the report, let it pass. I must enter my protest, and I must say to the House that I felt offended to hear an hon. minister of the Crown, on his own responsibility from his seat in this House, telling the members that he had read in the press that France intended to repudiate part of her war debt -France who has done so much for humanity, France with her indomitable courage, with all the losses she has sustained, France who has always been in the vanguard, fighting that right should prevail against might. If she were repudiating a single part of her war debt, she would not be the France we have known, the France we have loved, the France who has been the bulwark of civilization in the tremendous war which has just closed. There was another statement from the Minister of Public Works which has amazed me considerably. This statement I find in Hansard this morning, and I must take it as I lyaard it yesterday and as I have read it this morning. The hon. Minister of Public Works said last year that ships were more necessary than

anything else. In fact he is reported on page 50 as saying-
A year ago shipping was more vital to winning the war than were men or shells or anything else.
Well, Sir, if this statement is true-and I believe it to be true because I have heard it before in this very Chamber-why did we have conscription? Why did my hon. friend leave his party on that very question? And if my hon. friend thought, according to the advice that he had received from men in high office, that he was led into error when he was told that ships were not more necessary than men, but that men were more necessary than ships and we were compelled to have conscription, how is it he now contends that ships were more necessary than men, and how can be explain his remaining where he is to-day? My hon. friend, in his desire to defend his new friends in the Government in which he holds such a high position, has been compelled to let the truth fall from his lips, as the Book of Wisdom says, "Iniqui-tas mentita est sibi," "Iniquity has been a witness against itself."
We come now to the other minister of the Crown, the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He has invited criticism, and I shall avail myself of his invitation, and I shall try to answer as briefly as possible. The hon. gentleman has uttered a sentence that can be applied to the speech he delivered to the House yesterday. He told us that there had been a good deal of talk by the opponents of the Administration, but there had been nothing done. I believe, Sir, this assertion fits exactly, if some one wished to study if, the speech of the hon. gentlemen and the administration of everything in his department. The hon. minister informs us also that partisanship has disappeared, or is about to disappear. May I be permitted to ask the hon. minister if it is not true that partisanship is still rampant in any department, and especially in his own department? I hold in my hand an official advertisement, and it is my intention to have it printed in Hansard. This is my answer to the assertion of the hon. minister that partisanship has disappeared, or, is about to disappear. Here is a statement issued by Mr. Daly, director of repatriation for the Repatriation Committee. It is in regard to free medical treatment for ex-soldiers and sailors. I regret to have

to read such a document. It is contrary to the method in which I generally make speeches in this House, but I hope I will be allowed, for once, to depart from my rule. This is in answer to the assertion of the hon. minister, and, in order to be complete it must be read in its entirety:	It
reads:
Those discharged soldiers or sailors who become ill or disabled again as a result of some disease or injury suffered during war service receive free medical and surgical treatment.
This service is provided by the Medical Branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment.
An ex-soldier or ex-sailor who has a recurrence of a war disability should, if he is not too ill, go at once to the local medical officer of this Department.
If he is too ill he should have that medical officer notified at once.
Should he be taken ill in a place where there is no representative of the Department, he should call in a local physician to give him the necessary immediate treatment and ask him to communicate immediately all details of the case to the nearest medical officer of the Department.
The name of the authorized medical representative of this department for each locality is given alongside.
Treatment at the expense of this department can only be secured through these representatives. The Department cannot pay any bills for treatment which have not been authorized by the department.
If the medical officers recommend it pay is given to patients and allowances are granted to their dependents by the department^ during the period of treatment.
The established scale of pay and allowances that may be granted depends upon the extent to which the treatment recommended by the medical officer of the department prevents the patient from doing his regular work.
Arrangements for special care of patients of the department have been made with hospitals in all the larger towns and cities from coast to coast.
Sanatoria for treating tuberculosis under most favourable conditions are operated in every province under the direct supervision of the department
H. J. Daly,
Director of Repatriation.
Here is the list of medical men appointed by the Government. There are some names which are very familiar to us, and I have had information, which I believe to be reliable, which enables me to attach to each name the political proclivities of the appointee. I will give the list to the House as I have received it. The official document says that representatives of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, in addition to this list, sflre named also constantly. The list is as follows:-

City or Town.	Name of Unit Medical Director. Asst. Unit Medical Director or Medical Representative.	-
		Ex-Conservative member.
		
		So information.
Prince Edward Island:		No information.
		
Quebec:		No information.
Quebec		Dr. A. R. F. Hubbard, 17 St. James St		Tory.
Ontario:		No information.
Kingston		Dr. E. E. Latta, Golden Lion Block		
		I'oi y.
		U nionist.
		Tory. Tory. Unionist.
		
		
		Tory. Tory.
Toronto		Dr. E. Ryan, 185 Spadina Ave		
Hamilton ... .	Dr. W. Bethune, 3d0 Clyde Block		Unionist.
	Dr. W. J. Bell			Tory.
	Dr. R. V. Bray		Tory.
		Tory. No information
		
	Or. W. J. H. Gould	V		Tory. Unionist.
		
	Dr C. Fuller 1 Wyandotte St. W			Unionist.
	Dr. W. C. Gilchrist			Tory. Tory. Tory.
		
		
		Tory. Tory.
		
Dr. H. H. Middleboro	
.. .	Tory.Timmins	Dr. H. H. Moore	Tory.Welland	Dr. W. R. McCulloch 	Tory. Tory. No information.
No information.
		No information.
		No information.
London		Dr. N. B. Alexander, Room 56 Bk. of Toronto Bldg...	Tory.
		Unionist.
Manitoba:		Tory.
		
Saskatchewan:		Tory.
		
		Tory. No information.
		
	Dr. R. L. King		No information.
Alberta:		No information.
Calgary		Dr. G. R. Johnson, Beveridge Bldg		
		No information.
		No information.
		Was Unionist Govern-
		ment Supporter.
British Columbia:		
Vancouver . 			Dr. A. P. Proctor, Board of Trade Bldg			No information.
		
New Brunswick:		No information.
		
St. John		Dr. G. P. Peat, Bank of Montreaf Bldg		Tory.
If you take the list you will find that out of 49 medical officers there are only 16 who so far as my information goes are not friends of the Government. I do not accuse the Government of appointing their friends as medical officers for ex-soldiers and sailors, but what is the use of a minister of the Crown coming into this House, speaking from his seat in Parliament on his own responsibility and affirming that partisanship has disappeared, or is about to disappear? The document says that additions are being made to this list constantly. If we take it in the same proportion, we will see that out of over 100 medical officers appointed by this department two-thirds of

them are friendly to the Government. I do not object to that; I admit that it is fair, but virtue should wait before praising itself too highly when the Government has such a record as this. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has also told us that he has been in public life for fifteen years, anu he has artirmed that the self-seexing politician is a danger to Canada. I suppose the hon. gentleman knows whereof he speaks. That is his statement. I do not challenge it. He has the experience. He is known as a public man from one end of the country to the other, and when he makes such a statement T believe the statement is true, coming from such a man.
The minister has informed us that the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. This Government was elected as a win-the-war Government. Now, the war is over. I never could understand that, having beaten the Huns as we have, the world should be expected tp accept the camouflage of saying that what was signed on November 11 was an armistice when it was in fact an unconditional surrender. We have absolute proof that Germany, in signing this armistice, was surrendering and that when she signed it the war was over.
If it is true that the problems following peace are more stupendous than those which preceded it, and if it has taken this Government four years to build up their war machine, as the minister has said, do they want to take four years more to build up their peace machine? Why did they not call Parliament together before now? Why have the Government waited three months and why have they shouldered responsibilities that they had no reason to shoulder at all? They were elected to win the war, they believe they have won the war and that should be enough for any set of men even such an honourable body of men as our ministers are. Why had Parliament not been called upon before a few days ago to do its duty and to shoulder its part of the responsibility? I suppose the Government, having built their war machine, want to build, according to their own ideas, the peace machine to be put into operation when the war is over.
The hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) said to the House that there was a feeling of unrest in this country. Could it be otherwise? In a country like Canada, with the peculiar kind of government that we have, is it extraordinary that there should be unrest? Not at all. I shall explain what I mean. Having the confidence I have in the institutions of this

country, even if I were alone, I would stand up and make the statement which I shall now address to this House. This Government has been elected by a majority of the people. Whether the lists were right or wrong, we accepted the challenge; we lost the fight, but we are game enough to acknowledge that the ministers represent the majority of those who voted. But, they had a duty to perform. The first duty of all was to call Parliament in session when the war was over because they were elected to win the war and Parliament ought to have been consulted. The charge that I make against this Government is that they have waited for three months after the armistice was signed when they should have proceeded immediately to call Parliament together.
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has told us that the members of the Opposition are like the man on the street. I have no objection to being likened to the man on the street. The man on the street is a citizen of this country. The man on the street is a voter if he has not been disfranchised by the Government.
The man on the street belongs to the common people. He bears the burden of taxation in peace time, and he risks his life in time of war, and he is entitled to the respect of even of a minister of the Crown. The man on the street, Sir, though he may be humble, modest, poor and even destitute has always been defended by the party which is now sitting to your left, and I am not ashamed to be compared to him. The man on the street is the backbone of the country when he is well treated, but when covered with scorn he is apt to lose his patience anu to crush those who think they are powerful because they happen to be temporarily holding the reins of power in the country.
The hon. minister (Mr. Calder) also told us that " he was still a Liberal and that nobody could put him out." I really think, Mr. Speaker, that nobody can put him out of the Government, which he seems to control. The hon. gentleman announces that he is still a Liberal, that he was a Liberal when he entered the Cabinet, and that he will remain one. I shall not enter into any discussion with him on that point. I shall not discuss his motives for leaving the party, it is no business of mine. But speaking for myself, I tell the hon. gentleman I do not regret his exit from our ranks. When the fruit becomes too ripe, Mr. Speaker, it falls from the tree which has given it life and which has brought it to maturity. The tree still continues to grow and to give its own life to

other fruit, but the fruit which has fallen to the ground is destined for destruction.
Every hon. gentleman occupying a seat in this House will agree with me, I suppose, when I say that in order that this country may be happy and prosperous we must have stability in Canada, and to have stability our people must have confidence in those who govern them. I submit, Sir, that the present Government is a peculiar one. It was elected to win the war, and the Government still remains in office. It is a Unionist Government without union. Free traders live under the same roof with ardent protectionists. Ministers are the target for the poisoned arrows of their followers and supporters; there is division in their ranks, and the majority of the people of this country who had confidence in this Government when they elected it will,
I believe, lose that confidence if something is not speedily done' to solve the problems which confront us. To judge from the speeches delivered yesterday by ministers of the Crown, there appears to them to be only one problem to deal with, and that is the problem of how to remain in office. Let me tell these hon. gentlemen that the country is not at all interested in that problem. The inaction of the Government, and the divisions which exist within it, have created that feeling of unrest in the country to which the Minister of Public Works yesterday made allusion.
Among the problems that confront us I find that there are three which require immediate solution, and it is the duty of the.Government to submit to Parliament a remedy which will cure the evils which threaten us. It is no use, Mr. Speaker, trying to avoid a solution of the problems which are calling for attention; it is useless to try and postpone the consideration of them. Now is the time for this Parliament to face the situation and to apply the remedy. The three problems in question, to my mind, are: first, the demobilization and reinstatement of our soldiers in civil life; second, the settlement of the question of capital and labour, and third, the agrarian problem. This Government was elected because it raised from one end of the country to the other the clamour that it favoured our boys at the Front. Do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time to take care of the boys who-are coming from the Front? Do you not believe that those boys should be shown whether those war-time speeches were the true expression of sincere feeling? From my seat in the House yesterday I heard members of the Government telling us what they were doing in the way of meeting the existing problems. Admitting,
for the sake of discussion, that the Government is doing all that it can, that it has announced its actual policy in that regard, nevertheless, if that policy fails of results let the ministers have recourse to another. Mr. Speaker, when the boys rallied to the colours we promised to look after their interests. Well, the war is over. If the Government was able to supply ships to send our boys to the Front, let it with equal promptness find ships for transporting them back to their native land. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is a vexing problem, but a Government composed of the giants of the two political parties must surely be clever enough to overcome this difficulty in a satisfactory manner. Anyway, let it make an effort to do so. The policy which it has been pursuing has given rise to criticism and complaint. In all the large cities we hear it asserted that nobody is looking after the interests of the soldiers when they return from the Front. I repeat, Sir, that it is the imperative duty of the Government to provide in a speedy and satisfactory manner for the demobilization of our soldiers and their reinstatement in civil life. They have done their duty at the Front, and they are coming back covered with glory. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Government does not want our soldiers to feel ashamed because it is not performing its duty as well as those gallant fellows did theirs on the field of battle.
The second problem to be dealt with is that relating to capital and labour. I was very much interested yesterday upon hearing the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvelll) tell the financiers and the industrial corporations of this country: " You have made money by the war; put your money into new undertakings even if you do not receive any profit therefrom." Is that a remedy, Mr. Speaker? Capital is timorous; capital wants to feel its way before entering into any new undertaking. Because they have made money, does the Government believe that the financiers should invest that money in new undertakings at a time when the industrial market in Canada is one of such little stability? Not at all. Before plunging into new enterprises, capital wants to know the exact condition it has to face. Our captains of industry have been wise in the past, they are wise in the present, and we rely on their wisdom for the future of our country. It is bad counsel for a minister of the Crown to tell the financiers of Canada to spend their money without looking for any return.
The workingmen also are confronted with a situation the details of which they must

understand. I admit that the transformation of our war industries into civil industries is a more or less difficult problem. I admit also that the workingman may not have been as provident as he should have been during the time of war; he was making a large salary and should have saved for the future. I am told, however, that the savings of the workingmen do not amount to much and that during the period of the transformation of our war industries into civil industries, they will have to rely on the credit extended to them by the grocer, the baker, and all those who supply the necessaries of life for them and their families. If the Government does not tackle the problem of capital and labour, the workingmen, when they have lost all credit, will be looking for trouble. It is just as well not to be afraid of what is coming. It is our duty, as a minister of the Crown has told us, to inform the Government of what we know, in the expectation that the Government will do what it should do. The cost of living ought to be lowered. Profiteers should be called to account; they should be punished, not knighted. But I suppose the word of these men is listened to with more careful attention than are the words and the voice of the poor workingmen of Canada.
The third problem is the agrarian problem; it is the last but not the least. The farmers have responded wonderfully to the appeals of the Federal Government and the provincial governments; men have gone back to the farm and have worked to intensify their production. But just at the moment when the farming industry was at its height the war was terminated, and now the farmers are looking for a steady market in which they can sell their produce. They must have this market. The Government is appealing to the soldiers to settle on farms when they return to this country. Many who had been attracted from the farms to our large cities went back to the farm. Is there any sense in appealing to our people to take up farm work, in asking our soldiers to settle on the farms and our young men to remain on the farm, when the agricultural products of our country find no market? The farmers deserve to have the market; there is no use in postponing a settlement of this ques-4 p.m. tion; it ought to be settled immediately. This postponement cannot relieve the situation; I affirm, with all due respect to any members of this House who do not agree with me, that the postponement of the solution of such a problem as this is an economic error. ttMr. Gauthier.]
Having regard to these troublous problems which confront the country, may I be permitted, without indulging in flattery, to say to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) that his day is coming? The affairs of the country require wise direction, and the people hope that the hon. gentleman will prove that he has the intellectual, the moral and the political stature to find and offer to the people a solution of these pressing problems which will bring contentment and satisfaction to every home in Canada. This no time for postponing settlement of these questions; a policy must be pronounced without delay.
Notwithstanding the words that fell from the lips of the two ministers of the Crown who spoke yesterday, I contend that in this as in any democratic country a parliamentary Opposition is necessary. We on this side intend to do our duty as the Constitution requires us to do it. We have lost our late chieftain; he has gone beyond the Great Divide, but he has left us his spirit, which still dominates our deliberations; he has left his teachings, which we still hear ringing in our ears, and we have his gospel embedded in our hearts. It is a gospel of tolerance, of justice, of equal rights ajid of democracy; its foundation is the human soul. That gospel must at the end triumph. It may happen' that the men of our generation will not see the hour of the triumph, but the triumph will come, because that gospel appeals to the mind and to the heart of every free man, of every lover of democracy.


Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, as a young and new member of this House, I wish in rising to continue the debate to pay my compliment to the mover and the seconder of the Address, and to congratulate the. Government on selecting two returned soldiers for that onerous and responsible duty. Not only was I very much impressed by the magnificence of their effort and the manner in which they discharged that duty, but I felt proud that amongst our soldier men we had two who could, upon the floor of the House of Commons, so vigorously, so ably, so splendidly, and with such refinement, in moving and seconding the Address, present the feelings prevalent in this country. The more particularly am I pleased because in the person of the seconder of the Address I have an old professional colleague and friend, one whom I have [DOT] watched and admired and respected ever since the first

day he entered as a student on the study of medicine.
Having siaid this, I am compelled also to remark upon the conditions under which to-day this House has met and the conditions under which we met last year. Then it was indeed a dark day of deep anxiety for the Empire. Men from this House of Commons went forth upon the streets of our capital with deep concern to study the bulletins outside the newspaper offices so as to know what was the next thing that had occurred, anxious as to what might he the outcome, some doubting, all hoping, yet restless, worried, I may say; and that feeling was but a mirror of the condition throughout the entire Dominion. Those who were not only concerned with Empire but deeply concerned and anxious regarding their loved ones who were in the thick of the fray-'aye, night and day, without exaggerating, they were there, living through the very mental anxieties almost of the lost, watching through the night, wondering if the next telephone ring might not bring some sad news, as it has done to many members of this House, to tell them that their dear loved one had unfortunately paid the full price of his devotion. To-day we meet under far happier circumstances. We meet, glorying in the realization that the Allied armies of the world have achieved a great and wonderful victory. We are proud too as Canadians that, in all the fighting, in all the struggling, in all the disasters, in all the uncertainties, in all the trials, the Canadian nation has played a man's part; a part equal to the best in this great, titanic struggle.
To-day we meet to make, in all seriousness, with every impartiality, a plain, honest, retrospect of our progress up to this hour. The hon. member (Mr. Gauthier) said that this Government was elected as a win-the-war Government. That is undoubtedly true and I want to express here my conviction that never before since Confederation has there been a government of this Dominion confronted with such a herculean task, confronted with such multitudinous and Protean difficulties, and that has come out with such a magnificent Tecord of achievement as has the present Government. And, Sir, I am convinced, notwithstanding all the criticism that that is the unanimous conviction of practically all the people of this country.
I desire to say a word or two in the way of kindly admonition and advice, so far as I am able, regarding the work left as the aftermath of this great war and which it is the legacy of this Government still
to wrestle with. I conceive it to be the bounden duty of every member of this House of Commons to shed any light that he can upon the difficulties so admittedly numerous which confront us to-day. The great work immediately before us as a lawful and legitimate legacy of this great war is the work of reconstruotion. ' I have listened with a great deal of attention to the arguments that have been put forward from both sides of the House as to the specific proposals upon the question of reconstruction. Whilst the needs and the difficulties have been dwelt upon, I must confess at the outset to some difficulty in laying hold of tangible suggestions, suggestions into which one can, so to speak, get his teeth, that he may know what we are going to do next. I purpose, in my humble way, to offer one or two suggestions.
Our first duty is to the returned soldier.
I do not think there is in this House a single man who is not desirous of doing all he can and all the country will, in his judgment permit him to do for the returned soldier. When the soldier comes back, welcomed as he is by his friends, flushed with victory and pride, hailed by his fellow citizens and received everywhere with open arms, may we not, as we cheer him and grasp him by the hand, have something in the hand to help to make his homecoming beneficial to him? For that reason, the first suggestion that I am going-to offer to this House is the wisdom of considering an increase in the pensions for the returned men. I believe I am correct in stating that at present the pension for total disability figures are somewhere around $600 for the private soldier, and that a difference is made between the pension for the private and that for the officer. At the outset, speaking for myself, I very seriously douut the wisdom of creating any such distinction. Whilst I give every credit to the officer, yet I think the magnificent work, accomplished by all our troops has been accomplished equally by the private as by the officer, and the same is true in regard to their record of suffering and sacrifice.
I will face this question fairly and squarely by asking myself, what would I be satisfied with as a pension for total disability so far as the country reasonably can provide? I know there are difficulties in doing all we desire, but after all is $600 under present conditions a very liberal allowance for total disability? Conceive what total disability is ! I saw a returned soldier in the city of Toronto who had lost both legs and his left arm. I presume that man

would not be ranked as totally disabled and would not receive the pension for that class. Yet what condition is that man in to face life? Would any man take $600 or $6,000 per year and go through life under those conditions? And yet we commence by awarding a pension that is based on total disability, and then our Pension board figures the degree of disability according to their conception of total disability, and total disability is an uncertain quantity. Some one may say that figures cannot lie. Well, I do not wish to say they cannot, but I know that some figurers can, and I know that when you want to obliterate the truth or cover up a patent and obvious defect, the best way to do it is to ta.se a percentage basis of calculation; and calculating a man's degree of disability on that basis you can start with a very serious handicap and figure it down almost to nothing. I think that is where there is danger of dissatisfaction creeping in almost without the knowledge, and certainly without the intention, of the Government, and it might be held up by some as something which was not creditable and which did not represent an honest endeavour to deal justly by the returned men. For that reason I want to offer the blunt suggestion of raising the total disability pension from the present rate up to $1,000 a year. iSome may say: You will bankrupt the country. Not a bit of it; because the number of total disabilities will be comparatively small, and I am convinced that if my suggestion were adopted it would not add a very great amount to our Pension Bill. But it would be a great satisfaction in the future to know that an earnest, honest effort had been made to discharge as far as we legitimately could our duty and obligation to the men who have so gloriously distinguished Canada among the nations. And, Sir, no matter to what height the tidal wave of our generosity may rise we still remain a debtor to our men who by their service have given us that protection which Canada can never fully compensate for.
The next question I wish to deal with is the question of the aliens. The alien question is a very serious one in many of our cities. It is a very serious one in the city of Toronto. Aliens are divided into two classes: the enemy alien, and the ordinary alien. The enemy aliens-and theie were, and still are, a number of them resident in the city of Toronto-are individuals, we can hardly call them men, who have come into our midst and fostered the ideas of the Teutons. They have done all they could

to injure the loyal citizens of my city; they have connived in every intrigue that they could possibly conceive. They have houses in some cases, and have sheltered within them enemy aliens until they were discovered by the police. They have propagated that rotten system of espionage which has honeycombed the civilization of the whole of this continent. They have been forced into concentration camps, they have been surrounded by guards, they have been threatened with the pointed bayonet, and to-day they are waiting and anxiously hoping that now the war is over they may creep back again and mix with loyal, honest, and patriotic Canadians. I want to say with all the emphasis at my command that I believe I am speaking for the whole of this country when I say it, that the best policy to adopt regarding enemy aliens is *to pack them all aboard the first outward-bound ship and see that they go back to the countries whence they came.
While on this question, I am forced to refer to the War-Time .Elections Act. I am glad the Government intend to bring down a measure which purports to make permanent some of the provisions of that Act. I hope they will see to it that none of the enemy aliens at least, whether or not they have been implicated as active enemies, will be placed on the franchise rolls of this Dominion for the next twenty years. We can do without them. It was one of the master strokes of this Government, an act which carried with it the commendation of all loyal people, when they decided in the great effort of this war to proceed along the lines of the old British people who came here and laid the foundations of our institutions. II think we can sometimes take a lesson from the great republic to the south of us, and upon this question 'I agree with the policy of (Roosevelt, who declared that as far as he was concerned, speaking as an American citizen, he believed that a country that was good enough to live in was good enough to fight for. I like that sentiment, and I say it is a good one for the people of the Dominion of Canada to adhere to.
But when we have disposed of the enemy alien, we have by no means disposed of the whole alien question. Besides enemy aliens, we have many other aliens in the city of Toronto. We have aliens who have been exempted from military service for international reasons, very largely, and have continued to do business and to take advantage of the situation. I had the privilege when the Military Service Act was

being enforced to sit upon one of the exemption tribunals in the city of Toronto, and I will give a concrete case to illustrate my meaning. A young man who was conducting a grocery store in the city of Toronto applied to that tribunal for exemption. His father was an old, feeble and infirm gentleman who had put all his capital into the business in the hope that the son would be permitted to carry it on. The son was of military age, and applied for exemption to the military tribunal on which I sat. We discussed his case very carefully and thoroughly, but we decided that, although his business might be ruined, he would be compelled to go to the Front. As a result of our decision the store was closed, and he had to make the best of the situation. Wishing to know the true facts of the case,
I visited the locality, and I was astonished to find that an alien had rented the store next door and had started the same kind of business. I asked him when he came there, and he said: " Oh, I came just now;
I know you, doctor; I have no vote, but I do not care about having no vote, if I have the business." There are plenty of men in the city of Toronto who have received, in a smaller or larger degree, an advantage exactly under those circumstances and conditions, until now I think I am within the mark when I say that a large proportion of the small businesses in the city of Toronto are controlled by aliens, I do not say by enemy aliens, but aliens, men who have come into this country within the last few years. Forty per cent of the small businesses and many of the larger businesses are conducted by these people. Incident to the war, their businesses and their profits have increased enormously. We were told by one of the ministers that about 50 per cent of the active young men of fighting age from Canada have gone into the service. Well, you can see what remains. It gives, and has given, these aliens a magnificent opportunity, and they have taken the fullest advantage of it. What I want to say to the Government, and what I would respectfully suggest for their consideration, is the conception of some proper and practical method of taxation, so that these business increases which ensue as a result directly of the war, could be investigated, and the profits that have accrued, shared in by the country; to the end that when the men return and apply to be reestablished in civil life, they will not be confronted by aliens who control the business which they wish to enter, men perhaps who very imperfectly understand English or speak it not at all. It is disappointing for 6
them to find that, on their return, after having fought for the liberties of the people, these liberties are being enjoyed by men who are not possessed of British ideals, and who are not in the true sense Canadians.
While on this subject, I wish to say a word or two regarding our immigration.
I am not speaking particularly of immigration as administered since this Government came into power, but the immigration system under previous governments. They have, so to speak, permitted the doors to be opened, and everybody who likes can come into the country without question, hesitation, selection, or inspection. I saw not very long ago a statement in one of the Toronto newspapers that there had been a special arrangement by which Mennonites were admitted into the western provinces of Canada, exempt from military service. I do not believe the statement; ll am sure it cannot be true, and I do not believe that any member of the present Government would approve of such a thing. Do we not know Mennonites? Are they not essentially German? Have they not German traditions, German literature, German legends? Are they to be permitted, after being hounded from the United States of America, to gain admission into Canada exempt from military service? No, no, hon. gentlemen, I do not believe the Government made any such arrangement, and I do not believe that the Government in the future would be justified in giving any privileges to anybody coming into Canada which the native born Canadian himself cannot enjoy.
I want to say a word or two regarding the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department, and I make my statement particularly as the hon. gentleman on the other side (Mr. Gauthier) said he considered it was only an organization for the distribution of patronage. If at some time the hon. gentleman would come to the city of Toronto and would visit the Davisville hospital or the Hart House or any one of several institutions I can give him names of, he would not only see that it was not for the distribution of patronage, but that it was marvellous in its achievements, magnificent in its ideals, splendid in its efforts, and in the work it has set out to accomplish. I can show him there, where soldiers who had been disabled for two years in the English hospitals have come home, have been placed there under the directions and guidance of masseurs, trained calis-themc directors, and under treatment the paralyzed muscles and the palsied limb have been restored, and the cripple has gone out of the hospital astonished at the



splendid results which have been achieved under skilled and scientific direction. I can go further, and show you that in every department of civil life they have, from the ordinary private soldier, evolved experts for almost every line of work. We ' have stenographers, typewriters, skilled machinists, expert electricians, mechanics, wood carvers, all developed out of soldiers who knew nothing about these trades before. Our men have been more encouraged and more benefited by that work and the examples which they have daily seen developed before them than by any work for the benefit of the soldier that has been done, I venture to say, by any country in the civilized world.
I congratulate the Government upon stating that they had at last decided to establish a federal Department of Public Health. This is to me no new idea. I read a few years ago a most able speech by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) which he made in this House, a speech which wa? commended very highly by the members of the medical profession throughout the whole country, a speech to which my attention has been drawn since I was elected to this House by no less than 20 medical men in the Dominion of Canada, irrespective of politics or party, and residing in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Therefore I am more than gratified to see that a Federal Department has been at last resolved upon, but, if I understood the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) correctly, he said he could not understand the use of it; he could not see what was the sense of sending a medical man of the federal government to interfere with a medical man of the Provincial Government. Well, if that is his conception of a Federal Health Department work, I am sure, (adopting the words of the last speaker), he will have to linger long upon the boughs of the apple tree to which he is attached before he will on that question be anywhere nearly ripened so as to fall to the ground in the amplitude of his maturity.
I can conceive at this juncture of no department of the public service which any Government could institute more replete with opportunities beneficial to all classes of the community than, a public health service, rightly and justly administered.
Let me just, en passant, give you a few thoughts that have occurred to me with regard to that work. First and foremost, it is a great work in connection with the Department of Immigration. We have had in the past, rushing into this country, without

restraint, inspection or restriction, the diseased, the mentally defective, the criminal, the unhappy, the uncertain, the infamous. They have come in here to do what? To work? Not a bit of it. They are absolutely incapable of working. They are not skilled workmen, they are not farmers -they never were-and they are not artisans. They have been in many cases chased from one large centre of the civilized world to another, until they have embarked en route to the new world. Probably they have tried the quarantine station at New York, they have been hunted from there, and then they creep around by the sea and come into Halifax. They have done that in the past. I am not blaming the present Government for that; that is a legacy that dates away back, to the time when people of this class were allowed to come into the country.
I have reason to know whereof I speak, for I have had occasion to act in many of their cases. Not only have we to care for them, but we have the legacy which they leave. We have the epileptic, we have the mentally defective. The defective engrafts his progeny upon Canada, breeds in his turn other mental defectives still worse because with every generation the trait intensifies, until, as a result of imperfect and unscientific inspection, we have innumerable cases occupying our asylums, our jails, our reformatories and our prisons, which have entailed upon the Dominion of Canada a cost of untold millions. All you have to do is to study the catalogues and indices of psychologists and those who have checked up the subject to see the percentage of mental defectives amongst our imported population. Tnat is one feature.
Another feature that I want to refer to has reference to the epidemics which occasionally come in this country. We have had an illustration of one in the ravages of the "flu." "Flu" has been very severe in some localities. I was speaking on the subject with a medical man, a Canadian officer, who was located at Gibraltar. As far as he knew, the first case of 'flu in the south of Spain came under his observation and he told me of the investigations that were being made by the French and British Governments when the epidemic broke out. While I admit that no department, under present conditions, is in the slightest degree to blame for the ravages throughout Europe and this continent of such an epidemic, I merely cite that illustration to strengthen the point I have to make regarding this matter. They knew how these epidemics spread and developed and

they were able in a large measure to take preventive means which, I am quite convinced, restricted the further ravages of this disease. Would it not be a profitable thing for the Federal Government to have a scientific bureau of investigation where trained men would be able and competent to investigate all these sporadic and serious infectious maladies so that we would be able to deal with the situation before the advent of the infection and thus prevent the wholesale and general infection which is apt to follow if these diseases are not thoroughly and scientifically understood.
There is another point directly in line with that to which I would draw attention. There is the control and supervision of all kinds of quack nostra for the cure of all the ills that flesh is heir to. The men who sell and manufacture them know little of medical science and they care less. All they know is that it pays to advertise and that their sales are proportionate to their advertisements. They have indices of every disease to which flesh is heir and they have a remedy for each. The poor unfortunate invalid as he struggles tottering to the grave is on the list of the charlatan who has a cure-all to sell him. Is it not time that the Government of this Dominion should control absolutely and rigidly the manufacture and sale of patent and proprietory medicines? Is it not time that they tested in the public laboratories of the country every curative that is to be put upon the public market? Is it not time that they left the manufacture of serums to the provincial authorities whose laboratories in the main are excellent for the development and manufacture of these products? Yet they do not.
I want to give to you, Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration, an incident which occurred under the last Government. I am informed that the laboratories of the Public Health Department of the province of Ontario were ready to make Salvarsan, or as it is known, 6-0-6, as a serum cure for syphilis. Before they could distribute that amongst the medical men of the^. country, they required a Federal license and the officers of the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario came to Ottawa for the purpose of obtaining that license. They were not permitted to get it. They were absolutely refused the license which would have permitted the Provincial Board of Health to manufacture and distribute that curative product. They were opposed by what we may call the interests, by certain men who
6}
were engaged in the introduction of other so-called cures for the same thing. Now, I contend that these things should not be and that there is a splendid opportunity for a Federal Department of Public Health which will regulate all that kind of thing. We have been agitating about this matter in the Province of Ontario, and the Provincial Government has appointed a commission for the purpose of investigating venereal disease. The one thing which makes that malady more terrible than it really is, is the hope existing in the mind of the infected that he can secure a cure in privacy, and that by entering his cloister with some patent nostrum and shutting the door he can regain his health, with the result that the last state of that man is worse than the first. Now if these things are true about the human organism, they are equally true about another branch of the animal kingdom, viz: cattle and other domestic animals. They are equally liable with ourselves to infection, and they are equally liable to conditions and troubles which can be cured by scientifically and wisely directed effort. So also in connection with the vegetable kingdom. There are infectious maladies in the case of fruit trees, and various other species and varieties of vegetation, with which it is the bounden duty of the Dominion to deal, and not the duty of any particular province. I am fully aware that health affairs ought to be left to the provincial governments very largely. True they are to a great extent a matter of locality, or are very often modified by local conditions, nevertheless, it is wise that we should co-operate to the fullest, and assist to the utmost of our power in the work, the pioneer work, which has been so splendidly done by the provinces in the domain of public health. But that is begging the question entirely: there is st'll a large field of activity awaiting the attention of a federal health department. Moreover there are legacies, directly traceable to this war, which the federal health department must needs deal with. There are cases of tuberculosis, there may be cases of venereal disease, there are cases of mental aberration, there are cases of shell shock, there are cases of chronic nervous maladies which will be with us for ten or fifteen years to come, the treatment of which is not a burden belonging to any particular province but should rest upon the shoulders of the Federal Government representing the country as a whole, and should be scientifically and intelligently dealt with. I will not weary you any more by dwelling upon what I might narrate upon this line

I am leading up to the point which I want to impress upon you, that if we are going to have active, energetic, and proper service from this department, which the country needs, we must have a medical mind at the head of it. There is in its administration, as much technicality, as much minute detail, as much complexity as there is in the conduct of the Department of Justice; and yet would any member of this House entertain for a second the thought that a doctor, or a layman could administer, as Minister of Justice, that legal department with any degree of common sense or satisfaction. And yet the Minister of Justice has to deal with man-made laws, whereas in the Department of Public Health the administrator is confronted with the great complex and obscure laws of nature, which it requires long training to apprehend and even then they cannot be understood to the fullest degree. These laws can only be realized by a study in the greatest laboratory of all, in the hospital ward, where we see the varied phases through which the sick are passing, and where we are able, with gentleness and kindness, to make every allowance as we approach with a keen desire to help those cases which command our patience, our sympathy, and our regard. It is for that reason that I urge upon the Government to begin right, to place at the head of the Health Department some man who will command the respect of the whole of this Dominion; a man who is skilled and expert in medical knowledge, so that he can administer that department with the same efficiency and the same comprehension as is displayed in the administration of the Department of Justice. Some hon. gentlemen may say: You are extravagant in your ideas for the period of curtailment and economy which has been suggested by the ministers of the Crown. For my part, I am not altogether convinced that economy is the wisest policy at this juncture. It all depends of course on how we practise economy. The cheapest thing is not always the best, it may be cheap and yet very dear in the long run.
I was somewhat impressed with the speech of the Minister of Public Works (iMr. Carvell), and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber at present because I wish to say one or two things about him. First of all, the hon. minister said he was not a pessimist. Well, it is hard for me to believe that he is an optimist, and in his speech he drew rather a sombre picture of the future conditions in this Dominion, as to what we were to do for revenue to keep
[IMr. Sheard.]
going. To my mind he mixed up his accounts; 'I would like to have a professional audit of the statements from a financial standpoint. The hon. minister incorporated the expenditures for capital and permanent purposes with current expenditures, as I understood him, and forecasted an outlay something like $110,000,000 per annum. This is the estimate he gave us of the sum which would have to be raised. There was to be a Government building in Montreal, a Government building in Toronto, and I think he' said a Government building in Calgary-these, amongst other things, were to be the subjects of outlay. I do not suppose the Government intends to go on erecting great public buildings annually, and I think therefore there was probably an over anxiety on his part in considering the expenditures incidental to the present year. I have great confidence in this Dominion, as we progress in our national development. I have great confidence in our resources, in the agricultural richness of Canada, in its mineral and timber wealth, in the value of its inland seas and fisheries; and I believe that if we wisely direct the development of our resources and see that they are not wasted, we need have no apprehension or anxiety regarding our ability to provide for all that is needed, or for all that the country imperatively desires. At the same time I am not in favour of exempting the great interests from the Business Tax. I know it is very popular to tax incomes and to say: ''Let the man who has the money and the income take the taxes. Everybody says: there are few who have it, and therefore if we tax the few we will probably have less complaint from the great majority." But let me ask you as a professional man-and you know that doctors never make any money, they are one class of the community that work night and day and die poor- let me ask you who have been the makers of the great fortunes realized ever since the commencement of this war. I met a man the other day who had made, since the beginning of the war, no less than two and one-half million dollars. There are men who are engaged in certain industrial works to whom war-time conditions brought greatly increased trade. The Government has in the past taxed them, and I hope it will continue to do so even in peace times, because their profits were unduly and excessively large. Let us adopt a broad and equitable policy, so that every man will pay his share. I like a man who will always do his part, who will lift his share of the load, who will pay his share of the taxes,

who will carry his burden in common with the rest of us, so that we can all pull together with confidence up the slope, and in due course land the load on the top of the hill.
Now, I want to say a word with regard to the Civil Service Commission. Last session- on the floor of this House I supported the Civil Service Commission; 1 thought that there were great possibilities for good in it. I have not changed my mind; I am still going to support the continuance of that commission. I do not say that it is perfect. I do not say that we cannot make improvements in it. I do not say that it always does the wise thing. There are certain things I want to know. First, I propose, if some one else does not do it, to put a question on the Order Paper with a view to finding out how many appointments made under the Civil Service Commission since it was established were given to returned soldiers. I want to see how in the total sum the returned soldier figures, because I have known instances where he did not get a good show.
I am an old examiner. I have been at the business for thirty years, and I know all the tricks of the trade. One time I had to do with an appointment in Toronto where there were tremendous crowds and very strong influence on both sides, and the appointee had to be a lady, so you can guess what difficulties we were in. The matter should have been dealt with by the municipal council, but the municipal council balked when they saw the beautiful faces and winning ways of the ladies' delegations; so finally, after shifting it from one committee to another, they landed it on my shoulders and said: Let him do the work. Then the deputations began to come before me, and I must confess that several of the recommendees left not much room for choice among them. They all appeared to have splendid qualifications, and I spent some time and many weary hours of thought in studying out what kind of problem I should put up to get the one that pleased me best. I am not a card player, but I understand that the card players say: When in doubt, play trumps. Similarly, when you do not know which side to please, please yourself. That, I think, is a good policy, and it is my policy. Well, in this case I had my own ideas. Some sections of the press were recommending one person and other sections were recommending another, and I said, I will hold an examination and decide the question on its merits. And then the examination proved exactly to go my way; I appointed the one whom
1 desired to appoint, and everybody was satisfied that the best girl won. I am not saying that the best did not win, nor am I saying that this is what always happens with the Civil Service Commission. But I will give you another illustration.
In London a student who was to he examined at the 'College of Surgeons had been a special pupil of one of the examiners, and this student was excessively stupid. This professor said to the student: " James, I want you to study the symptoms and pathology of cirrhosis of the liver. Do not bother with anything else, but
5 p.m. study that so that you can say it backwards and frontwards until you know it thoroughly." The pupil agreed to do this. In the College of Surgeons in London the examiners work in pairs; one man asks the question and the other puts down the mark. So when this candidate was called in the examiner who had been teaching him said to his co-examiner: " I will ask the question now, if you do not mind, and you can mark him." So he was trotted in and the first question he was asked was: " Now, sir, just tell me the symptoms and pathology of cirrhosis of the liver." Of course, he excelled himself in the readiness of his answer. He did so well that he completed the whole thing before the time limit, and the examiner scratched his head, and, assured that if he asked the candidate anything else he would prove his ignorance, said: " You have done that so well, would you please repeat it?" So I say that examinations are not always a real test of a man's fitness, and when you come to test by examination a man who is already qualified for a technical position you are apt to get just where you do not want to get.
Apropos of this, I want to read a letter which illustrates exactly the question that I am discussing. A Canadian veterinarian of considerable ability who had seen service in Egypt, the Mediterranean, France, Belgium and Britain, who had qualified in the Ontario Veterinary College and had been four years in the war, was desirous, now that he had come home, of carrying on the work that he had given up when he went to the front. He came to me and spoke about applying for a position in the Government. I said: "I have nothing to do with it; you had better write to that Civil Service Commission." I do not know whether there is a place in the Government service at this time for a veterinarian, but this is the answer he got from Dr. Roche- this to the returned soldier, to the experi-

enced veterinarian who had seen four years' active service overseas:-
I have yours of the 5th and am enclosing you a temporary position form, which kindly fill out and return to the Commission, so that we may have your name on file in the event of the Agriculture Department placing a requisition before the Civil Service Commission for additional help in your line.
He did not see that that was going to get him anywhere, so he wrote again, this time to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Apparently more consideration was given to his application this time and a fuller letter was formulated. The next letter he received from the Commission was as follows-remember, this is a case of a returned soldier, a professional man:-
With reference to your application for employment in the Civil Service of Canada, I would say that the work in which you are Interested or for which you appear to be qualified, comes under "Special or Technical Positions," usually thrown open to competition and for which an examination is sometimes necessary.
Evidently they have not any fixed rule in the matter. (Reading):-
As a rule such vacancies are not of frequent occurrence, but when they do occur and are not filled by promotion, an advertisement thereof appears in the Canada Gazette. In order that you may receive copies of these notices, your name has been placed on our mailing list.
Well, I think I could have given him my copy of the Canada Gazette and not lost a great deal. However, I do not wish to criticise too severely the Civil Sendee Commission. They made two splendid appointments of considerable importance in Toronto. They appointed a postmaster and a deputy postmaster in the city of Toronto, and I do not believe there have been two appointments made by any Government since Confederation which have, to so large an extent, received the approval of the people, one and all. They took as their appointees in those particular instances men who had devoted their whole lives to the service. The man who was made postmaster was the former deputy postmaster who had grown up in the service, who knew every wrinkle in the whole office, who knew the very men that were employed there. Even although I was not consulted in regard to the appointment and did not know who the appointee was until after he got the job, I am glad that he was made postmaster. I congratulate the Civil Service Commission and the Postmaster General of this Dominion on making that appointment, because I know that almost irrestible efforts and pressure were exerted by certain political parties in order that that appointment should not be made. Not
[OMr. Siheard.]
only was the postmaster appointed in that way, but as deputy postmaster they appointed a man from the ranks, a man who had grown up in the service, a man who had a magnificent and perfect record behind him, a man who thought that by devotion to the service of this country in a civil capacity, he would be justly dealt with and would receive advantages and emoluments which would be worth while. I wish, on the floor of this House, to offer my testimony and express my satisfaction in regard to those two appointments, to encourage the Civil Service Commission and also the ministers by showing them that when they are making good appointments, such appointments will not be forgotten. There is another thing I desire to add to this. A few days before I left Toronto I saw the newly appointed postmaster, and while I was congratulating him upon his work, I incidentally said, " Well, how is the salary now? Is it the same as before the war?" I really do not know what the salary is. " Why," he said, " the salary is the same as it has been for twenty years, but the work and the business have increased over a hundred fold." I have had some experience in work and in getting good service, and I think the poorest policy one can adopt is to underpay ofiicials that have responsible duties to perform. While I am speaking about the post office in the city of Toronto and the whole postal service, I want to say that the postmen are scandalously underpaid in the cities-I do not know anything about outside. I say they are scandalously underpaid, because they cannot live on the pay they get.


Mr. EDWARDS:: It is 100 per cent worse in the country.


Charles Sheard: I heard the discussion on the floor of this House last year in reference to the rural mail carriers. I heard it stated by hon. members that contracts were actually let at prices that would not pay for the horse feed. I believe that was, to a large extent, true. It ought not to be so. You will never get satisfactory service unless you pay a reasonable fee for it. It is all very well to say: Well, they get so many hundred dollars a year. In all this discussion of labour, somehow or another, people do not appear to have grasped the cardinal thought of the purchasing price of a dollar. A man's pay must be proportionate to the purchasing price of a dollar. What is the use of giving a man $950 a year as a postman in the city of Toronto, when that sum will not pay for his house rent, clothes and fuel-those three essentials? You cannot expect him to be



FEBRUARY 27, 39119

[Stage Direction]
satisfied. We had serious trouble last year. The postmen made representations, so they told me, time and time again, and they did not get any satisfactory answer, so they went on strike. We came down here in the interest of the city to try to get the Government 'to consider their case. The Government did consider their case; they went into it very thoroughly and exhaustively. I had hoped that they had kindly and generous hearts in the Council, but unfortunately when the returns came in, we were disappointed to find that the Government had given an increase which I think was given with a very mean and stinting hand. I am convinced that it would be good policy to go through the whole Civil Service administration from top to bottom. Let there be a portion of the work of reconstruction applied to it. Let us weed out the useless rot; let us take out the weed crops; let us take out the old decayed roots from the structure, and let us revitalize that which is retained and give strength and character to the Service by paying a decent, generous, liberal wage to the men who have to assume the responsibilities of carrying on the government and administering the work which is, after all, for the benefit of the people. Let us in that way make them satisfied in the knowledge that when they devote their talents, time, energy and years to public trust in the public service, they are serving an honest and good Administration, and will not have to spend their declining days in a workhouse or a home. That is the policy which I would suggest to the Government if I were touching on the Civil Service question.
Unless we can use our public moneys in a proper manner, we may find that we are suffering from the troubles referred to by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), when he spoke of people who lived beyond their incomes, and some governments have in the past been very wasteful. I was impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) last year, when he referred, speaking in connection with the Canadian Northern railway, to the tremendous, extravagant expenditures which were made to liquidate the liabilities which had been manufactured by Mackenzie and Mann. Let us exercise prudence, forethought and foresight. Let us economize by not assuming burdens that are unnecessary and that will undoubtedly be unprofitable. Let us economize so as to give what we all desire, namely, assistance to the soldier in every way. Let us rise and give him our place if need be.
Let him understand that the country is not unmindful of his great sacrifices. We are apt to lose sight of the prospect of capitalizing the greatest asset we have from this great war, that is the patriotism and devotion to service which those men who went overseas, evince. They went without compulsion; they went voluntarily; they suffered, as we know; they come back imbued with the same love of country, if not more so, as they had before they went. They come back sure of their belief that Canada is of all countries the best place to live in, and we want by generous and kindly treatment to develop in that particular an asset of value in them, to make them emissaries and missionaries in every hamlet and town so that they may extol the great advantages of this vast country which belongs to us, the country we live in, the country we love.
Those of us who have had their sons and blood at the front know what I mean, when as I look back upon the war I refer to it as those four long years of hellish night, and we are apt to ask now of our watchmen upon the tower, "Watchmen, what of the night?" The answer comes back: if we have confidence, the night is not so black as it was; there are streaks on the horizon's verge; there is mist in the valley, the sun is rising, there is dawning upon this country and upon this people a new day, a day of peace, prosperity and happiness. Let us all join together with a united effort, without regard to party politics and their narrow divisions, and hand in hand, as one broad-minded, generous, devoted, energetic and hard-working people pray God to grant that in the new day now dawning Canada may be blessed above and beyond all nations, that glorious Canada may rise Phoenix-like from the fire of this great war, triumphant as our boys have been triumphant in Europe, and let us all as Canadians say, God be thanked.
Mr. AIME MIVILLE DECHENE (Morit-magny) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, among the hon. gentlemen who have paid a tribute to the memory of our beloved chieftain (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), few perhaps have suffered as deep a loss as we younger members of the House.
From our very youth we had grown accustomed to admire the noble and grand figure of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to follow the advice he was wont to give our seniors; we had made up our minds to do as much, when our turn came, but unfortunately the fatal hour has struck; he has passed away and bid adieu to this world where

he played such a glorious role and we, the young members, are left alone to steer the course so well marked out by him, with those great principles of harmony, humanity, union and tolerance. We shall certainly be called upon to put those great principles into practice, and there will be no more striking tribute paid to his memory by the younger members than their faithful adherence to the virtues preached by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We shall endeavour to follow in his footsteps by promoting the welfare of the country and helping our fellow-citizens, no matter what their language or their race, and to make of Canada a country worthy of the Twentieth Century.
Let us set to work, and to satisfy him of our sincerity let us remain faithful to duty to the very end; let us walk in his footsteps and history will tell that the broad-mindedness of the younger generation was worthy of the broad-mindedness of their beloved leader.
It is now my duty to tender to the mover and seconder of the Address to our beloved Sovereign my warmest congratulations for the manner in which they have performed their task. They have departed from the beaten track of their predecessors and shown real independence of thought.
They have shown themselves the fearless and gallant soldiers that they are. They are entitled to our congratulations and we, the younger members of this side of the House, are happy to express to the younger members on the opposite benches our appreciation of their courage and their eloquence.
Let us hope that in the future they will also walk in the footsteps of our great leader who has passed away; that their minds and hearts will be constantly attentive to the promotion of the welfare of this country and let me assure them that in following this straight and narrow road they will have us with them.
From the very beginning of this session, Sir, we have shown that we were willing to follow in the wake of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We have accepted with enthusiasm the lead of our present chief and shall endeavour to prove to him that we are the worthy sons of that great patriot, Sir Wilfrid Laurier; we will follow him as thoroughly, as frankly and as fully as our English-speaking friends, for upward of thirty years, followed our great Chieftain who has passed away; we will render him the homage that he, in company with his English-speaking associates, tendered to our own leader by remaining with him through thick and thin. He can count on the younger members as

well as on their elders; these last, moreover, have already shown their willingness to do his bidding.
After listening to the speeches delivered so far I have wondered-in company with many others-whether all the speakers were not quite of one mind in demonstrating that the present Government often lacked decision in the decisions it was called upon to make. It seems rather impossible to find a decision which is lacking in decision, but really we have had ministers tell us that they have given the greatest care and attention to our national problems, that they would give more care than ever to the problems brought about by the war. But, Mr. Speaker, during the present session we shall be called upon to, work out the difficulties of re-establishment and to decide in what way we can help our returned soldiers to resume their status in civil life. The hon. ministers talked a great deal, for hours at a stretch, to tell us that they had accomplished a lot; unfortunately, they did not tell us what they intended to do later on.
We have not even learned from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) how many acres had been granted to our returned soldiers; nor how many veterans had applied with the intention of settling on this fwonderful land that was promised them. It is all very fine to promise the soldier land, to make a farmer out of him ; but, Sir, the offer is conditional: the condition is that the soldier pay full value for what he gets; he will have to pay, in common with all other farmers, the biggest part of the taxes levied after his return. If my information is correct, the Government lends him, to start with, a few thousand dollars, payable in fifteen or twenty years; but the Government, of course, has the prudence to take, as security, all that the soldier-farmer has, so that even he will be unable to get under way immediately. Everything will be mortgaged. And that is their idea of re-establishment.
Have you ever considered, iSir, what it would cost the country if only one-half our returned soldiers asked the 'Government for the $7,500 it is proposed to lend them? Did you ever consider that the country would have to pay out, a few months hence, between $1,500,000,000 and $2,000,000,000?
At the time of the last Victory Loan the hon. Minister of Finance had many misgivings about its success; but he may feel sure that when he comes again before the country to ask for such fabulous sums he will meet with complete failure because he

will be unable to grant to the most exacting any exemption from customs duties such as the people of this country are clamouring for.
He won't perhaps be able to pass Orders in Council exempting from taxation the tractors required by the Western farmers for their ploughs or to enable the farmers of the great provinces which produce potatoes to export them to the United States; without which expedients the loan would have proven a failure in those provinces. It is all very fine for the Minister to have succeeded in financing his loan by such means; but when the question will be to borrow some hundred million dollars for rounding up the budget and the other hundred millions to be loaned to soldiers for buying land and stock and farming implements, do you think, Sir, that the country will still be able to advance so much money? If the Government intends giving effect to this programme of Soldier Settlement-in the West alone, I suppose-it will require at least half a billion, and we may very well ask ourselves if the financiers, if the agricultural classes will be able to supply these funds; with this mind, and in an attempt to shift the burden, the Government invited all the provincial premiers to a conference. They made a decision without deciding anything. This conference took place in Ottawa; it lasted for a few days. The papers informed us that a few of the great premiers had made formidable suggestions, that they were going to get the Government out of the mess it was in. We have as yet been unable to find out just what these suggestions were, or whether the 'Government saw fit to make use of them, for the Teason that we have still to witness any result of this conference. The two Iron, ministers whose speeches preceded ours in this debate, told us nothing about it. I suppose that the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario, as well as his hon. colleague from Quebec, offered lands for Soldiers Settlement, too. Mr. Speaker, can you see the position the returned soldier would be in if the Ontario or the Quebec Government gave him land to settle on? Gan you see these men who for the last four years, in some cases only three years, have had to dig themselves a hole in the soil of Flanders for shelter against enemy fire, coming back to this country, where, thanks to the present Government, we'll change the spade for an axe and make our soldier into a pioneer; we'll put him into the forest where, on his arrival, his first care will be to throw up some kind of a shack t.o live in while he is
waiting tq spread out more and hoping that, after two years or so, he will be able to afford a little stable for his horse and a cow, yes, after two years! Isn't this, Sir, the acme of re-establishment. The Government is full of divine kindness towards the soldiers.
Were not the provinces consulted, Mr. Speaker, as to what they could do to accommodate returned soldiers at home, and if both these provinces-I am speaking of these two only-adopt the idea of giving land to the soldiers, the hero will shoulder an axe, exclaiming:	"What a kind Providence we have in this Government. '
But that was a neat trick, to have the provincial governments decide what was to be done for the soldier. Unfortunately, here in the east, we have no cleared land; so, the soldier will have to hie himself to the west. In the West, we hear, there are immense stretches of land held for years by certain companies for speculative purposes. We hear a great deal of talk about the generous idea of expropriating these holdings and putting them into the hands of the soldiers. But, Sir, isn't this merely a move to prepare public opinion for the expropriation of lands in the hands of notorious speculators whose gigantic shadow sometimes hovers over the Government. This shadow would leave the great railways and go farther north, towards Lesser Slave Lake, towards Bear Lake, I believe it is, so as to work other lands, not to work the surface- the surface is too remote to be worked in the ordinary way-but to work what is below the surface; and then perhaps we'll need a Minister of Public Health in this district, in accord with the wishes of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Sheard) so as keep an eye on the cases, not of shell-shock, but of shell-game, that would begin to develop on another scale.
I have just alluded to a word of my hon. friend from Toronto. There are likely many others that I should single out for attention.
In his opening remarks he used an expression so striking that I wish to repeat it here: he said that once more the Government had, during the present war, "played a man's part." I would have liked him to add just what the Government's part has been; probably that of a stripling and not that of a man. He was seeking to protect the Government which claims to have done so much for the soldiers. The morale of the soldier on the firing-line must be excellent, but it must be backed by the morale of those who remain behind at home. Evidently, if we are to judge the morale of
i

our troops at the front by the morale of those who stayed at home, those who supported the man behind the gun by supplying him with all he needed, this morale must needs have been excellent, for the hon. member from Toronto told us a moment ago that he had come across one of our greatest citizens, who, during these four years had amassed $2,500,000. There you have an excellent morale, the morale which supported the Government so as to uphold the morale of the man in the front trenches.
The hon. member also said that the Government had frequently to face herculean tasks. They have had to move the rock ol Gibraltar out of the way in order to get anything done in the country.
Certain papers have spoken of a certain rock that certain people want to move, not out of the way, but into one of the important harbours of New Brunswick.
Some ministers refused to pass the contract; then, it seems, the present minister took a hand; we have got the rock as a wharf, the thing is done; and there you have a herculean task; the people pay.
Now, .Sir, the hon. member said moreover that the development of this country does not require alien enemy hands; but I wonder where we are going to look for our immigrants if we turn away from the countries whose people we have been wont to consider as our enemies, but whom President Wilson asks us to welcome as our brethren. If we are to put into practice those great principles which are being applied to-day at the Peace Conference, these men, stranded in a ruined country, will want to move to some other country. Therefore if we continue to look upon them as enemies, then ours will be a closed country where only those already within our borders can prosper.
The speech from the Throne tells us that we must recruit immigrants. We shall get them from Europe or from the United States. We must not forget that we shall have to close our doors to certain American citizens whom we consider alien enemies. We can turn to England who has lost a great many of her sons at the front. Undoubtedly we shall witness no great flow of immigrants from Great Britain. There are so few Belgians left in Belgium that those who remain will not care to come to our shores. As regards Germany, her people would perhaps make dangerous citizens. France has never been much given to emigration. Italy might 'furnish a few; but Italy is entering upon a period EMr. DechSne.]
of self-development and she will need all her people. Where, then, are we to look for the immigrants mentioned in the speech from the Throne, the immigrants that the Government is after? This is a problem that demands very serious consideration and the hon. ministers in their indecision will either have to decide for once, or give the matter up.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else about our Government which must be brought to your notice; something which is a direct result of their indecision. When a man is at a loss where to turn he tries to get somebody else to decide for him and very often in so doing he has to observe certain niceties; the gentlemen who are at the head of affairs in this country, who make up the Government which exists theoretically if not actually, have found this to "be the best means of governing Canada.
We have a great many commissions which exist for the sole purpose of being commissions-naturally, they can be nothing else-and commissioners are appointed so that they may draw commissioners' salaries. A great many of these commissions have shown, so far, that their usefulness went no further. There are no more political parties; everybody is a Whig or a Tory; we all belong to the same party;-it is a pity, however, that nearly all the commissioners are Tories. No party spirit there. The Government is merely protecting itself.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt you will allow me to ask you a question: how comes it that in several of these commissions appointed for the promotion of Canadian trade, for the public administration of the State's resources, there are so few representatives of the different jjrovinces?
There is the Canadian Northern Commission. I must admit that it no longer represents the Canadian Northern; but that it has become the Canadian National Railways Commission. The Government could not be so unmindful of the very great services rendered it by this railroad as to forget them in such easy fashion, and so as to have them ever present to the memory and constantly before it's paternal gaze, the Government could do no better than to give to this commission which administers these railroads as nearly as possible the same initials as those which still stand for this notorious railway. Hence the commission was styled C. N. R., or Canadian Northern railway. These things are all one; the same commission administers for others.

The thought was sublime; nothing better could be found.
There is another commission which has just been appointed. The supreme commissioner, the grand commissioner, is the man of petty measures. I do not mean to say that the measures he submits are not broadminded ; no, far from it!-in fact, I wish to say just the opposite: they are very broad. There was talk last session of bringing everything under the same system of measurement; of reducing everything to a general standard. There was to be a standard in this country for bags of cement; another for liquids, still another for wood. Well, Sir, this year we are introduced to another standard which had not been discovered last year. I refer to the standard measure for electricity and we have-this is likely to provoke laughter-we already have on the Order Paper of Parliament a certain thing which is styled about like this: "An act respecting the Units of Electrical Measure. ' Everything must be measured-the better to tax it later, I suppose. That is self evident.
If wre want to tax properly later on, we must begin by knowing just what we have on hand. Well, when the electrical unit has been measured, I wonder just what tax will be levied on it? It is possible that it will suffer no taxation, for it is not the common people, it is not the helpless ones who own the unit; they pay for the unit, but it is the wealthy capitalists who sell electricity by the unit-an irresponsible way of not giving us what we are entitled to-they glance at all these little figures and then say: "Here's the amount of your bill." Exactly like the Government. Just like the hon. Minister of Public Works who was saying a moment ago: it's going to take a heap of money to run the railroads; here's what you owe; fork over.
Mr. Speaker, could you tell me, or some member of the Government in your stead and through you-for it seems that we must speak through the Chairman-just what boon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is going to bring back to -us when he returns with the remainder of the Government which is on the other side of the ocean? No doubt we shall learn that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has become enamoured of the metric system and that, next year, once electric units have been measured, he will impose the metric system on us so as to sell to the French things that he would not try to have them buy from us.
Isn't it surprising, Mr. Speaker, to see a Trade Commission leave for Europe so as
to look after the commercial interests of this country while the Minister of Public Works was telling us yesterday that he was quite willing to do something for trade but that the commerce of this country should first of all take care of itself.
This Trade Commission, presided over by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, intends visiting France and Belgium, finding out from these people what they need from us, and informing us what we can supply them with. But, Sir, to reach an agreement, in a matter of business, it is necessary to speak both languages; and haven't you wondered why, at least, in this matter, one of our French-Canadian leaders of industry in the province of Quebec was not chosen to represent the French people of this country, so as to allow the province of Quebec, a part of Ontario, even a part of New Brunswick, where French is spoken, the privilege of being represented on that commission by someone who could talk to the folks of these countries in their own language, who understands their way of doing business, and could thus have given an impetus to trade with France and Belgium for the period of reconstruction? Well, Sir, those who were sent can speak nothing but English. And how do you expect them to reach an understanding when they are concerned with systems of measurement with which our English speaking fellow citizens are more or less acquainted not having had to study them as we have?
Is this, Sir, a deliberate slight to those of our inhabitants who speak French exclusively and who go to make up three out of the seven millions of our population; is that the way to strike after the prosperity of our country and obtain for us the share we are entitled to in the trade of those foreign countries when it comes to supplying their needs for reconstruction and for, building over their ruins?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this is another instance where the Government lacked foresight and that those who represent it on that commission are there for the sole purpose of concealing responsibilities behind which the Government itself is trying to hide.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on this subject of overseas affairs you will doubtless, permit me to take exception to the words of the hon. gentleman who is our Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) yesterday when he said, with a good deal of emphasis, that without a doubt we would receive a war indemnity to bolster up our finances and enable him, our grand treasurer, to

meet his liabilities. That, Sir, was the last thing that I expected to hear on the floor of this House from the lips of the hon. treasurer of this country.
If the newspapers, if the Associated Press, if the Canadian Press, supported by the Government, if the correspondents whom the right hon. Prime Minister brought with him to Europe so *as to keep us informed back here, if these people have really told us the truth about what is happening at the Peace Conference about what is happening in England, we must come to the conclusion that there will be no war indemnity unless it be, perhaps, the indemnity foretold by the official correspondent of the Canadian Press when he wrote that to fill the coffers of our hon. treasurer we would receive- Greenland and its fields of ice.
Well, Sir, let Denmark keep Greenland; we need no ice in this country save perhaps, to cool-oh, not altogether-to cool off the zeal of certain financiers who are constanly dancing attendance on the treasurer,-attracted by his handsome eyes, no doubt-maybe, by something else besides.
Sir, this brings me to another feature of the Government's policy. The hon. member from Toronto told us a moment ago that he had seen people make millions out of politics; others took advantage of the wholesale exemptions granted by our hon. Minister of Finance so as to entice them, in a roundabout way to loosen their purse strings; still others turn to their advantage the tariff barrier which protects their industries; but the common people have had nothing at all.
If, (Sir, we wanted to delve deeper into this feature of our politics we would find, not a policy of partisanship-because the hon. minister has told us that such a thing does not exist-but, at least a policy of favouritism. Why was it, Mr. Speaker, that the Government took such pains to have the wealthy citizen, the man with bulging pockets, subscribe for the treasury bonds which were already paying a handsome dividend, and were so attractive that they persuaded everyone to subscribe, that had the whole country as security, and were supported by all our natural resources- which to-day we boast of as immense, as boundless-why was that little stamp affixed which exempted thesq bonds from taxation, if not to encourage the big financier to stuff his pockets with them? Because the plain people of this country, the toiler, the man behind the plough, because, Sir,' the petty clerk behind the counter, have not been accustomed to buying bonds, because 
they do not alw>ays have a few cents to invest; but they knew, moreover, that our mighty business organizations, our high financiers who are well known to the Government-we are aware of that-would appreciate the value of a bond which could be tax-exempt for fifteen or twenty years >and would subscribe to the limit so as to shelter their fortunes from the income tax while we, the plain people, while the farmer behind his plough, the housewife in her home, the school teacher in her class-room, the clerk in the store, the street labourer-who is despised in certain quarters-would continue to sweat taxes all of the time.
And the soldier hack from the front who will work hard for his salary; when this, added to his pension, reaches $1,200, he will have to pay an income tax on all revenue exceeding '$1,000. The returned soldier, I repeat, will have to bear a share of the taxes while those who stayed ,at home, making munitions and filling their pockets continue to rush into the money markets of our country to sweep into their vaults all the tax-exempt Victory bonds they can gather so as to enjoy their income in all security. The plain people are the ones who will pay; and the soldier will be called upon once more to bear his share. This man won the fight; he lived through filth and misery in the trenches; he is disabled for the rest of his life; and, Sir, [DOT] once he has returned to this country and has put away his rifle he will have to get into harness with the rest of us poor people, us plain people, so as to ensure the success of future loans and especially to help pay the billions of faxes that the Government will exact from the people of this country. At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying, when you announced the hour of six, that the policy of the present Government is a policy of favouritism, I mean a policy which favours the vested interests and makes light of the wishes of the common people. The vested interests were given tax-exempt treasury bonds so that they could invest their tremendous fortunes to good advantage. Very few among the working class, very few among the farming class were able to invest a lot of money in these bonds and profit by this exemption. The income tax levied by the Government, and which was increased nearly one-third last year is borne almost exclusively, therefor, by those who are pos-

sessed of lesser fortunes and those who earn their livelihood by laborious toil. Since these wealthy gentry, these millionaires- and the Government has quite a few of them among its friends-are safe from this tax, are immune from paying this part of their income tax, the others will necessarily have to furnish the funds required by the country both for the expense of government from day to day and for the payments of interest and principal on our tremendous debt.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is not only- what a sorry admission to make on the floor of this House-it is not only those who work and who worked all during tire- war in this country, who will have to bear the burden of these taxes. Is it not unfortunate, Sir, that our returned heroes themselves will have to undertake a large share of these payments if they wish to enjoy certain privileges that the Government offers theim and accept the loan of $7,500 that will be made them to set them up on a farm.
Have you ever figured out what enormous sums they will have to pay back in the course of the next 25, 30 or 40 years? We, and they, in common will have to pay not only the debts accumulated through the war, but they will also have to pay back the -amount they borrow; and we shall all see ourselves forced to pay a national debt of nearly four billion dollars; this means, Sir, that those who won the war, those who shed their blood, will be worse off than if they had lost the war.
The big interests have been promised, so as to enable them to meet their liabilities, that the tariff, that barrier which prevents imported articles from competing with their products, would be strengthened. It is fitting that customs duties should provide enough revenue to permit the Government to honourably discharge its obligations; but these tariff duties must not be made into an impassable wall which altogether shuts out imports.
I remember one of the famous speeches of Mr. Thiers before the National Assembly of France, after the great defeat of 1870. The delegates to the National Assembly had been asked to find the necessary revenue for paying off the five billion francs demanded as an indemnity and to each and every proposition M. Thiers made answer:	"But is
this article you want to tax able to support even a penny tax without putting a stop to imports?"
We must always keep in mind when levying customs duties the fact that these should not put a stop to imports. M. Thiers' advice was to make each and every article pay to
the limit of its capacity, but never to lose sight of the fact that if you shut out imports you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And this will be the inevitable result if the tariff is made still higher. If customs duties are increased merely to please a few big manufacturers imports will cease and instead of enjoying larger revenue we will be faced with a growing deficit.
Several of those who spoke before me talked of lowering the tariff, especially to the advantage of the agricultural class. We on this side of the House, Sir, are in favour of tariff rates which will allow the agricultural class to increase production and get some return for their efforts. But we are in favour of this reduction in rates, Mr. Speaker, merely because it pleases a few people. We advocate these reductions because we know, we have proof, that the wealth of the farming community, the wealth of the plain people is the only real wealth on which the country can rely in time of stress. What made France so strong, Mr. Speaker, during the war just passed? To what, in fact, do we owe our own strength, if not to the wealth of the people themselves?
It is not the millionaires, it is not the magnates of big business who are the backbone of the country; for, when a crisis comes, they stop, they stow their millions of dollars away somewhere and the country can't touch them. But when a crigis is upon us the country can always turn to the farmer, to the workingman, and ask him for money. And we are astonished- you yourself were astonished at the time of the last Victory Loan-to find that there was so much money in the province of Quebec, which is entirely an agricultural province; that Quebec had irfore money than any other province of the Dominion. You refused to believe it, Sir, when we told you on the floor of this House that Quebec was the only province which, during this crisis, had not availed itself of the moratorium; that it was the only province where you could always demand the payment of what was due you, whether it is a mortgage, a note, or what not. Why? Because the Government of Quebec, because the people of Quebec, ever mindful of their ancient origin, did not forget that they were the descendants of the sturdy French race and that the first care of the French peasant, the farmer t>f the mother-country, is to pile up money at home and not in the banks; not tremendous fortunes, but little savings so that when bad times appear and they are forced to tighten their belts, they always have gold in their pockets. There

always has been gold in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government wanted to he honest with the agricultural class when they published the report of the last Victory Loan, to show the proportion of subscriptions in our province which represents the farmers-they would have given us the amount subscribed by the city of Montreal, which they somehow never put into their statistics. Certain English counties were included and the figure of their subscription credited to Ontario. All this was done so as to cast a slur on the province of Quebec and in thus discrediting Quebec they are discrediting the entire agricultural class. This is an insult to the farmers and we wish to register an energetic protest against it.
Now we come to another consideration. We demand the revision of the tariff on all farming implements, on everything that is a help to farming and to the farmer; we must never forget that it is the man with the hoe who amasses the real wealth of the country, the wealth which does not scamper away to the other side of the ocean once the pockets are full, there to bask around the desks in the War Office or in the quarters of the big English cabinets. That kind of people run away with their millions; but Canada desires its real wealth from the pockets of its farmers. We do not want to see our wealth crossing the ocean. That is why we are criticising the Government to-day for its policy of favouritism towards the big capitalists. In the words of the hon. member for Brome {Mr. McMaster) this policy is most pernicious for the country.
We have to do not only with a policy of favouritism, but with a policy of despotism. We work for the big fellows, we work for those who are well off, for those who have large fortunes, hut what do the poor people get? Nothing. What are they promised? Bosh, soap bubbles. They are promised the moon, but they never get a thing. That is the lot of our poor people; that is what this Government's policy leads to.
Mr. Speaker, we ask the Government to put aside this notorious policy and to remember that the people exist; that these gentlemen are governing for the people and not for a few privileged interests.
Every means have been tried, during the last three years to turn our social fabric upside down, with this policy. We have seen a cataract of laws falling in such rapid sequence and with such suddenness, that we did not have time-even we who are

accustomed to keep a close watch on our laws to kpow just wfiat was the law of the country, because just as soon as a law had been passed it was immediately succeeded by another law. And what a law! For instance, the notorious Conscription Act. Things that had never been seen, even in Germany, became a part of our life in this country where the Government showed more severity than the very potentates of Germany. Indeed, to our knowledge, the kaiser himself had never acted in such a fashion.
Mr. Speaker, if we want the^ people to submit it is high time that this state of affairs were a thing of the past; if we do not want the entire working class to rise up in revolt and have a repetition in this country of what is going on in England where strike succeeds strike, and one fine day wake up to find the country we are working for thrown into the abyss where the Bolsheviki have thrown Russia. If things came to that pass we would find in this House leaders who could very well call themselves Trotsky and Lenine.
Were I allowed to offer suggestion I might make a few, but the hon. Minister of Public Works told us that he has had so many that he doesn't want any more. The reason is magnificent! He doesn't know where to turn.
As the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Sheard) said a moment ago: when these gentlemen are in doubt they play trumps. But, Sir, when they play "trumps " the people pay; there you have the biggest proof of their indecision.
The hon. member for 'Toronto-I feel bound to pay him this compliment-gave to the House some very pleasant and very useful notes that could very well have come from the few ministers who have had the floor.
Since the beginning of the session we have been told that a Department of Public Health is to be inaugurated. We all wanted to know what was meant, and what the emergency was now that the epidemic has passed, and someone made the guess that it was to prevent an outbreak of epidemic among the members of the Government, and that having seen the candle in the window of the Liberal stronghold and heard the murmur that so-and-so w,as thinking of leaving, some one guessed, I say, that this Department of Public Health is for the purpose of curing all those erring sons who are willing to return; curing them of influenza. Really if the " flu " should break out in their ranks they decidelv would need an energetic Minister of Public Health to

prevent the complaint from spreading because they are already suffering from a rather severe attack and the Government itself might well be the first to die.
But this Public Health Department, as stated by the hon. member will cover many other diseases beside influenza, and after the epidemic has been stopped, they 'will have to watch its consequences. The hon. member also referred to matters which, at first sight, I did not think would come under the control of a department of Public Health.
The Minister of Agriculture is having considerable sums of money voted each year, towards checking certain plant diseases and destructive insects in our forests, but according to the hon. member, it appears that it will be within the functions of the Minister of Public Health to do away with all the insects which cause plant diseases. The hon. member may be a vegetarian and for this reason he would like the minister to look after the matter. Do you fancy our Minister of Public Health running through the fields to destroy all the little bugs which are eating up our crops and which, in some of the provinces where they grow a lot of potatoes, practically destroy the crop? Do you fancy him sending engineers in our forests to destroy all the flies that are liable to injure balsam, spruce or white pine trees? Mr. Speaker, is that what they call the public health. The plants as well as the bugs will have their Minister!
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, there is one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Toronto that struck me more particularly. Evidently the Minister of Public Works is not in luck's way. This afternoon somebody told him most disagreeable things which made him frown and grow nervous; now the hon. member for Toronto tells us that the Minister is all mixed up, mingling the assets with the liabilities and the revenue with the interest. But nobody told us where goes the money which we are paying.
Mr. Speaker, did you ever ask yourself, as some of the members of the Government, and specially of the Opposition do, what was the result of such policies.? Of course the first conclusion we may draw is that this policy is one of demoralization.
Fortunately the war is over. There is no one, Mr. Speaker, who had a deeper sense of regret at the death of so many brave volunteers in his home town than I, and I must say that out of 45 of our young men who went voluntarily to the front, 42 were killed-forty-two dead who may have had no decorations, but whose death we mournand that those who came back are disabled for life. Hail these gallant men and the others who came from the surrounding parishes. Hail these farmers' sons who left the plough to fight in Flanders and died on the old isoil of France whence came their ancestors. No one glories more in their supreme sacrifice than I do, neither does any one regret more than I do the futility of their sacrifice. Of what use is it for them to have gone and fought overseas, to have spilled their blood for the land of their birth and for Old France and for their country of adoption, Great Britain, if those who are coming back after winning the war have lost peace at home.
The policy carried on by the Government will necessarily bring about this demoralization. As to the promise made by the Government to the returning soldiers that they would give them the best positions or at least, as .a last expedient, the positions which they held before enlisting, we know, at home, what that promise is worth. It means to the returned man that he is sent from one commission to another and delayed until the time when there is nothing to be got. Is it not regrettable to notice how vain are these promises?
I myself happened to apply to the authorities on behalf of a wounded returned soldier who was asking to be re-instated in his former position on a ship. It is with a deep sense of regret that I had to tell him: " My friend, the Government who promised you would get back your job say that they will give you another one on the new boats they will build next summer." Is this the way of re-establishing the soldiers? Here is a man who did his duty, and who is told when coming back wounded:	" To fulfil
our promise to you we shall wait until next summer when our boats are launched."
How many soldiers received the same reply! They are sent from " Dan to Beer-sheba," and the unfortunate ones have to struggle without getting anything. Will this help in strengthening the morale of these men? Or is it not rather calculated to [DOT]raise their indignation against those who remained here and to whom they will say: " While we were working hard, while we were fighting and giving our blood, you were busy making money without providing for us; we had the promises and you had the real thing; now that we are back, we have not even the satisfaction to say that you intend to keep these promises."
A time will come, Mr. Speaker, when these gallant men will be able to speak out, and when that time comes, the hon. ministers who, to-day, are living happy,

will be glad to go back to their mansions. Indeed they will be fortunate if the soldiers do not fetch them there and force them to give an account of their conduct.
Hail the Canadian army which showed such valour in the fighting on the various battlefields! Hail the brave ones who h ave left us, who have sacrificed their all for the triumph of their country of adoption and of their mother country. But, Mr. Speaker, how will you ask them to respect the laws? How will you ask them to abide by the various Orders in Council, when they know that these laws do not represent the wishes of the people for *whom they fought? They come from the people, they want the people to rule, or else they will have a hand in it. If they do, we shall help them and the people will have their revenge.


Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth):: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Michael Steele: That is the first difficulty, I think, encountered by the hon. leader of the Opposition in carrying out his "repatriation" policy, and I think I can assure him that there will be many more difficulties met with before it is successfully carried out.
Our armies overseas faced difficulties and overcame them; our people at home during the four years of war have faced difficulties and overcome them. With our army returned, and with our people at home united, as they will be, after demobilization, I indulge the confident hope that whatever difficulties arise in this country within the next few years this combined after-the-war army will successfully cope with and overcome. It is gratifying, I am sure, to us on this side of the House, and, I believe to the great majority of the people of Canada, to know that demobilization, repatriation and reconstruction are being carried out by a Union Government. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) this afternoon made the statement that there was no one to look after the returned soldier. I would remind him that Union Government looked after the soldier before he returned and that Union Government looked after the soldier last spring when he was badly in need of assistance and reinforcements. The returned soldier is being looked after by that same Government now with the same spirit and the same success.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe also made a remark referring to the Liberals on this side of the House and compared them to fruit ripened and falling from the tree. I would like to remind him that the ripening of fruit is not the only reason for it falling from the tree. Fruit falls from the tree when the tree becomes blighted, fruit falls from the tree when the tree dies, and is unable to give the fruit that vitality that it requires in order to remain upon the tree.
We enjoy Union Government on this side of the House for many reasons. One reason especially is that we have the privilege of criticising the Government. Hon. gentlemen on the other side cannot appreciate what that means but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of those who are supporting Union Government feel a freedom that they never enjoyed when they belonged to either of the two old parties. We are free to criticise and in so doing we are free to retain the freedom of men thinking for themselves. I believe that the day of the infallible governments has passed. We have had many of them in Canada. Every government, in fact, has been infallible while it remained in power especially in the eyes of its own supporters. We have not an infallible Government, I am glad to say, and I hope we never shall have another.
I want to refer to one question that is before 'the Government at this time and which was referred to in such excellent terms this afternoon by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard)-the Public Health Bill. The previous speaker (Mr. Dechene) made the remark, if I understood him, that a Public Health Bill was not warranted by the circumstances. I hope, Sir, that when the discussions which will take place on that Bill during the session are ended, my hon. friend will be fully convinced that the circumstances do warrant the establishment of a Public Health department. He also made the remark in connection with this Public Health department that when the Liberal influenza gets hold of the people it cannot be checked. That may be true, but when it gets hold of the people I believe it will prove just as deadly as the influenza that has passed over Canada during the last few months. I am rather gratified that the Government have at this session announced their intention of organizing a Public Health department. For two years I have brought the matter before the House and it is gratifying to know that at last the efforts that have been made in this House on many occasions are going to bear fruit and 'that we are likely to get the department which is needed. This is in line with what I believe this Government, as all governments in Canada, will have to do in the next few years-give greater attention to social problems. After all, -the importance of our country is determined by our people, and unless we have a vigorous, virile, healthful people, we cannot have a



country of the first importance. Universal health conservation is, to my mind, the duty of the nation. Sanitary science has placed within the hands of the State facts which, if applied to the protection of the health of our people, will produce a greater and better nation. The physical care of our people determines to an important degree the mental and imoral development; and all combined, the physical, mental and moral, are required to make the best citizens. In Great Britain much attention is being given to the subject. In his first speech of the campaign in the general election of last fall, Premier Lloyd George made this statement:
The recruiting- statistics have revealed terrible conditions as regards the physical health of the nations. This is due not to poverty but to neglect. The health of the people must be the special concern of the State.
The British Labour party have adopted as the first principle of their platform:
The securing to every member of the community all the requisites of healthy life and worthy citizenship.
What can be done in Canada? In these days we hear much of the burden of taxation which is going to he put on the people of Canada as a result of the war. Every person is looking for a means by which taxation can be lightened. I want to give to this House a possible method by which the taxation of Canadians may be greatly lightened. Irving Fisher, in his work on " National Vitality," estimates that sickness costs each family in the United States on an average $110 per year. If that rate is applied to the people of Canada, it costs the people of Canada $220,000,000 each year for sickness and $100,000,000 at least of that can be saved, or the part of that cost which is due to preventable sickness; sickness which, under an efficient department of health, can be prevented. This tax falls heaviest on the working man.
It is estimated that on the average each working man loses nine days per year from sickness. In Canada we have a million and a quarter working men, which means that eleven and a quarter million days' labour are lost to the country on account of the sickness of the workingmen, a loss in wages alone of at least $35,000,000. Then there is to be added to the wage loss the cost of the sickness, and the cost of the deaths. Not only that, hut sickness brings unemployment, which we are all striving to prevent. Unemployment is followed by poverty, poverty is followed by destitution, 
and destitution is followed by either charity or crime. In Canada, there are every year at least fifty thousand deaths which are unnecessary. This is a tremendous economic loss; let me give you some figures to illustrate. If ten thousand of those who die are wage earners, and each wage earner is worth to the country at least $10,000,- so it is estimated-then, Sir, the unnecessary deaths of wage earners occurring in this country each year means an economic loss to Canada of at least $100,000,000. There is an opportunity for a modern, up-to-date, live Government such as we have to-day in Canada to save that immense burden of taxation to our people. Not only have we great unnecessary loss among the wage earners from deaths, but every year in this country there are dying fifteen thousand infants under one year of age, who can be saved to the state. The blackest page in the records of Canada is the page which contains the records of infant mortality, because that record is due to the neglect, indifference and ignorance of the Canadian people. When a child dies people are often heard to say, "Providence has taken another little one home." It seems to me it is almost criminal dishonesty to place on the shoulders of Providence what our own ignorance and neglect are entirely responsible for.
We have talked of conservation for years, and along some lines conservation has greatly advanced, but we require conservation and yet more conservation. We have for years been applying conservation to our agricultural problems, but why, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, should we conserve the fertility of the soil and not conserve the tillers of the soil? Why should we conserve plant life and not human life? Why conserve animal life and not child life? Why conserve our forests, our iron, our coal, our water-powers , and neglect our people? Thousands are spent every year to destroy the parasites which prey on plant and animal life, but how miserly we become, how miserly the Government has been in the past, when asked to spend anything to protect from similar parasites the citizens of our land. Horses, cattle, hogs, fruits and vegetables, all receive due attention, but thousands of infants are allowed to go to early graves, thousands of wage-earners are allowed to die or become disabled, without any attention from the State, and so generation after generation the health of our people goes neglected.
We have for the past few years been fighting to maintain democracy in the world.



FEBRUARY 27, 1910 SO

[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Army preserved Canada as a democratic country. Our soldiers made their contribution for democracy; now it rests with the people of Canada to make their contribution by rendering Canada a democratic country fit for a democratic people to live in. Why expound the benefits of democracy to a poor citizen with tubercular chest, slowly fading, knowing well that within a few months, or a year or two, his little family will be left to depend for the essentials of life on the cold charity of the world? Can we interest in democracy the wife or children of a man who can leave as his only legacy to society another illustration that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children unto the third and fourth generation? The only democrat who can appreciate Canadian democracy is he of clear eye, pure blood, robust frame, and well-functioning brain, enabling him to fully enjoy the privileges and liberty which that democracy bestows upon him. To protect our people from the conditions which I have been describing, is to perform work of the highest and most patriotic character, work worthy of the attention of any Government.
To secure the greatest industrial production and development, it is necessary to maintain at the highest efficiency the health of the farmer, the industrial worker, the transportation employee, and all other workmen on whom depend the production and distribution of agricultural and industrial products. For this reason I think the Government is to be commended for its announcement that it is going to give aid to the highways of our country. Great changes have taken place with regard to the Highways of Canada in the last thirty or forty years. In the pioneer days practically the only people who used the country road were a few farmers who lived within a mile or two of it. Then we reached the stage where the town or city dweller began to use the roads to a limited extent, and it was found advisable that the counties and the provincial authorities should come to the aid of the farmer in constructing and maintaining in repair the roads which he had previously had to keep in condition solely by his own taxation. But we have passed awaj from even that stage. The good country highway to-day is a national highway; it is used not only by the farmers living in the district through which it passes, not only by the citizens of the villages and towns or nearby cities, but by citizens throughout the whole country. It is even used by citizens from the land to the south of us, and therefore I say
7i
it is becoming that at this time the Dominion should step in and say: We recognize that the main roads of our country are national highways now, and therefore we feel it incumbent upon us to come to the assistance of the farmer in constructing those roads and keeping them in repair.
The speech from the Throne announced that a Bill would be brought in dealing with immigration matters, and I am glad of it. In this connection the Health department can be of very great service. I hope, Sir, that in future only the immigrant of healthy body and sound mind will be admitted into our country.
The great problem of the feeble-minded in Canada to-day has arisen chiefly because our Dominion authorities have been permitting great numbers of feeble-minded immigrants to come into this country. At the inspection of immigrants in New York City it has been found that four out of every 1,000 people applying for entrance into the United States are feeble-minded. I doubt not that the percentage of feeble-minded among those who have been applying for entry into Canada in past years has been quite as great. If so, it means that every year, for a considerable period at least, from 1,200 to 1,500 feeble-minded persons have been admitted into Canada. Let us pause and think of the enormous burden that this places upon our people. Remember, too, that 80 per cent of the offspring of these people will be feeble-minded. As we make this calculation we find that the Dominion, through laxity and carelessness, are admitting and have been admitting into this country every year large numbers of people who ultimately will be a tremendous burden upon each of the provinces. So that from a provincial as well as national point of view it is important that immigration regulations shall be stricter and the inspection of immigrants more efficient.
But in our immigrants we require not only healthy bodies and sound minds; we look for more than that. We have been entrusted with a great country. Perhaps in the past we have been allowing ourselves to run to commercialism. No question today would more readily excite a discussion than that of the tariff, and this shows that our minds are still largely centred on commercialism. To my mind, the tariff that was made for Canada in 1878 probably requires a great deal of remodelling in order to make it thoroughly adapted to the Canada of 1920. But this has nothing to do with immigration, about which I was speaking. As a result of the war and of our war
[Stage Direction]
work, there is imposed upon Canada the necessity of making of this country a great. British nation where. the English language shall prevail and where law and [DOT]order must be recognized. There is no room in Canada for Bolshevism, notwithstanding the apology made for it by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other evening. I should like to read to the House a summary of a report which was made on some of the deeds of Bolshevism, as published in this morning's papers. In a despatch through the Associated Press from Copenhagen, February 26, there appears this statement:
An appalling narrative of inhuman crime is revealed in the official report of the Esthonian authorities on Bolshevik atrocities committed in Bsthonia, especially Wesenberg and Dor-pat.
The graves of those murdered at Wesenburg were opened on February 17 in the presence of the town governor. Three graves were found to contain 82 corpses. Skulls were shattered, bodies hayonetted and even eviscerated. An eye-witness of the execution Who escaped, described the terrible scene when the victims were placed on the edge of the graves and shot indiscriminately, trampled into the graves and finished with the butts of rifles. The vicinity of the graves was littered with torn clothing, brains, fragments of skulls and hair, while the grass was covered with congealed blood.
Similar bloodthirstiness was evinced at Dor-pat, where the murdered victims were dropped into the river through holes in the ice. Recovered bodies revealed many arms and legs broken and one with the eyes put out.
The prisoners captured were robbed of clothes and valuables, led to a cellar and killed with hatchets and bombs. Examination of the cellar showed bodies piled up thickly in unnatural positions. The walls were splashed with blood.
Bolshevik fury also raged against the peasantry many of whom were mutilated and murdered. Thirty women were killed at Narva by stones being tied round their necks and being thrown into the river.
Those are the deeds of the people for whorp the member for Brome, the other night, tried to enlist the sympathy of this House, and for whom he made
9 p.m. a partial apology. There is no room in Canada for Bolshevism, and if there are any evidences of it to-day, we are but reaping what we have been sowing in our immigration policy. We have seen people in Canada during the past four years who have been profiting by the protection of the Canadian flag and of Canadian law, whose hearts were turned against Canada during that conflict, and who were openly professing sympathy with our enemies. I hope that in future our immigration policy will be such as to guard this country against' the man who comes to exploit Canada. In the past the desire of
£Mr. Steele.]
the foreigner has been the deciding factor; in future we should have the assurance that the foreigner desires, when he comes to Canada, to become a good Canadian citizen. We need immigrants, but we do not need them so badly that we must accept any one and every one who desires to come. I do not sympathize with the view that in future our immigration policy should be limited only to the Anglo-Saxon countries; I believe that there are many good people in continental Europe who will make most desirable Canadian citizens if our people do their duty by them when they arrive here. But in my opinion, none but those who are able to speak English or the French language should be granted the rights of citizenship until at least eight years after their arrival here. I believe also that every immigrant should be registered on his arrival and that he should be required to have in his possession a registration card such as our own people had to have during the last few months of hostilities, so that a check can be had on him at any time. The eight years should be spent as a period of probation, and if at the end of that time the immigrant has not been living as a well-behaved, law-abiding, industrious, loyal Canadian citizen should live, and if he has not in those years been successful in acquiring a reasonable knowledge of the English language, he should at the end of that time be invited to return to the land wdience he came and not be allowed to carry with him all the wealth which he has made in this country. Every one who leaves the land of his birth to settle in another country should feel that by so doing he indicates a willingness to relinquish the language and customs and ideals of that land; and when he comes to Canada he should come with a willingness to adopt the language, the customs and the ideals of this country. Only by the recognition of this principle can we develop a citizenship which is one hundred per cent Canadian.
We should not blame former immigrants for the condition of affairs which has been shown to exist in Canada of recent years. They came here on invitation; they were almost constrained to come. But when they landed here they were ignored. No further attention was paid to them. If blame is to be laid on any person, it should be laid on our Governments, on our municipal authorities, on our educational authorities, on our public men, and especially perhaps on our aspirants to public life who are too often willing to cater to the foreigner in our midst in order to get his vote. Perhaps a share of the blame could be laid on the
[Stage Direction]
shoulders of every Canadian citizen, for we have all sadly neglected the newly arrived immigrant. Many of them have left their own countries and have come to Canada in order to- escape oppression and to enjoy the liberty which Canada offers them. We desire that they shall enjoy that liberty, but the liberty which they enjoy in Canada must be Canadian liberty, they cannot be permitted to enjoy the liberty which they imagine they might enjoy if they had remained in the land of their birth. Canadian liberty entails a responsibility, and the immigrant coming to this land should be made to understand that. That responsibility is a responsibility to the State, and amongst the responsibilities to the State is the responsibility to defend the State when the State requires defence.
We are at this time emerging from trying experiences. Victory has come to our armies overseas. Victory has also come to our people at home, because we will all, I am sure, admit that the efforts of the Canadian people at home have resulted in splendid industrial and agricultural victories. The combination of these two forces will, I am certain, result in our people courageously facing the difficult national problems of the next few years. Together they will successfully overcome those difficulties, and the achievements of our after-the-war army in industry, commerce and agriculture will be such that there will result a greater and more prosperous Canada than the most optimistic at present can even hope for.
Mr. WILLIAM C. KENNEDY (North Essex): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me have extended their congratulations to the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Redman) and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) on their speeches on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. May I be permitted to concur in those congratulations, feeling sure that the House will agree with me that in the speeches they have delivered they have given us information, facts and figures that will be not only of service to the House but of great service to the country.
The speech itself was a typical Union Government production replete with promises. If there is one thing more than another that hon. gentlemen opposite do well, it is to promise. In fact, it has been said that no government that has been formed in Canada since Confederation has been so long on promises and so short on performance as the present Union Government. There is, however, one promise
that I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will implement, and that is the promise with reference to the War-time Elections Act. That Act should be repealed without delay. There may have been some excuse a year ago for hon. gentlemen defending that measure. They may not have had an opportunity of knowing all the facts and details in connection with the voting overseas, but surely there is in this House no hon. gentleman who has returned soldiers in his constituency who does not now know the disgraceful story of the elections that were held in England in 1917. I am not speaking from hearsay; I have had in my possession the documents dealing with the matter, documents that at all events some gentlemen on the other side of the House have been privileged to see; and I hope, before the session is over, an opportunity will be given not only to the members of this House but to the people of this country to learn the names of those implicated and the methods employed to place this Union Government in power.
The people of this country are to-day in no frame of mind to accept a franchise Act whose only object is to continue in power hon. gentlemen opposite. Not only the Government of the country but the form of government are on trial with the people of Canada. The people are seriously asking themselves if some other form of government would not be preferable, and if a form of government, which, through Orders in Council, permits a small coterie of men to impose their views and wishes on the people of the country, is not inconsistent with responsible government and the spirit of democracy so necessary to our national existence. Let me say-and I am only reechoing the words of the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair), who spoke yesterday-that in so far as the people of my part of the country are concerned, no halo goes with the position of a Cabinet minister. The Cabinet ministers of this country are the servants of the people and not the masters, and that is a good thing for Cabinet ministers to remember. It is important in the interests of the people that the proposed franchise legislation should be fair and just, so that it will appeal to all irrespective of party.
Amongst other matters dealt with in the Address was one that I thought would perhaps have come in for more attention. I refer to the visit of our distinguished Premier (Sir Robert Borden) and his fellow diplomats across the sea. So far as I have
[Stage Direction]
heard, no explanation has been given by hon. gentlemen who have up to the present addressed the House as to what has transpired in Paris or in Versailles, what the Premier is doing, or what he hopes to do for this country. All the information that the members of this House can obtain is what they can gather from the public press. Fortunately, it seems the Premier is well supplied with correspondents because we are able to keep to some extent in touch. I wish, however, to congratulate . the Premier, as other hon. members have done, on his finally obtaining some definite standing abroad. I am free to confess that I am not aware just what that particular standing is. The fact remains, nevertheless, that it seems to be perfectly satisfactory as a matter for congratulation, and in these congratulations I desire to join. I notice that the right hon. gentleman is in Paris; I notice also that the President of the United States is in Washington, that the Premier of England is in England, that the Premier of France is incapacitated, and that the Premier of Italy is in Italy. We, therefore, really are represented at the conference, and I trust with credit to this country.
I should like to say just a word or two with reference to the personnel accompanying our premier on his trip across the sea. These gentlemen are probably, from yearns of experience, distinguished diplomats, and I have no doubt they will reflect great credit upon this country. But may I say that, in view of the trip overseas that was taken last spring by other hon. gentlemen in this House, there was not a little surprise, throughout the province of Ontario at least, that one other hon. member of this House had not been chosen to accompany the Premier on this trip. Those who read the newspapers must recall the magnificent work accomplished by the hon. President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) and the gentlemen who were with him when they were over there last year. I know the papers were replete with information as to what the President of the Council was doing, and how well he was doing it, and it - seems to me there must be some very good reason for his having been left behind, or else some very great mistake has been made'by the Premier in leaving him off this delegation. Many reasons have been advanced why he did not accompany the Premier. I have heard it said that when the President of the Council was over there last year his presss agents were perhaps a little too vigorous and there were times when the people were not quite

sure whether the Premier was in England or in Canada. I likewise heard that he was being reserved for the leadership here in the absence of the Premier. But we see these were all mistakes. The matter did not disturb me at all, because I absolutely knew the reason through having read early in July last year a press despatch from across the seas dealing with matters over there,	and	I at once	saw
that it was out of the question for the gentlemen who accompanied the Premier last spring to return with him again this year. If the House will bear with me I will quote part of the despatch: I shall not read it all, as it might prove embarrassing to the hon. gentlemen who are mentioned, although I do not see any of them present at the moment. The despatch appears in the Detroit Free Press of Sunday, July 28th, 1918, and deals with the visit of our distinguished group of diplomats. It describes how busy these gentlemen were in London, and incidentally I am glad to note the landing in England of the Minister of Colonization (Mr. Cal-der) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). It is reassuring to see that they sailed and landed, because beyond that very little is said in the despatches about them. The despatch reads:-
They entered into a self denying ordinance on their arrival here.' They declined the ordinary social engagements except those directly connected with the operations of the war, refusing almost every offer to speak-
There, Mr. Speaker, was self-sacrifice of a high order. They absolutely refused every offer to speak.
-despite insistent demands from every part of England. Frequently at the close of a laborious twelve-hour day the ministers would visit some hospital a considerable distance away, talk with the wounded, dine en famille with the staff, and reach home at midnight. Their appearance gives physical evidence of the heavy nature of their work. Mr. Rowell looks years older than when he arrived.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have the reason. Out of consideration for his colleague the Premier refused to add more years to the hon. gentleman's life. A few years, of course, in the young life of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), or the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) means nothing. The members of this House must surely be indebted to the Premier for his consideration for the President of the Council, and speaking for myself and on behalf of the Liberals of the province of Ontario I desire likewise to thank the Premier, because the Liberals of the province of Ontario are
[Stage Direction]
anxiously waiting for the time to come when they may have an opportunity of showing their love and affection for the President of the Council. It seems fitting that the author of this despatch should have the privilege of being named in this House. I think the gentleman who could pen such a despatch is worthy of that distinction. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. friends, but the despatch was not written by Donald Hunt, it was not written even by Main Johnson, but by a gentleman who by a strange coincidence is named McKenzie, and if I am any judge of names he is a Scotsman. And yet there are people who say that the Scotch have no sense of humour ! Mr. Speaker, Bret Harte is dead; Mark Twain has been gathered to his fathers; Bill Nye is no more; but as long as McKenzie lives there is one great humorist alive.
John Hampden Burnham: What McKenzie is that?


An hon. MEMBER:: 


Mr. KENNEDY:: it. is about time that the Government took the matter in hand themselves. It is about time that the Government had a Department of Trade and Commerce that could look after the affairs of the country without the assistance of outside commissions. As to the Department of Trade and Commerce, I have not a word to say with reference to the right hon. gentleman who occupies the important position as head of it. He is overseas, and he has given the best years of his life to Canada. He is a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect. He is entitled to anything he wants in this county. That is what I think about the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. But I say he is not the man to occupy such an important position at this juncture in the history of the country. We should have a bright aggressive up-to-date business man looking after the trade and commerce affairs of this country at this time. To me the present system is simply nonsense. If we had such a man as I suggest, we Could do away with all these absurd, foolish commissions which are floating about this country, with secretaries to burn, and keeping up offices here, there and everywhere. The Government themselves should take the responsibility of conducting their department, they should have men there who are capable of conducting it, and these men should conduct it. That is what responsible government calls fcr.
That is where the government of hon. gentlemen opposite is falling down in the opinion of the people of this country. In this connection, may I say, only the other day one of the important firms of the city which I have the honour to represent wrote to the Department of Trade and Commerce that they were anxious to do business in England and asked for an English tariff, so that they might know what competition they had to meet. They did not get it; the department did not have it. That is not. the way to run the department. You talk about developing the trade and commerce of the country. There must be some intelligence in connection with a department, if you are going to be successful and business men are entitled to some consideration. They are paying taxes directly and indirectly and every way you can get them, and they are willing to pay them, but they should have something for the money they are paying into this Government for administration purposes. If hon. gentlemen will bear with me for a minute I will read a letter which I have received from the secretary of the Board of Commerce in our city in connection with this matter. He

encloses me a copy of a letter received from Mr. F. C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, which says:
I may say that we have always had much trouble in supplying- information with regard to the British and foreign tariffs, for as you know, all tariffs are subject to Treasury decisions and changes of which we frequently are not advised for months afterwards. Prom our own knowledge of the Canadian Customs Tariffs you will know that experts in the Customs Department of the country itself alone are able to give information in many cases. Since the outbreak of war all our International Customs Bureau publications which were issued at Brussels have ceased, hence many of our tariff's are out of date, and no means exist for obtaining this information at present for all the countries of the world, translated as before the war.
That does not apply to England. We have over in London paid officials of this Government. Surely there should be somebody there who would keep the Department of Trade and Commerce in touch with conditions over there, so that we could do business with that country. The letter continues :
Personally I have relied largely on Kelley's Customs Tariffs of the world, which is published annually but this department cannot hold itself responsible for any tariff information supplied respecting foreign countries.
We have another trouble to contend with, and that is lack of space and lack of a sufficient number of officials to compile such tariff information as we can from time to time.
It does not seem possible, if one goes through the buildings in Ottawa, to believe that there is any lack of officials. You simply fall over them, no matter which way you go. To me it is almost inconceivable that the business of the country should be held up because there are no officials obtainable in Ottawa. It is a matter I am sure the hon. gentleman will have no difficulty in remedying.
All our Customs Tariffs as received before the War went down to the Bureau of Statistics when our Trade Division was transferred there, but I hiad had in mind, as soon as accommodation could be supplied in the West Block, to place the tariff matters under the Commercial Intelligence Branch, but up to the present there has been no room made available for that purpose.
Yet, the hon. gentlemen who spoke on the Address told us about the magnificent efforts that were being made to extend the trade and commerce of this country. Surely, Sir, I am justified when I say that the time has come when some bright, progressive, alert, smart, business men should be placed in charge of the organizations that we have in connection with the affairs of this Government and of the country.
The right hon. the Prime Minister of this country (Sir Robert Borden) seems to

have come into a good deal of prominence in connection with the Russians that were to meet on Prinkipo in Prince's Islands. In this connection I want to say a word in justice to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). I listened attentively to his remarks the other evening, and I did not gather from what he said that he used language which could in any way be construed as denoting approval of the Bolshe-viki. On the contrary, I understood him to say that there were possibly two opinions and to substantiate his argument he quoted from the Manchester Guardian, which took the side of the question opposite to that taken by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I have here the report of the remarks of my hon. friend from Brome, as contained in Hansard, and I think it is only just to him, in view of what the hon. Minister of Public Works said, and also in view of what the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) said this evening, that his words should be repeated. My hon. friend from Brome said:
I am not sure whether the common view taken in this country ot the Bolshevik is altogether correct. I think that perhaps there is another side to the question, and as this is the great forum where truth and exact knowledge should be brought before the people, I take the liberty of referring the House to some articles which are appearing in the Manchester Guardian from an eye-witness from Russia.
That is not endorsing by any means the Bolsheviki, and I think it is unfair that my hon. friend should be placed in that position. So far as I am concerned, may I say that I heartily agree with the Minister of Public Works. I have exactly the same idea of the Bolsheviki that he has, and it was a matter of extreme regret to me to see the Prime Minister of this country placing himself in the position of opening communications with them and inviting them to meet decent people. I thought it was hardly fair to the people of Canada that they should have to assume that role. Anxious as some of the great powers were that there should be a settlement in Russia, none of them was willing to assume the responsibility of accepting a rebuff from one or other of the Russian parties. But, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada was made of sterner stuff, and, without a moment's hesitation, according to the despatch from Mr. Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free Press, he put forth the idea which he had conceived of inviting the Bolsheviki to meet at Prince's Island. Apparently the decent element among the Russians refused; so far there has been no meeting, and the matter has been dropped. I think it would be fair
for the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for South Perth to communicate with the minister and give him their views in reference to the Bolshevikis in order to prevent anything of that kind occurring in the future.
Of course, it may be that the Prime Minister was better informed with reference to the Russian situation than we were. It may be that he had some inside information in reference to the matter. I am quite willing to admit that it would have been a wonderful diplomatic victory to have achieved if he had brought peace to Russia.
I can well imagine how the newspapers of the whole world would have acclaimed him as a great diplomat, and I believe that if he had been successful he would have been entitled to have been so acclaimed. It may be that the Prime Minister, with perhaps more vision than most of us possess, looked a little ahead and saw that in the event of being successful some recognition would come to him from the powers that be. In the olden times he would have been given broad lands, but now the League of Nations seems to have nailed the land down pretty well. There would be nothing left to give him but a title, and if he had been successful we in the Dominion of Canada could have had the pleasure and privilege of welcoming him back, not as the right hon. Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, but as the Earl of Prinkipo, because he would be entitled to that proud distinction in view of the great diplomatic victory that he had achieved at that island. The time has about arrived in the history of this country when some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues should tell him that he was elected, and selected, to manage the affairs of Canada, in Canada, and that the seat of Government is Ottawa, not London, not Paris, and not Prinkipo. Somebody should tell the right hon. gentleman on one of his intermittent visits to this country that it is far [DOT] more important to the people of Canada to have the tariff settled satisfactorily than it is to have the boundaries of the Balkans settled. Somebody should tell the right hon) gentleman that it is far more important to the people of Canada to have the railway situation straightened out than it is to decide who is going to police Constantinople.
I would like to go further and say that the newspapers of Canada to-day are filled with stories of returned men who are not receiving the treatment they should receive. It is far more important to the people of this country that we should have

a government that is looking after Canadian affairs and far more important to them that the Premier should be here directing public affairs, which is his first and most pressing duty, than that he should determine who should have mandatory powers over the Hottentots. That is the position of affairs insofar as we are concerned, and the sooner the right hon. gentleman comes home, bringing his entourage with him, and permits the absent gentlemen to fill, even if only temporarily, the positions of Minister of Customs, Minister of Justice, and Minister of Trade and Commerce, the better it will be. Because that is what the people Of the country are paying them for. The Cabinet ministers are paid officials. It is not necessary that a man should be a wizard to be a Cabinet minister; the day for that sort of thing has passed and gone. The duties of Government consist largely of taking the money of the country and disbursing it wisely and well, of administering the affairs of Canada in the interests of its people. That is where hon. gentlemen opposite are falling down. They are in the clouds, their minds are given to everything but the duties of their offices; and the time has about arrived when somebody should direct the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada to come home-he was elected for a specific purpose, and the taxpayers of this country expect him to be here and attend to his business.
The Acting Premier (Sir Thomas White) said the other day in the course of his remarks, that there was absolute need for steadiness amongst the people of the country to-day. I quite agree with him in that statement, but I desire to point out that the lead must come from the Government. The people must have confidence in the Government, they must feel that they are being governed intelligently and well. There must be a return to responsible government-not government by order in council, but government for the people by the people. That was the obligation undertaken in behalf of the Canadian people when Confederation was formed. But hon. gentlemen opposite have not been carrying out that obligation, and that is the cause of the unsteadiness and unrest which prevails throughout Canada to-day.
I wish to refer to the subject of the Siberian Expedition, Canadians have not been vouchsafed very much light as to why they are being represented in Siberia. I could understand, Sir. that if we were still at war there might be need 
for the presence of a Canadian military force in Siberia, but I cannot understand why, once the armistice was declared, our soldiers should still be sent from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The people of Canada are equally at a loss to understand this, and it is one of the questions that hon. gentlemen opposite will find very difficult to answer when they appear before the public. Personally, I do not believe we have any more business in Siberia at the present time than we have in Mexico. Why should Canada be the policeman for the world? As a matter of fact, apart from the humanitarian reasons that are actuating some of the Powers, a good many nations are influenced by the fact that they have loaned large sums of money to Russia at extortionate rates of interest. That being so, why should we be the money collectors for Europe? Surely it is up to the creditor nations to collect their own investments.
There are certain other matters I wish to take up, and one of them has reference to a letter which I received from a returned soldier. Unfortunately I do not know under whose department it comes. It is difficult for a comparatively new man to determine just who is responsible for the administration of the many public departments of this Government. However, Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will read the letter, and if there are any ministers present who are interested in the department affected I shall be glad if they will take cognizance of it. If not, perhaps they will mention it to some of their colleagues, if it so happens that those colleagues are in this country. The letter in question is dated, "Windsor, Ontario, February 12th, 1919," is addressed to "William C. Kennedy, Esq., M.P., Windsor," and reads:
H. A. B. Aikman,
Formerly No. 7109-1st Battalion Can.
Board of Pension Commissioners, No. 13314.
Sir,-I have the honour to submit for your consideration the following- facts1 which represent an occurrence in which T figured in connection with the Board of Pensions Commissioners for Canada and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Toronto.
In compliance with their request I reported in Toronto on Tuesday morning-, February 4th, 1919, at ten o'clock at the latter department, from which I was transferred to the (Military Hospital for medical re-examination, where I (with others), waited until about twelve-thirty, noon, when we were told to go away, get our dinner and report again in the afternoon. Two or three of us stated we had no money, so we *were given our dinner there. Probably about four o'clock, I, with others, was told to report again next day. I said that I, for one, would not report the next day, as I had come from Windsor, had already lost two days and to Windsor I was going that night and requested

transportation together with my expenses. The officer who Imparted the suggestion of reporting next day, did so in very crude language, had dishevelled hair, moved with uncertain gait and the expression of his eyes was such as I have seen produced by the immoderate use of liquor, and while X am not prepared to say definitely that that condition existed, his appearance implied such was the case.
It was then found possible to give me an examination, which occupied probably twenty minutes. At its conclusion I requested transportation and expenses and was told these would be supplied me at the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, where I had once before been. Reporting at this latter point again I was told that they could not supply my demands for transportation and pay and that I would have to go back to the Military Hospital for it.
I was suffering from lumbago, in addition to a shrapnel wound in the groin, the distance was between one and two miles and another trip was an impossibility for me. I thereupon flatly refused to do it. They then issued me return transportation to Windsor and, as is customary in the army, I signed a receipt for my pay and expenses, in advance. The clerk, who took my receipt, returned in a few moments, took my Windsor address and informed me cheque would be mailed to me the next day. This was eight days ago and I am still looking for this cheque, which I have already signed for, but have not received.
The amount involved is not large, but the principle of the thing, or shall X say, the lack of principle, is not only worth some consideration, but matters of this nature are things that we returned men in various stages of crippled condition, and impaired earning power, cannot financially afford to stand, especially when the amount is considered, of the pittance the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada sees fit to dole out to us.
Det me say further, that at the time of this visit to Toronto, I was informed that arrangements would be made for my return to hospital (Whitby being suggested), for further treatment, of which I am in need.
I am likewise still waiting for these latter arrangements to be perfected as well as for repayment for money and time expended by me.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
-	Tours respectfully,
(Signed) H. A. B. Aikman.
There is the story of a returned man, and that is one - of the matters that I refer to when I say that there is a feeling everywhere throughout the country that the affairs of the people are not being conducted by the heads of the respective departments as they should he; that we are not getting the government that the people are paying for, and that the time has arrived when hon. gentlemen should take charge of the departments for which they are responsible to the people, administer them in a businesslike way, and do away with these useless commissions that have been sapping away the financial life-blood of the country.
Another matter that I wish to take up is, perhaps, local in a sense, but it has a bearing on what I have said. Situated on the border, I have known many cases where men working in the ^city of Detroit were drafted or volunteered for military service and whose positions in various business houses of that city were reserved for them. Their employers said: You are Canadians; you are going to fight for your country. We honour you for it; you shall have your position as soon as the war is over. It was generous, and it was decent; but that is the spirit the Americans have always evinced-I say that after having lived for years on the border. Well, what happened? The armistice comes. Many of these boys who were drawing from $1,500 to $3,000 a year in the positions which they held before they went on military service, are working at $1.10 a day in London, filling clerical positions, some unimportant, and some important, perhaps. Their employers write them as soon as the armistice is signed, saying: The war is over; your position is waiting for you and we shall be glad if you can come at once. In the meantime the American boys who gave up their positions and went overseas are returning to the United States and if the Canadians do not come back and take their old positions, the first thing we know the Americans will take them and we shall increase to that extent the unemployment in Canada which the Minister of Public Works told us we were to spend millions to avoid. That was a case not of half a dozen men, but of a hundred men or more. When that situation confronted me I immediately took the matter up with the Minister of Militia. In justice to that hon. gentleman, I want to say that he met me more than half way. He appreciated the fact that my arguments were sound. I maintained that if the Government needed clerical assistance they should go into the, open market and engage that assistance, and thus avoid jeopardizing the future of these men by preventing them from taking the positions which they could never get again. The Minister of Militia wrote me very kindly saying that he had instructed the commanding officer of the London District to give heed to my suggestions, and, where possible, to meet them. I took the matter up with the Commanding officer of the London District, General Shannon, a very fine gentleman, and I found him kindness itself. He, too, was anxious to help where he could, and he wrote me to say that where it was possible to dispense with the services of these men he would be very glad to do it. But these

requests of mine were transferred from one department to the other and by the time the matter got back to General Shannon it was almost impossible to accomplish the object in view. In many instances I got .the men released; in many others I could not, and in many cases the positions were lost. But picking up the paper one morning I read about the Repatriation Committee, and decided that here at last was a place when I could obtain some relief, because they asserted that they were anxious to find employment for returned men. I wrote to the chairman of the Repatriation Committee, the Minister of Immigration' and Colonization (Mr. Calder) telling him what the conditions were. He wrote me a very nice letter agreeing that my argument was sound and that what I had suggested was absolutely the right thing to do. He said that he was 10 p.m. turning the matter over to the Secretary of the Repatriation Committee, who would write me later. In the course of a week or ten days I received a letter from the Secretary of the Repatriation Committee, in which that gentleman thanked me for the suggestion, saying that it was a very valuable one and that he would take it up with his committee and advise me at a later date. That was on the 20th of January, but unfortunately the committee, I take it, has not met since, because up to this time I have had no further word from the secretary. So you will see the way things are passed from one department to another. Nobody seems to be running the departments, and one can get no satisfaction from correspondence with them. You cannot get decisions and that is what the people want. What good is it to these boys who before going on military service had worked up to the point where they were of such service to their employers that they were getting $3,000 or $4,000 a year,-what good is it to them if I get a letter a month from now from the Secretary of the Repatriation Committee telling me that they are glad to comply with my request? The job is gone then. That is not what we want-we want action, and that is where hon. gentlemen are falling down in handling their departments.
I have other matters to take up, but I shall deal with them before the session is over when the issues with which they are connected come before the House. I shall not hesitate to express my views as to what I believe to be the proper thing to do in the interests of the country. I accept the statement of the Acting Prime Minister
L'Mr. Kennedy.]	.
that it is the duty of everyone to assist the Government, and to do what he can in bringing our country through the crisis that prevails to-day. I have done my share in every matter that has arisen in connection with the war and I propose to do my share in the work of reconstruction. I want to help, but I want to help intelligently. The people want to feel that they are receiving intelligent assistance from the men who-lead at this juncture and who compose the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot resume my seat without saying a word or two with reference to one who recently left us. Last year I had the first opportunity of serving under the stainless banner of our departed chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. To me it was a proud distinction, a distinction and an honour that I shall cherish to my dying day. His was always a fight for the people, and although he is gone, his spirit lives. In the words of Beecher on the death of Lincoln::
Bren he who now sleeps has, by this event, been clothed with new influence.
Dead, he speaks to men who now willingly hear what before they refused to listen to.
Our Chieftain is gone; but Liberalism is not dead, and I very much mistake the temper of the people of this country if, when the opportunity offers a*hd we appeal to them once more, they do not show their appreciation of Liberal principles.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join
in the congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address. It is a long -time since I have listened to what I presume we may dignify by the name of a speech by an honourable member such as we have just heard, because it strikes me as being an adaptation of the writings of the Fenian press of the United States in their attack on President Wilson for attending the King's banquet. I may, however, be doing the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) an injustice, and lest I should do him an injustice in the budding moment of his distinguished career, I should like to ask him if he disapproves of Sir Robert Borden's accepting the invitation of the King of England and of the British Dominions overseas to that banquet to which he so caustically referred. Will the hon. gentleman answer me that question?


Mr. LANCTOT:: No.


John Hampden Burnham: If he had, it would have been about the only original part of his
speech. The rest I have read in the flamboyant Fenian press of the United States which has been forwarded to me at different times to show me what they could do along the border. I am inclined to think, to do justice to the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), that he will administer some slight and significant rebuke for that display of politics. The light which has been held out by the Opposition is, I presume "The Light that Failed." To me it is a very singular thing that the sum total of the brilliance of the Opposition, the attraction indeed for all those erring ones, should consist in an old candle stuck in the back door of the Opposition cabin. That, to my mind, is not doing justice to the attractive power of the Opposition, and it certainly does not look well in this country, nor does it look well to leaders abroad who will suppose that all that can be handed out by way of an attraction is something stuck in the back door of an edifice of that description.
I wish, however, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to turn to something more important. The chief question now before this country, and, indeed, before the world, is reconstruction. I will, however, confine myself to one phase of that, namely, to the standard of living, to the living wage, to that wage which the lowest, simplest form of honest labour should receive in order that it may maintain the standard of life to which we all agree it is entitled. The wage earner has evolved from a long historic post. In the early days of England, he was a member of the family, when the work performed by the family was done in the family. By and by he became a member of the clan, when the work was done by the clan, by the blood relations. Afterwards this was extended to the guild, to those associations of men who united for the p'urpose of prosecuting industry. And so it advanced from time to time until the period of the plague in England in 1346-47, when nearly one-half of the people of England died of the plague, and this so Upset the industrial conditions of England at that time that the labourer as he was known then, wandered in an unorganized and indefinite way over the country, so much so that the Statute'of Labourers was enacted which compelled him to root himself once more to one spot and to confine his exertions to that area and which also compelled him to accept a certain specific wage. As time went on, however, the consideration of the people for each other changed. What was regarded as
strictly an economic question dawned upon the people as an ethical question. It was not so much a question of poverty as it was a question of life, and it has grown to be that more and more, so that we have to-day in England, in France, even in the United States, in Australia and in New Zealand, legislation of a character that has gone very far in elevating the condition of what is known as the common people. Canada has unfortunately hitherto lagged far behind. The reason of that is no doubt that we are a young country with great natural resources and much prosperity due largely to our abundance. That has probably not yet caused a condition which would warrant the measures that have been made use of in the older countries; but if the seeds of poverty, if the seeds of disintegration are here, it only requires time to bring them into growth, and it is well for us to provide against such acontingency by learning from the experience of other people. The most singular thing is that in a country like England, of such Conservative - tendencies, there should have been such haste to remedy the errors of the past.
The British people are, of course, a kindly, well-intentioned people, and so soon as it was brought home to them that it was necessary for them to improve the condition of the people, and to show some interest in them, they hastened to do so. We had, first of all, the Notification of Births' Act in 1907, by which for the first time in England it was compulsory, in all cases of births, for notice to be sent to the district medical officer, in order that registration might duly occur and some notice be taken of the birth. This had the effect of enabling the medical official, and through him the Government, to know exactly the condition in which those children were born, and to render the children and the mothers some assistance. This worked a miracle in England. Thousands and tens of thousands of children who would have died at this period through neglect and ignorance, were for the first time taken care of by an intelligent Government.
Then there was the Education Act, another far-reaching Act, under which the school children in the cities were provided for the first time with play grounds or breathing spaces. Then we had the system of national insurance, insuring people against unemployment, against sickness, and even against under-employment. I am citing these measures simply to show how very attentive the British people are at the present time to the elevation of the common

people from the low standard of life at which they have lived for so long. It is recognized now for the first time that the common people-the unskilled labourer, the man who is compelled to take what he can get-are entitled to something better. The lowest form of honest labour, if it is to be recognized at all, and it surely must be recognized, ought to receive some consideration on the ethical basis of a proper standard of life.
1 have here a report of the American Federation of Labour which represents the most intelligent ideas of labour in America arid, very largely, the ideas of labour the world over. Their ideas are summed up as follows:
There is no such thing as good wages without the cost of living in decency and comfort equalize the wages received. There must be no reduction in wages; in many instances, wages must be increased. The workers of the nation demand a living wage for all wage earners, skilled or unskilled, a wage which will enable the worker and his family to live in health and comfort, provide a competence for illness and old age, and afford to all the opportunity of cultivating the best that is in them.
It seems strange indeed that anybody should rise in this House and endeavour to call the attention of hon. members to the simple principle here enunciated. The principle, it is true, has been acknowledged in theory, has been made use of in disquisitions in the pulpit, but beyond that it has not been made use of at all. The principle of a living wage, of a decent standard of life for the lowest form of honest labour, has never yet been recognized in this country as necessary recompense of all forms of labour, but when that day comes it will mean something new for labour. It will mean hope. There is nothing unreasonable in the contention of labour, because once this zero mark has been ascertained, they are quite willing that labour above and beyond that mark shall be allowed to take care of itself. Above that mark wages will be paid according to the skill and competence of the labourer. That proposition seems to me entirely reasonable. Those who are below that mark are either weak or wicked, and have to be taken care of. They come under the denomination of the unemployed, the under-employed, the criminal or the wastrel. What is to be done with them is another matter; that is a question of reform in connection with detention farms and kindred schemes for their improvement. But that is not the question I am considering to-night, since it involves the consideration of the weakness of the

people, and that does not come under a business arrangement. If it is once practically recognized by the people of this country that the lowest form of honest labour is entitled to such a wage as will maintain it in efficiency and in decency, then the point is gained, and the greatest stroke of reconstruction that could be accomplished with regard to labour will have been accomplished. Permit me to repeat that it is such a self-evident proposition that it seems singular anybody should wish to call attention to it, but, practically, the principle has not yet been admitted. But when that time comes, in that one simple fact as set out by the American Federation of Labour, and as set out by all the recent authorities on political economy which I have been able to consult, will be found the solution of the problem. Trades unionism up to a few years ago was a criminal offence; but that the people should have the right to combine for the consideration of their own affairs and for their own protection was so self-evident that at last it was allowed. Then the time came when, to the wonderment of our people here, there was introduced in the old country by no less a man than Lloyd George himself the revolutionary measure of imposing a tax upon the site value, the unearned increment of idle land being appropriated by a supertax to the use of the state, in order that the fundamental principle of the worthiness of work should be finally recognized.
One thing more is necessary. I hove here a Bill passed by the Imperial Parliament prescribing a minimum rate of wages during a limited period and repealing certain provisions of the Act relating to workers on war munitions. A Bill of that description fixing a minimum wage would be considered in this country such a tremendous step in advance that it -would cause a great deal of trepidation. The minimum wage, however, has been discovered not to be the solution of the difficulty, for if a man receives ten dollars a day that is of no consequence if it does not provide him and his family of three children which is usually taken as the unit, with a proper standard of living. On the other hand, if he receives only one dollar a day and that provides him with the proper means of existence, it is enough; so that a minimum wage has really nothing to do with the case. The sole and only contention is that the lowest form of labour, since we must begin from some definite point, shall be considered entitled to a proper standard of living. That proposition

is not only economically sound, but surely all decent and Christian people will agree to it; and when it has been incorporated in legislation, as it undoubtedly will be in course of time, labour will have achieved what it has been striving for. It is trades unionism that is the hope of this world against Bolshevism. The trades unions are fighting Bolshevism. The trades unions are an organization of sensible labour men doing their level best. It was the trades unions that furnished more than half the men who fought the battles of this war. The Bolshevik would upset all organized labour of any kind. Therefore, it is time for the Government to pay due and proper attention to the contentions of the trades unions and endeavour to place them as nearly as possible upon a thoroughly sound and economic basis. But that basis must have in it the pure ethical spirit, for if it is going to be simply an economic system, if it is going to have simply the principle of taking what you can get-the old system of plunder-it is simply the curse of modern and industrial conditions known as profit. It seems to be a very absurd thing that anybody should speak against profit as I have done so many times in this House, but profit is the taking of that for which no equivalent is given, and the man who takes that for which he does not give an equivalent is a Bolshevik. We are asked to eliminate from the world these conditions, and to do away with that spirit of plunder, and in our dealing to restore, a fair equivalent in trade or exchange. The establishment of so simple a thing as- a standard of decent living for all honest, sensible men-for all these have to be fairly considered units of humanity, units in the industrial world-and the doing away with the desire to take what we can lay our hands on without regard to the justice of the case, means the making of a new world.
On motion of Mr. Duff the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
Friday, February 28, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 12, respecting W. C. Edwards & Co., Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 13, respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 14, respecting the Lachine, Jacques Cartier, and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill No. 15, respecting the Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the year 1918.-Hon. Mr. Calder.
Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the year ending March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.
Report on the Agricultural Instruction Act, 1917-1918.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.
Report on the Dominion Experimental Farms for the fiscal year ending March 31 1918.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.
Report of the Canada Food Board from February 1 to December 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Creiar.
Regulations under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.
Copy of the judgment and reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of George Edwin Gray, habeas corpus proceedings.-Sir Thomas White.
Copy of Mr. Justice Hodgin's report on the Northland inquiry.-Sir Thomas White.
Copy of a general order of the Supreme Court adopted on October 8, 1918, amending certain rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Copy of a Parliamentary Paper (C.D. 9212) received by His Excellency the Governor General from the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the extension of the armistice with Germany; also copy of the terms of the armistice with Turkey and of the armistice with Austria-Hungary.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Fifty-first annual report of the Fisheries Branch, Department of the Naval Service, 1917.-Hon. A. K. Maclean.
Eighth annual report of the Department of Naval Service (English and French) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1918.

Hon. A. K. Maclean.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of certain Orders in Council were laid on the Table by Sir Thomas White and Hon. Mr. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) presented the following report
[Stage Direction]
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. l. ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS.
Messieurs:
Armstrong- (York ), Blake,
Boys,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cannon,
Carvell,
Copp,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Demers,
Devlin,
Doherty,
Douglas (Strathcona) Fripp,
Guthrie,
Jacobs,
Keefer,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lemieux,
McCoig,
McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McMaster,
Meighen,
Mowat,
Nickle,
Porter,
Reid (Mackenzie), Sifton,
Tweedie, and Vien.-32.
[Stage Direction]
No. 2. ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES.
Messieurs:
Allan George,	Lanctot,
Ames (Sir Herbert),	Lapointe
Anderson,	.	(Kamouraska),Andrews,	Lapointe	(£t. James) ,Archambault,	Lavigueur,Armstrong (Lambton),	Leduc,
Arthurs,
Ballantyne,
B61and,
Blair,
Bolton,
Bonnell,
Boyer,
Boys,
Bristol,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cahill,
Calder,
Campbell,
Cannon,
Carvell,
Casgrain,
Chabot,
Charlton,
Clark (Red Deer), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Cooper,
Copp,
Crowe ,
Cruise,
Currie, d'Anjou,
Davidson,
Davis,
D§ch£ne,
Delisle,
Devlin,
^ Doherty,
Douglas
(Cape Breton),
^ 
Lemieux,
Lesage,
Long,
Mackie (Edmonton), Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (York), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McCurdy,
McGregor,
McLean (Royal), McQuarrie,
Maharg,
Manion.
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Martin,
Merner,
Mewburn,
Middlebro,
Molloy,
Morphy,
Mowat,
Murphy,
Myers,
Nesbitt,
Nicholson (Algoma), Nicholson (Queens), Nickle, ~
Pardee,
Pelletier,
Porter,
Power,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Ross,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Savard,
Edwards,	S6guin,
Elkin,	Shaw,
Ethier,	Sheard,
Fafard,	Simpson,
Fielding,	Smith,
Fontaine,	Stevens,
Fournier,	Stew'art (Hamilton),
Fraser,	Stewart (Lanark),
Fripp,	Sutherland,
Guthrie,	Thompson ( Weyburn ),
Harold,	Thomson (Qti'Appelle),
Harrison,	Trahan,
Hay,	Tudhope,
Henders,	Vien,
Hepburn,	Wallace,
Hocken,	Wilson (Saskatoon),
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Wilson
Kay,	(Wentworth), and
Keefer,	Wright.-124.
Lalor,	
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-five Members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 3 ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS.
Messieurs:
Ames (Sir Herbert),	Hepburn,
Anderson,	Hocken,
Armstrong (York),	Kennedy,
Ballantyne,	Lafortune,
Ball,	Mackie (Renfrew),
Blair,	McGibbin (Muskoka)
Blake,	McLean (Royal),
Bourassa	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Boyer,	Martin,
Boys,	Pacaud,
Brien,	Papineau,
Bureau,	Pardee,
Butts,	Parent,
Casselman,	Paul,
Charters, .	Peck,
Cronyn,	Pedlow,
Douglas	Power,
(Cape Breton),	Prevost,
DuTremblay,	Proulx,
Ethier,	Reid (Grenville),
Euler,	Richardson,
Fortier,	Robb,
Foster (York),	Rowell,
Fraser,	Scott,
Fripp,	Sifton,
Fulton,	Steele,
Gauthier,	Stewart (Lanark),
Glass,	Thompson (Hastings),
Green,	Tobin, and
Guthrie,	Wigmore.-60.
Harrison,	
And that the Quorum of the said Committee	
do consist of Ten Members.	
No. 4.	
ON STANDING ORDERS.	
Messieurs:	
Armstrong (Lambton),	McGibbon
Brien,	(Argenteuil),
Burrell,	McGibbon (Muskoka),
Butts,	Mclsaac,
Chabot,	Marcile (Bagot),
Clarke (Wellington),	Mayrand,
Cruise,	Michaud,
Deslauriers,	Mowat,
Doherty,	Paul,
Duff,	Seguin,
[Stage Direction]
Euler,
Gervais,
Griesbach,
Hartt,
Hepburn,
Kemp ,
Maclean (York), MacNutt,
Stacey,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Wallace,
White (Sir Thomas), Wigmore, and Wright.-34.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Seven Members.
[Stage Direction]
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,
Prevost,
Reid (Mackenzie), Richardson,
Shaw',
Verville,
White (Victoria). Wilson
(Wentworth) and Wright.-25.
[Stage Direction]
No. 6. ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Messieurs:
Andrews,
Archambault,
Ball,
Best,
Bonnell,
Boys,
Bureau,
Calder,
Cannon,
Carvell,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Chisholm,
Copp,
Crerar,
Crothers,
Crowe,
Davidson,
Devlin,
[Stage Direction]
Edwards,
Fripp,
Fulton,
Gauvreau,
Griesbach,
Green,
J acobs,.. Kemp,
McGregor,
Mclsaac,
McMaster,
Maharg,
Meighen,
Merner,
Mewburn,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Murphy,
Parent,
Proulx,
Redman,
Reid (Grenville),
Ro>ss,
Scott,
Sheard,
Sifton,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Antigonish), Spinney,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tobin.
T remain.
Tudliope,
Tweedie,
Verville,
Lapointe (Kamouraska)'Vien,
Mackie (Renfrew),	White
Maclean (Halifax),	(Sir Thomas), and
McCoig,	Wigmore,-64.
McCrea,
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 7. ON BANKING AND COMMERCE.
Messieurs:
Allan,	Kemp,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Kennedy, Argue,	Lang,
Baldwin,	Lavigueur,
Best,
Bristol,
Burnham,
Calder,
Cardin,
Carvell,
Casgrain,
Chaplin,
Charlton,
Clark (Reel Deer), Clements,
Cockshutt,
Cowan,
Crerar,
Cronyn,
Currie, d'Anjou,
Davis,
D£chene,
Demers,
Denis,
Desaulnierr,
Deslauriers,
Douglas (Stratlicona), DuTremblay,
Edwards,
Elkin,
Fielding,
Finley,
Fortier,
Foster (Sir George), Foster (York), Gauthier,
Gladn,
Glass,
Halladay,
Henders,
Hunt,
Jacobs ,
Johnston,
Kay.
Leduc,
L&ger,
Lemieux,
Lesage,
Doggie,
Maclean (Halifax), McCurdy,
McLeod,
McMaster,
McQuarrie,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Molloy,
Nesbitt,
Nickle.
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Peck,
Pedlow,
Porter,
Redman, *
Ross,
Sexsmith,
Sinclair (Antigonish), Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart, (Hamilton), Sutherland,
Thompson (Yukon), Tobin.
Tolmie,
Trahan,
Tiremain,
Tweedie,
Whid den,
White
(Sir Thomas), and Wilson (Saskatoon).-88
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 8. ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION.
Messieurs :
Allan (George), Anderson,
Argue,
Armstrong (York), Armsrtong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Baldwin,
Ball,
Best,
Blair,
Bolton,
Bourassa,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Brien,
Brouillard,
Burrell,
Cahill,
Casselman,
Chisholm,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Wellington), Cowan,
Crerar,
Cruise,
Davis,
Dellisle,
Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (York), MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McCurdy,
McGibbon (Muskoka), McGregor,
McIntosh,
Mclsaac,
McLean (Royal), McLeod,
Maharg,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Mayrand,
Merner,
Molloy,
Morphy,
Myers,
Nicholson (Algoma), (Nicholson (Queens), Paul,
Proulx,
Read (Prince),
Reid (Mackenzie), Robb,
[Stage Direction]


Denis,
Des-aulniers,
Douglas (Strathcona), Edwards,
Finley,
Fournier,
Fulton,
Gervais,
Glass,
Halladay,
Harold,
Hay,
Hen dors,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Hunt,
Johnston,
Kay,
Knox,
Dafortune,
Lanctot,
Lang,
L£ger,
Long,
Mackie (Edmonton),
Savard,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Sifton,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Antigonish), Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I. Smith,
Spinney,
Stacey,
Steele,
Sutherland,
Thompson (Hastings), Thompson (Weyburn), Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Tolmie,
Tremain,
Truax,
Wallace,
White (Victoria), and Wilson
(Wentworth).-101.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twelve Members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 9. ON MARINE AND FISHERIES.
Messieurs:
Butts,	McIntosh,
Cardin,	McKenzie,
Chisholm,	MoQuarrie,
Clark (Bruce)	, Nicholson (Queens),
Clements,	Pelletier,
Duff,	Read (Prince),
Fielding,	Rowell,
Gladu,	Sinclair (Antigonish),
Hartt,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Hay,	Spinney,
Lang,	Stevens,
Lapointe (St. James), Trahan,	
L£ger,	Truax,
Log-pie,	Tudhope,
Man! on,	Turgeon, and
Martin,	Wigmore.-33.
Munson, And that the Quorum of the ©aid Committee	
do consist of	Ten Members.
ON	No. 10. MINES AND MINERALS.
Arthurs,	Messieurs. Lalor,
Blake,	Lemieux,
Bolton,	Loggie, -
Bonnell,	Long,
Burrell, .	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Cahill,	Nesbitt,
Campbell,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Cochrane,	Pacaud,
Cockshutt,	Peck,
D6ch£ne,	Pelletier,
Denis,	Prevost,
Fortier,	Reid, (Mackenzie),
Green,	Sexsmith.
Griesbach,	Smith,
Harrison,	Thompson (Yujcon),
Hartt,	Tolmie, and
Johnson,	White (Victoria)-35.
Knox, And that*the Quorum of the said Committee	
do consist of	Ten Members
[Stage Direction]

No. 11. ON FORESTS, WATERWAYS AND WATER-POWERS.
Messieurs:
Argue,	Fraser,
Baldwin,	Halladay,
Bourassa,	Knox,
Bowman,	Mackie ( Edmontbn ),
Boyce,	Man ion.
Bureau.	Michaud,
Campbell,	Pacaud,
Carvell,	Parent,
Casselman,	Power,
Charlton,	Redman,
Cochrane,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Cooper,	Thompson (Hastings),
Cowan,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Ethier,	White (Victoria, Alta.)
Fafard,	Wilson
Finley,	(Saskatoon.)-3 2.
Foster (York),	
And that the	Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Ten Members	
	No 12.
OFFICIAL	REPORT OF DEBATES.
	Messieurs:
Ballantyne,	Lemieux,
Burnham,	McKenzie,
Chabot,	McLeod,
Devlin,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Elkin,	Munson,
Foster (Sir George), Nickle, and	
Kay,	Richardson.-14.
And that	the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Five Members	
	No 13.
ON	THE LIBRARY.
Messieurs:	
Andrews,	Foster (Sir George),
Bgland,	Harold,
Borden (Sir Robert),	Lapointe (Kamouraska
Boyer,	Lemieux,
Chaplin,	Meighen,
Clark (Red Deer),	Myers,
Cooper,	Pardee,
Copp,	Rowell,
Cronyn,	Sheard, and [DOT]
Crothers,	Whidden.-20.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the report was concurred in.
William Thomas White: That the Select Standing Committees of this House shall severally be 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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Thomas White: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, viz.: Messrs. Bowman, Brouil-lard, 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, will act as members on the part of this House on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Thomas White: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Andrews, Beland, 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 Whidden, a committee to assist His . Honour the Speaker, in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Thomas White: That Messrs. Douglas (Strathcona), Steele and Stewart be appointed to assist the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, in so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.



ALLEGED TRADE DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day;
Charles Murphy: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a matter of national importance contained in a special despatch published in yesterday's Toronto Globe, and to ask a question with reference thereto. The despatch in question reads:
8i
London, Feb. 26.-Overseas representatives are interested in John Bull's slashing article. "Shall We Lose Canada?" in which the editor protests against the price being paid for the support of America and condemns importation restrictions which give advantages to Scandinavia and the United States. The article contains a number of specific Instances which apparently could be obtainable only through official Canadian channels, and which give point to the renewed attempts of the Trade Commission to have the restrictions removed.
Canadian Feeling Bitter.
The Globe correspondent finds that the feeling among some of the Canadians is bitter. They are urging Sir Robert Borden to take official action to bring the situation to a crisis and have a general clearing up. But there is still hope that this can be brought about without a quarrel in the Imperial family.
There have been some ludicrous incidents, sudh as the refusal to admit certain business calendars for free distribution, the printing of which had been refused here owing to war limitations, and which the authorities were consequently compelled to print in Canada. On their arrival the British authorities decided they could not be admitted for two years, and the matter is still under consideration.
There are other instances, such as Canadian boots, wallpapers, and other articles which are refused admission, but American and Scandinavian goods are coming in without stay. Canadians feel that If the regulations applied generally to all there could be no protest, but as now enforced there is real discrimination against them.
I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Government has any information regarding the matters referred to in the despatch, and if so will the hon. gentleman impart that information to the House?


Hon.   S@: I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to my answer yesterday to a question asked by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon (Mr. Robb), dealing with the same subject. The Government has no official information respecting the matter in question, and I am satisfied, as I stated yesterday, that Great Britain has not discriminated and will not discriminate against the interests of Canada in regard to trade relations.


Charles Murphy: Has the hon. gentleman made inquiries since yesterday?


William Thomas White: I despatched a
cable last evening asking for any information that would bear on the subject but have received no reply.



DEATH OF AUDITOR GENERAL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Howard Sinclair: Can the Acting
Premier tell us when we may expect the Auditor General's Report?


William Thomas White: The deputy minister informed me only yesterday that he lias a letter from the Auditor General explaining to the House why it would not be possible immediately to lay the report of the Auditor General on the Table. I am very sorry to have to announce to the House to-day that we have received word that the Auditor General has passed away. He went to Florida a short time ago for his health and died there.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session resumed from Thursday, February 27.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg.) In rising to address the House, Mr. 'Speaker, on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Redman) and seconded by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), I feel my inability to deal with the subjects contained in the Address from the Throne, but as a representative of the people of this country I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to certain facts. Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I would like to add my word of praise for the able, eloquent and moderate manner in which the mover and the seconder of the Address placed their views before the House. Before proceeding with the subject matter contained in the Address from the Throne, as delivered by His Excellency the Governor General, would you allow me on behalf of the loyal citizens of Lunenburg county, which I have the honour to represent in this House, to convey to His Excellency the great joy expressed by the people of that county on the success of the Allied armies at the front.
May I also place on Hansard the deep and profound regret of the people of that district at the loss to the country of that eminent statesman, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As so many fine tributes have been paid to his worth and memory by all classes and creeds in this great country, it is not necessary for me to reiterate what has already been enunciated. As has been well said, his life has been an ideal which every Canadian boy should endeavour to emulate, and if they follow his illustrious example the next generation will be a higher type of men.

During the past few days I have received a number of telegrams and letters from different parts of Nova Scotia, asking me to convey to the hon. gentleman from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) the congratulations of the Liberals of Nova- Scotia on the honour which has been done them by his selection as leader of the Liberal party. In one of the letters which I received I find the folio-wing, which 1 think is worth reading to the House:
How sweet the name McKenzie sounds In every Liberal's ears,
It soothes our sorrows, heals our wounds, And drives away our fears.
There has been a good deal said in some of the reptile press of this country during the past few days as to what happened when the Liberal party assembled in caucus to select our leader. I do not wish to divulge the secrets of that caucus, but I wish to say that the stories in these papers are untrue. The utmost harmony prevailed, and I say-and I think I speak on behalf of the English speaking Liberals of the Liberal party of this country when I say it-that we feel that we owe to the French Canadian Liberals of this country a debt of gratitude for the action which they took at that caucus. I never shall forget the fairness, broadmindedness and sense of justice of these gentlemen, and I am pleased to call the French Canadian Liberals in this House my brothers.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn for a few moments to the speech delivered by His Excellency to the honourable gentleman of the Senate and the honourable gentlemen of this House and I wish for a few moments to discuss some of the matters contained therein. We are all in perfect accord with His Excellency's remarks with regard to the conclusion of the war. For more than four years the Empire was in the throes of the greatest war the world has ever known and the prayers of a thankful people went up to the Most High when the telegraph wires on November 11 conveyed to many anxious hearts the news that the armistice had been signed. Of Canada's part, ISir, in that great struggle, other honourable gentlemen have told' us and I am in perfect agreement with the eloquent remarks on this subject as expressed by the Acting Prime Minister, Sir Thomas White.
The Acting Prime Minister, in his well timed remarks, paid just tribute to the work of the British, French and Canadian forces, and his remarks especially with regard to the Canadian Expeditionary force were in good taste. I was rather surprised
[Stage Direction]
however, Mr. Speaker, that no mention was made by the honourable gentleman of the great part which another nation took in this struggle, and it seems rather strange indeed that the Acting Prime Minister, speaking as he really did not only for the Government of this country but the people of this country, that he did not pay a just tribute to our sister nation to the south. Without being caustic in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the honourable gentleman has not gone back to the position which he took in 1911 when he did not desire "any truck or trade with the Yankees." The United States financiers treated the honourable gentleman with the greatest courtesy and respect when he was compelled to go to them a few years -ago to borrow money to finance this country and her war effort and I trust his omission with reference to the United States' part in the war was not due to the fact that the financiers of that nation at last refused to grant us further advances. Since the honourable gentleman has not dealt with the great part played by the people of the United States in the last few' years, might I, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments speak of what they have done. It is true there was some criticism of that great country, because she did not at once plunge into the war after the sinking of the great liner Lusitania w'ith the loss of so many lives. Previous to that, however, the United States had been doing a great work and in the first two years of the war and in fact during the whole period of the war, if it had not been for the whole-hearted support that that country gave the Allies in supplying them with munitions, guns, food, etc., the issue might possibly have been settled in a way which none of us desired.
It is not for any of us to criticise the actions of that great man and that great democrat, Woodrow Wilson. He had a difficult task to perform and when the time was ripe and when practically the whole nation was at his back, he gave the w'ord with the result that hundreds of thousands of gallant American lads were hurried to France to fight in the great cause in which the allied countries were engaged. We must take off our hats, Mr. Speaker, to that great country. I am not saying too much when I say that no other country in so short a time placed so many men on the field of battle. It is quite true that the first expeditionary force from England, the old contemptibles, was in the fighting line three weeks after war had been declared, and here I might also have
a word of congratulation for a previous Minister of Militia for the expeditious manner in which he despatched the first contingent from this country. To show the appreciation of the English people for the help given by the United States, I have much pleasure in reading the following from the London Morning Post:
The London Morning Post states that the arrivals of American troops during the past few days have eclipsed all records. It is a shipping feat which has never been equalled in maritime annals. General March, the Chief of Staff of the American Army, is the authority for the statement that there are now over eight hundred thousand American troops in France. That probably means that there are well over a million men overseas. The despatch of troops from the United States during the last three months has been limited only by the shipping capacity. Every ship that sails which is at all suitable for carrying troops is loaded down with soldiers. During a recent month, as many as two hundred and fifty thousand men were despatched from American shores, and American papers state that soon the last of the sixteen National Army Divisions will be overseas, or on the way. It is the knowledge the Germans have that this great army, the pick of America's young manhood, is on the scene ready to replenish the Forces of Freedom which is forcing Hindenhurg to make his desperate and costly attempts to win a decision.
Hhe above, Mr. Speaker, is only a just tribute to the people of that great country, and I only regret, Sit,-
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I, with exceeding regret, feel it my duty to direct the attention of the hon. member to a rule of this House which is as old as the House itself, and which says that the reading of speeches is not permissible. I think the House will bear me out in saying that the Chair has always been inclined to be exceedingly lenient in the matter of copious notes being used by members, but the hon. gentleman is going far beyond the bounds in reading his speech verbatim. I must ask him to put himself in order and to adhere more closely to the rule of the House in this regard.


Mr. DUFF:: I submit to your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I have only been following the example which was set by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), who read closely from his written speech, and also the example of the mover and seconder of the resolution, who did the same thing. However, I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to carry out your wishes as far as possible. I am only sorry that my capacity for public speaking does not permit me to express my thoughts in a manner which would do justice to the American heroes of Chateau Thiery and the other battles in France and Flanders in which the American armies took part. We

are proud to pay a just tribute to these gallant men and the people of both countries feel that the blood which was spilt during the last two years in France has cemented the English-speaking people in a bond which will never be broken. Of the noble part played by our own heroes in this great war enough cannot be said. Their efforts were appreciated by every allied nation and Canada has taken her rightful position in the sun on account of their gallant deeds.
It is gratifying to me, Mr. Speaker, as it is gratifying to every Canadian, to know that steps will be taken to properly protect 'these heroes. Especially should this be true of the wounded and sick who are coming home now on every steamer. It is our country's duty to see that during the remainder of their lives proper protection is given them and Canadians will vie with one another in placing these wounded heroes in a position where they will not feel that Canada has not appreciated their noble efforts. As to the boys who are returning physically fit, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that after conversing with a number of them I have come to the conclusion that they deeply resent anything which would tend to make the public think that they are objects of charity. These boys who have fought for four years in the muddy trenches of France have endured terrible sufferings and discomforts and are able to take their place in civil life with the best of us, and I feel confident that after they have been discharged and have returned to civil life that we may expect great things of them. " They have finished the fight, they have kept the faith," and they have made the world safe for democracy.
Before concluding my remarks with reference to the returned soldiers, I would like to address a word of advice to the gentlemen in charge of the department which has to deal with demobilization, and I do it not in a critical spirit, but in the best interests of the soldiers and our country. There is a great deal of complaining amongst the soldiers disembarking at the port of Halifax on account of the fact that they cannot get their discharge in a few days after their arrival on this side of the water, and this fact, Mr. Speaker, is creating more unrest than perhaps the hon. gentlemen of the Government realize. As a frequent visitor to the city of Halifax, I have come in touch with a number of the boys who have this complaint to make, and if you will allow me for a few minutes I would like to tell of one specific case.

Five weeks ago a young man returned on the Aquitania. He got permission from the authorities at Halifax to go to his home for a week. He came to see me about a business matter and said that he had a chance to purchase a business and that he was going to Halifax to endeavour to get his discharge. About three weeks after that while walking on one of the streets of Halifax I happened to see this young man and he was still in khaki. I asked him why he had not received his discharge and he said he did not know. He explained that he had applied to the authorities four times but he had got no satisfaction. It seems that the men were paraded every morning at nine o'clock, the roll was called and they were then free to wander through the streets of Halifax until nine o'clock the next morning. The business that the young man was anxioug to acquire was purchased by somebody else and to-day he is out of a position. Shortly after having spoken with this young man in Halifax, I happened to meet one of the officers who has charge of the demobilization and I made it my business to ask him what good reason there was for these soldiers being kept for three weeks or a month after they came home. His reply to me was: ''In the first place there is too much red tape. In the second place, sometimes when a steamer arrives the necessary documents are not on board, and we have to wait until the arrival of the next steamer from the Old Country." I said: ''That does not seem to me sufficient reason; is there any better explanation?" He replied: "There are other reasons," and he gave this as one of them: "Sometimes," he said, " the men when they arrive in this country have overdrawn their monthly pay, and they are kept by the Halifax military authorities in Halifax until such time as they have worked the overpayment off." Another case he told me was to this effect: A young man arrived, and when he reached the demobilization station he was minus his rifle, which was worth $35. The authorities kept that man there thirty days, and in addition to paying him so that he could reimburse the cost of the rifle, this country had to feed him. Mr. Speaker, is this not a ridiculous state of affairs to have in connection with the demobilization of our troops? I draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to these facts in order to see if he cannot speed up the present procedure.
The speech from the Throne announces that a Bill relating to the franchise for women, and conferring on them the privilege of sitting in Parliament, is to be in-

troduced. Such an Act as that, Sir, meets with my humble approval, and nothing will give me greater pleasure than to have at some future date one of the fair sex as a desk mate.
The leader of the Opposition in his remarks dealt in suitable terms with the Wartime Elections Act. I submit, Sir, that this Act should be repealed before any other legislation dealing with the franchise is introduced. Regarding the proposed Franchise Act, I am entirely in accord with the remarks made by my leader when he referred to the Franchise Act which was in force in Canada for a number of years previous to the enactment of the War-time Elections Act. That law has worked very well in the province of Nova Scotia, and if you will bear with me for a moment, Sir, I will explain to you how voters' lists are made up in that province. The lists are compiled in the towns, cities and counties	in	this manner. In
every town there are three revisors appointed, who may be one year in the proportion of two Conservatives to one Liberal, and in the following year in the proportion of two Liberals to one Conservative. In the rural districts the municipal council appoints a revisor for each district. As you know, Sir, in political matters in Nova Scotia we are pretty evenly divided, and consequently every year one party has as many revisors as the other. These men get together and prepare the voters' lists. When they have performed that duty the list is submitted and if there are any complaints, or if there is any person who wants redress, he can apply to the sheriff of the county, to have his name placed on the list, or to have other names, which should not be there, struck off. This system has worked very well in the province of Nova Scotia for the last twenty-five years. Indeed so satisfactory has its operation been that in my county I cannot recall any application in the course of twenty-five years to the sheriff for redress. Un,der the circumstances, Sir, to depart from such a system as that would, in my opinion, be a waste of public money. After the lists are made up by the local revisors they are placed in the hands of the municipal clerk for every county, from whom the Secretary of State receives a copy of the list for federal purposes. The county clerk receives for his trouble one-half cent per name, so that it is quite apparent that the prevailing system in Nova Scotia is a very cheap and effective method of preparing the lists, much cheaper and better than the method adopted in the last election. I respectfully submit, Sir, that a large amount of money will be saved for the tax-payers of this country if the federal authorities will adopt that system and I am sure tnat every citizen of this country, who is interested in safe-guarding the financial interests of the country will want to have this work done as cheaply as possible.
With respect to the announcement that a Bill providing for federal aid towards highways is to be introduced, I would like to say that any moneys to be voted by the House for this purpose should be gifts outright to each province, and that no string should be attached thereto. A year or two ago some of our newspapers were advocating the construction of a national highway. That, Mr. Speaker, might be a very wise thing to do under happier circumstances if the condition of the national finances permitted, but, in my opinion, nothing like this should be done at the present time. Any money granted by this Government to the different provinces should be expended' on the present highways in order that the great farming industry might enjoy better roads on which to transport their products to the different markets.
The speech from the Throne declares that Canadian financial and commercial stability has been well maintained. To that statement, Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to take exception. I feel that a great many people in Canada are not at all satisfied with the way in which the Government has handled the public money. In their minds unnecessary expenditures have been made, and new departments created which have not been a benefit in any sense of the term. A previous speaker has referred to the fact that an hon. member from a Nova Scotia constituency was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, but resigned in disgust after holding the office for a few months. After tendering his resignation to the Government the hon. gentleman in question issued a statement which makes very interesting reading, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have that statement placed on Hansard. It is taken from the Halifax Herald, and reads as follows:
Why P. B. McCurdy, M.P., Resigned His Position.
Too much delay and too little Progress made in preparing for Rehabilitation of our Overseas Soldiers and Solv-. ing Problem of their Return.
Halifax, November 28.-P. B. McCurdy, M.P., returned yesterday from Ottawa where he has been serving the government in various capacities. Formerly Mr. McCurdy was parliamentary

branch of a department, I do not know which. My attention was directed to this by an advertisement which I' saw in the Truro Daily News. When I received this paper I noticed that on the margin, close to the advertisement, the following words were written: " Can't you stop this nonsense?" I will read to the House this advertisement as it appeared in the Truro' Daily News, and probably in every other Unionist paper from Vancouver to Halifax, at considerable cost to the ratepayers of this country. It is as follows:
The ''Why" In Fish Prices.
''Why is the price of halibut so high?" The question is often asked.
The public is itself responsible. It has put halibut into the luxury class. Many people never bought red cod, flounder, plaice, witch or drill in their lives, nor asked for them.
Each of these is as delicate and as satisfying as the fish of their choice and habit.
From 30 to 40 per cent of the oatch on halibut lines is cod that has to he thrown away. The cost of a sea fishing cruise has to come out of about 70,000 pounds, where it might be spread over 400,000 pounds if all fish taken were used and eaten. Retail cost would slump at once.
You cannot blame the fisherman for throwing away cod and other fish for which the public do not ask. He has to gratify the public: it is a fickle master.
The 'Canada Food Board aims to end this waste by making facts known to the people.
Meanwhile "there's plenty of good fish in the sea."
Canada Food Board, Ottawa.
For the Government, through their Food Board, to issue such ridiculous nonsense is a matter of great concern. It shows conclusively that some person connected with the Canada Food Board has insulted the intelligence of the people of this country. Any one who ever heard tell of a codfish knows that it is one of the most valuable and most palatable fish caught in the Atlantic. The person in the employ of the Government who sent that notice to the public should lose his job within twenty-four hours; he is not fit to hold it.
I noticed also an editorial in the Yarmouth Herald referring to another statement sent out by this Food Board, and I think that this editorial should find a place on Hansard. The editorial reads as follows:
Recently a report was sent out, signed by a member of the Canada Food Board in which it gave the public the positive reason for the high cost of halibut and which displayed unpardonable Ignorance regarding that fishery. It stated that the sole reason why the price of that food commodity held so high was due to the fact that the fishermen in the prosecution of the halibut fisheries were very sorely hampered by the smaller fish such as cod, haddock and other shack, all of which had to he returned to the sea. In consequence only small fares of
halibut were taken at a trip and the high prices were necessary to assure the fishermen a paying return. That report was issued several weeks ago, and owing to the absurdity of the statement was probably thrown to the waste baskets with little or no comment. The report so published no doubt started a thought of just *where the officials preparing such statements may have come from, for it is hard to conceive of a man of Canadian birth signing such a statement. Yet it was done, and only a few days ago the following statement was issued by the Food Board, which also shows that the department is gaining little or no enlightenment re Canadian Atlantic coast fisheries:
"As an instance of difficulties under which the fisherman of Nova Scotia are working this winter," says a Canada Food Board statement, "the loss of gear on the codfish banks by trawlers catching their trawl nets on vessels sunk by German submarines last fall may be cited. Many cases have occurred since fishing was resumed on the codfish banks off the Nova Scotia coast, and fishermen are very bitter, as while the sunken wrecks remain, these banks will be impossible to fish. When trawls are lost in this way, it means an amount of about 13,000. Despite this discouragement, however, Nova Scotia fishermen are endeavouring to increase production of codfish this winter, and the Canada Food Board urges a greater consumption of this staple Canadian fish."
Can any reader, with the slightest knowledge of the fisheries, see through such a statement? Of all the vessels which fell victim to the German submarines, there were not more than ten acually sunk directly on the fishing banks, and even if they were, what difference would their wreckage make to trawl gear? Absolutely none whatever, yet the Food Board in ignorance of the real facts allows such statements to be published and given to the public. With such reports going broadcast over the Dominion the fishermen, we feel, have a stronger plea than ever before for the appointment of a Fisheries Commission to be composed of men who have all their years made a study of the fisheries, not only from a scientific basis but from a practical standpoint as well. Not until such is done will it be possible for the ministers at the heads of the departments to he in a position to deal with the many difficult problems which from time to time confront them on the fishery question. It is also a matter which the fishermen should most urgently demand, for the publication of such absurd statements as the above makes a huge joke out of one of Canada's most important industries.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Food Board has served no useful purpose, except it be the fact that for the last six months it compelled the people of this country to eat a great deal of bran and middlings. It is also quite true that they made a poor Chinese restaurant keeper in this city pay a fine of $100 for placing a bowl containing sugar before one of his guests, while they took no steps to reduce the price of the bacon which the restaurant keeper served to the same guest. " One law for the Chinese, and another for the bacon hog."	_
Then there is another department which is known as the Department of Public In-

formation. This department, a great many people are of the opinion, was created to boost the Government, and to show what some of the people of this country think of the work this department is doing, I read the following clipping from one of the Toronto papers:
" The Department of Public Information is another fountain of wisdom which showers blessings on a large number of unattached or lightly attached journalists. It began with large ambitions which have been considerably whittled by circumstances. It had no less a purpose than to hand out all the news to all the newspapermen-scientifically predigested, of course

and thus to control the press of Canada. What upset this little scheme, which had its origin in the teeming hrain of Leader Rowell, was the objection of certain newspapers to taking coloured news from anybody, and a similar objection by the Ottawa correspondents to this rubber-stamp way of doing their work. Moreover, jealousies arose in the Cabinet. The ministers objected to any one man, however pure, giving the thing his own slant.
So the Department of Public Information drew in its horns. Occasionally it makes a feeble gesture when it hands out a parboiled despatch from Argyll House, but mostly it contents itself with keeping a scrapbook for the Cabinet ministers and printing a weekly "Official Canadian Record" which nobody takes, although the subscription is nothing a year. The "Official Canadian Record" is made up of stale news scalped from the dailies, bum puffs of the Government, blue book hash, and rose-water statistics. Once in a while it offers a bit of owlish advice, as, for instance, the last number, which admonishes sufferers from the "flu" to keep their windows open. A good tip. Let us all keep our windows, our bowels and our minds open, and we shall be a happy, healthy people. Union Government or not."
Another costly experiment for the people of this country was the Canadian Registration Act. It was a useless expenditure of public money and had no beneficial results. This has been acknowledged by every wellthinking person in Canada, and I wish to place on Hansard the opinion of the Montreal Gazette with regard to this costly farce:-
Tlie Canada Registration Act has been suspended. Announcement to that effect comes from Ottawa. It will no longer be necessary to carry a registration card. Any man or woman happening to have one of those interesting souvenirs is at liberty to destroy it. The Registration Act, like the no-strike order, has, it is assumed, 'served its purpose.' The value of this registration business was questioned at its inception. As an inventory of manpower it was as useless as the previous count made by the National Service Board, and for the same reason, namely, that it provided no means whereby the information obtained could be put to practical use. There was, it is recalled, the sapient suggestion that the registration would facilitate the enforcement of the Military Service Act. The hope that it would so operate was based upon the theory that slackers who had determined to evade the draft would walk meekly into the office of the nearest registrar and confess their eligibility. One hopes that

this confidence was not misplaced. What is recalled of the registration is that it put the people of Canada to considerable inconvenience, that it created much confusion, that it imposed upon the population an extra and useless obligation at a time when necessary restrictions and regulations were sufficiently numerous, and that it involved the country in a doubtful expenditure when every dollar of public money was urgently required for war purposes. The people registered on the assumption that they were contributing to the country's war effort. They have yet to learn of any substantial practical purpose having been served by the registration. The suspension of the Act may have been necessary as a formality. It makes no difference otherwise.
This article, coming from such an important newspaper as the Montreal Gazette, a newspaper which supported the previous Government, that is the Borden Government of 1911 to 1917, and which has supported this Government since then, deserves serious consideration on the part of the Government.
The hon. member (Mr. Redman) who moved the resolution in support of the speech from the Throne referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was at present in France attending the Peace Conference. Conflicting reports have come to us as to the value of the services being rendered by the Prime Minister in this connection. I am not in a position to state as to what is the Prime Minister's status at this great conference, but it is quite evident 4 p.m. that some of the newspapers in this country are not carried away by the work which the Premier is supposed to be doing. There is a story in the Good Book which tells of a man who sat by a certain gate waiting for the " crumbs which fell from the rich man's table," and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has been placed in that humiliating position by the memDers of this Government who are at present in Paris.
I supmit, Sir, that our case would be very much stronger if it had been submitted in writing by the Prime Minister to Premier Lloyd George, setting forth our claims, and that after he had discussed the matter fully with the Premier of Great Britain he could have returned to Canada and looked after and attended to the government of this country.
A short time ago a report was published in the newspapers that the Premier was engaged in settling the boundary lines between Greece and Rumania. That, to my mind, was no compliment to this great country, and it is to be hoped that the day is not far distant when the different members of the Government, who are at present

in a foreign land, will return and look after the business of their departments.
I was greatly interested, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the statements made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) in his speech on Wednesday, relative to public expenditures which are proposed by the Government. It is certainly a very large order, and in the expenditure of such large amounts I trust that the minister will act as the "watch dog" of the treasury.* Part of the programme as outlined by him, is one of shipbuilding, and I wish to protest strongly on the floor of this House against the Government's going into the shipbuilding business. It seems to me that they are developing political hysteria, as they would never think of such a project in view of the fact that it is doubtful if there is one member of the Government who has any practical knowledge of this great industry. I also doubt if there is one of the members of the Cabinet who knows the cathead of a ship from the dog watch, the cow's tail from the horse pipe, the ring stopper from the wheel box, the port watch from the chronometer, the jump stay from the stop water, the royal yard from the foot ropes, the ratlines from the mousings, or the cats paw from the thoroughfoot; and yet these hon. gentlemen propose to enter a business, a knowledge of which it takes years to acquire. Then, again they should remember that when the war started and when Lloyd George told us that the demand was for ships and more ships, in addition to the shipyards already in Canada, old shipyards were re-opened, and the business men and shipwrights of Canada proceeded to do their bit in winning the war by carrying out the wishes of the Premier of Great Britain. They did not ask for any favours from the Government, but they have established their businesses on a business basis, and have sold their ships in the open market. Is it fair, Sir, that after these people have invested large sums of money and established their business, the Government should now come in and propose to interfere with them? I would think that the bungling and the gross extravagance on the part of the Naval Department in the last few years, in purchasing ships, should have sickened the Government when one of their members made such a ridiculous proposition. I can only say, Sir, that "they know not what they do."
The Minister of Public Works, in outlining his policy, declared that his own idea was to provide work for the labourers of Canada. It is evident that he has had a change of heart since August last when he
threatened the mine and steel workers of Nova Scotia with the importation of coolie labour. The following is an extract from the Halifax Herald of Tuesday, August 30, 1918, from which it is quite evident that the labour people did not agree with the Minister of Public Works:
Halifax, August 30.-The labour leaders' attitude towards the pronouncement of Hon. Prank Carvell favoring the introduction of coolie labour was emphatically stated to The Herald last night by Tom Moore, general representative of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, who is in the city acompanied by P. M. Draper, secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada,: A. Bastion, union organizer, of Montreal, and H. J. Halford, of Hamilton, vice-president of the Barbers' Union of America. They had just returned from a thorough investigation of conditions at the mines in Oaipe Breton.
Our answer to Mr. Carvell, said Mr. Moore, is that coolie labour is not needed, and the minute a Chinaman or Coolie enters a mine to work, that moment the miners of Cape Breton down tools and walk out. Continuing, Mr. Moore said, that Hon. Frank Carvell should have informed himself of conditions at the mines before as a public man, condemning the miners as unpatriotic. Mr. Moore said we have personally visited the mines in Cape Breton, and discussed the situation with hundreds of the men-. We found that in the smaller mines of the Dominion Coal Company that the men claim there is sufficient help to work to capacity the present rooms. In the large pit head, known as Dominion No. 2, more mien could be employed. The situation there, however, is thatowing to lack of transportation, the coal at present being produced cannot be handled and taken away, and unless something is done immediately the possibility is that a very large proportion of the present help will have to be laid off during the winter months when there is no water-borne freight.
The labour leader explaining the reason for this serious outlook, said: At the present time there is between 200,000 and 300,000 tons of coal banked at the mines, and considerable fear is entertained by the management that it may become a total loss through spontaneous combustion, and measures are being taken to open up the heap so as to ward off disaster if possible.
What this enormous pile of coal means may be gathered when it is understood that the average production of a miner working at the fgce head is from 7 to 12 tons per day, but when the surface help and other labour is included, the coal produced does not represent more than two tons per day per head of the men employed at the mines.
Therefore, if you take 200,000 tons as the minimum of the pile, and. it certainly is more, that represents 100,000 working days for one man, or 100 working days for 1,000 men. In other words it represents the output of 1,0'00 men for over three months. In the past this pile has always been cleared away in the summer when there was plenty of transportation by rail and water-and then the men were kept on all winter producing coal for another pile, which would be moved in the spring, when navigation was resumed. If the present pile is not removed the outlook is that the mines will have to close down this winter, and instead

of importing coolie labour, Hon. Frank Carvell will have to find employment for the miners of Cape Breton.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we were all interested in the address of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Cal-der), and it was certainly a work of art for fence straddling. Following a course not unskilfully indicated by the Acting -Prime Minister, the Minister of Immigration deprecated party politics. As I understand his attitude, politics is a game which, when the country is progressing favourably and peacefully may be indulged in, but which is out of place in times of stress and strain. It is to be regretted that this minister of the Crown, with such a long experience in public life, has such a low idea of politics. It does little honour to himself and surely less than justice to the political atmosphere in which for a number of years past he has lived and moved and had his being, of which indeed he receives the credit of having been in large measure the mainspring and the real, if not the apparent leader. He does less than justice to that atmosphere, 1 repeat, because during the last few weeks we have seen a minister of the Crown in another province, Mr. Motherwell, leave the responsibilities and emoluments of office and resume the rank of a private member, rather than remain among those from whom he differed on public questions.
No, Mr. Speaker, the old ideas of public life are not dead. Some men will inevitably welcome, and others instinctively shrink from, reform; others by nature love, and others distrust, liberty. The ideals of honesty and sincerity and loyalty are as dear as ever they were in the mind and hearts of the Canadian people-perhaps all the dearer since the ugliness of the lack of these qualities has so recently been so clearly demonstrated.
We are somewhat amused on this side of the House by the assumption of superior political virtue by the Minister of Immigration, and his lofty superiority to the political game. May we, Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House say this to him: He may regard, if he likes, the strife of political parties as a game-if so for many years he has been a player-but that is not the view of those sitting on your left, Sir. We believe that we are here for the purpose of advancing the public interest along principles which we hold in common, principles dear to the heart of Baldwin and Lafontaine, of Howe and Brown, of Mackenzie, Blake and Laurier.
We regret that these principles are poor outworn things to the Minister of Immi-

gration, but we venture to assert that notwithstanding the loss of his adherence thereto, their longevity will not be impaired.
The Minister of Immigration regrets that there has been considerable internal strife. His remedy is that the public men of this country use their heads and hearts for the purpose of putting an end to these conditions. Noble sentiments, certainly ![DOT] But * the minister omitted to place the blame for this internal strife where it really belongs; and that is with a section of the press of Canada for the attitude they have adopted. Was his omission due to the fact that that portion of the press has been largely subsidized and is controlled by the present Government?
After his confession of faith and the reason given by him for the retention of his portfolio, although the war is over, it is quite satisfactory to the gentlemen on this side of the House if it is satisfactory to his Conservative friends of the Union Government. My own view of the matter is that " Ephriam is joined to his idols, let him alone."	-
We on this side of the House, Sir, await with interest the information to be submitted by the Government containing the accounts of last year and the estimates for the next fiscal year, and I can assure you Mr. Speaker, that as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we will vote any moneys necessary to carry on the business of the country in connection with the soldiers and their dependents with the mobilization and the other necessary services of the Government. Let me, however, say to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that tlie strictest economy must be practised and that owing to the regrettable financial condition of the country at present, we must ask them to go slow. Eternal vigilance should be their watchword, and we will hold them to strict accountability for every dollar spent which is not necessary.
We are living in serious times, and it behooves every member of this House to safeguard the interests of this country, and when we have done this, Sir, we can return to our constituents for the summer recess and they will say to us " Well done, good and faithful servant."
Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER COCKiSHUTT (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the very creditable manner in which they have acquitted themselves. I

also desire to concur in all the encomiums that have been passed upon our departed friend, the late leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
This is an after-the-war assembly, and we are called upon to deal with present-day conditions. We have won the war, and the boys are coming home, and bringing with them problems that will have to be dealt with in a manner which will require the best thought of all political parties and of all members, of this House. We have many causes for rejoicing and thanksgiving when we remember the cloud under which we foregathered a year ago and the auspices under which we now meet. A year ago the horizon was dark and forbidding as a result of the most strenuous campaign of the four years of war. The enemy was not only as strong as ever, but according to report was stronger in man-power than at any previous time during the war. An immense army had been mobilized during the winter, and the Canadian boys along with our Allies were facing a foe ready for all eventualities, it was supposed. It was indeed a time in which our cause, so to speak, hung more or less in the balance. Thanks to the valour of our troops and to the Divine help that we believe was vouchsafed to our armies, things soon began to brighten, but we certainly had to pass through dark days. It is not many months ago that the famous message of Field Marshal Haig rang out to his troops and to every part of the civilized world-"Men, put your backs to the wall. Die at your post rather than retire." That message will be handed down through the ages with the great message of Lord Nelson a hundred years ago at Trafalgar-"England expects that every man this day will do his duty." Both these messages are in the same high rank. The traditions of our forces and those of our Allies certainly justified all the faith we placed in them. They won out. But at what a price! While we mourn the departed statesman to w'hom I referred a moment ago and one or two others whose places are empty in this House, I want to offer a word of sympathy particularly to those members who have had their family circle broken by this terrible war. There is many a vacant seat around many a splendid fireside in the Dominion of Canada to-day as a result of this war. Our young men have died, however, for a noble cause, and had they lived a thousand years it is a question whether they could have died in a greater cause.
They displayed heroism, devotion and selfsacrifice. Those are among the highest
qualities that humanity can display. They are taught in the good iBook, and I can only say to those who mourn the broken family circle, that they have good cause to believe that the great Master who gave His life for others will not forget the sacrifice of the boys of Canada who gave their lives in so great a cause-humanity, civilization and religion. Some people, it is true, have been worried about the final destiny of those who have been called to leave the earthly house of this tabernacle and pass to the great beyond. We know not, but we believe the Judge of all the earth will do right, and I, for one if it is any satisfaction to gentlemen whose family circles have been broken, am prepared to say that, so far as I read the Scriptures and interpret them, the Judge of all the earth will see that those men who have given their lives, who have not hesitated to lay down their lives for others will be found at the right hand, " where loyal hearts and true stand ever in the light, all raptured through and through, in God's most holy sight." I believe that we can leave those heroes in the hand of the Judge of the earth, knowing that he will do right. We know, Mr. Speaker, that this war has only been won as a result of great efforts. It caused a great deal of trouble in this land to raise the army that was raised and keep it up to strength until Tlie finish, but that was accomplished, Mr. Speaker, and it was only accomplished by great sacrifices and denial of one's own inclinations in sending to the front the splendid boys who went there, and keeping them up to strength. That, however, has been done and when the war came to an end, be it known and be it spread abroad to all the earth, that Canada was going just as strong at the finish as she went at the outset. The guns that spoke at Mons commenced the war, and the guns at^ Mons finished the war, because if you take it from Mons to Mons you have the whole history of the war. That is where the British guns first spoke. But they came back to Mons, thanks to the splendid generalship and heroism of men in the providence of God, though 1 driven from Mons and kept out of the battle line there for four years. The Canadians were back in Mons when the last gun was fired. The Canadians were there to fire it, and we have the testimony, not only of laymen but of military men who know whereof they speak, that the one division or the one army corps that Canada had at the front was the strongest fighting unit not only of the British Empire but of all the armies of the Allies, none was equal to the splen-

did fighting Canadian boys that were left at the front the day the last gun was fired at Mons. That is something to be proud of, and that is some reason to rejoice, but I say this has only been accomplished by self-denial not only on the part of the members of this House but of the people of Canada, and of the sons of 'Canada, both those that were at home and those abroad. All this has been accomplished by immense effort. During this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have had remarks addressed front" the other side of the House to our separated brethren. Perhaps, it would not be inappropriate for me to say a few words as a counterpart of that, and address myself more particularly through you, Mr. Speaker, to the united brethren. We have separated brethren and we have united brethren.


Mr. MULLOY:: Manufacturers.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Yes, manufacturers and farmers all sitting happy and contented over here at the present time. Separated brethren! How you must dislike, that word, hon. gentlemen-"separated." Indifference, lost friendship and all such things come back to you, whilst on this side of the House you see united brethren. You behold them smiling. See how happy and contented they are here, and we are making them welcome. We are giving them a home of which they will take full advantage, and I, for one, trust they are going to stay with us for many a day. It is far better to speak about unity than it is to speak about separation, and I cannot but think that our friends on the other side that invented that term, "separated brethren," will hear the echo ringing down for weeks and months and years, in such a way that they will wish they had not thought of separated brethren, because the separated brethren are united with us, and we are inviting them to stay, and we believe they are going to stay. We have much more to offer them than friends opposite have, and for a very good reason. What was the reason that your separated brethren left the doctrines you preach? It was because your doctrines were not sound.
It was because you were preaching a doctrine that would not save the country and the Empire and that would not win the war. These gentlemen who came from the other side and united with us came over for a reason^ and that reason, Mr. Speaker, was to win the war, and the best answer we can give to you to-day is that the war is won, and that those men had something to do with winning it, and 
if they never do anything great in their lives in the future history will not forget every man jack that came out and became a separated brother for a short time. But he was taken into a far better fold, at any rate, and their names will be handed down as men who sacrificed something in order that the war might be won. The war has been won, and what has been the result of the winning of the war? The winning of the war, Mr. Speaker, is the greatest thing that has ever been done in all the ages since Adam delved and Eve spun down to the present time. Never was there so great a cause. Never was there so much at stake, and never was there more brilliancy won than that which has been won on the battlefields of Europe in the last four years. It was worth while. Humanity has been saved. Christianity has been saved. The right of small nations to live, the right to enjoy justice, freedom and order, not only in the great lands, but also in the small lands, has been achieved, not only among great people, but also among the minor classes. Those are only some of the things that have been won. Why, Mr. Speaker, the prophets and kings have desired .long to see the sight that we see now and have not seen it, and to hear the things that we hear this day, and have not heard them. We have to-day practically a ransomed world as a result of this war, and those gentlemen who came out from the Opposition have given up what we all know is very dear to them, party unity and party ties. I have been a strong party man myself, and I know what that means. I say, all honour to these men, who, in the face of all this, were ready to come over to usj who are ready to sacrifice, it may be, their own outlook and their own advantage in order that the best effort of the Dominion of Canada should be continued and that our troops at the front should be increased. That has all been done and the result justifies the means. In addition to all these things which have been saved to humanity, I may point out a thing that has not often been mentioned in this House, and which is too frequently overlooked in the country, and that is not only has civilization and Christianity been placed in comparative safety as a result of the war, but the great Holy Land which, for a thousand years has called for the best efforts of the nations of Europe, for which many a crusade was undertaken, for which many a spear was sharpened, many a sword ground-the land of Palestine, with its capital, Jerusalem the Golden, the Holy

City, has been wrenched from the hands of the Turk, the infidel, and to-day the British flag floats over Jerusalem, the ancient city of the Jews, about which so many promises have been made and about which cluster so many glorious memories. The Holy Land and Jerusalem have been saved to civilization, and I trust that, after all the blood and treasure that have been expended, never again will these holy places pass into the hands of the Turk and the heretic. That is something that has been accomplished by the war. All honour to the men who came out from the other side and joined us in order that the best that Canada could do should be done in the interests of civilization and humanity.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that mistakes have been made, and, no doubt, have been made by the Government. It is true that some things might have been done that call for criticism. I am not so strong a party man, even a Unionist or a Conservative, that I do not see there are some things that might be different. 1 am not going to spend much time in criticising the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, but before passing from this particular part of my address, I want to take exception to some remarks which were made by at least two hon. gentlemen opposite, both comparatively new members of the House, and who, I am sorry to see, are not in their seats at the present moment. I am not going to say anything in their absence that I would not say if they were here, and I want it to be understood that any references I make are more to the matter of their speeches than they are personal with regard to the individuals with whom I am called upon to deal. I regret to say that one of these hon. gentlemen, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), made what I conceive to be one of the most damaging statements that was ever made in this House, and that is a good deal to say. I believe that perhaps he did not intend that it should be considered as seriously as I look upon it. But, his reference to the Bolsheviki and his defence of them, in my judgment, was the most serious offence that has ever been committed in this House in my hearing.
I think it is time that this country knew the danger of the Bolsheviki and their doctrines. It is time that they should be put down. It is time that the laws of Canada should be enforced against those who have come over from the old lands, have found sanctuary here and do not appreciate it any more than to preach doctrines so subversive of all law, order and
decency as the Bolsheviki have done in Russia, and as they will do here if permitted. In a free country like Canada no such doctrines as those are justified. In a free country no such company should be introduced, and I regret that the hon. member for Brome found it necessary to enter into a defence of a doctrine that I conceive to be absolutely indefensible.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is their doctrine?


William Foster Cockshutt: You have it there in Hansard, and you are a better authority probably on it than I am. I understand that the hon. member for Brome draws his inspiration from the Manchester Guardian. I am a bit of a Lancashire man myself, I know the (Manchester Guardian fairly well and I tell the hon. member for Brome that I consider that he is drawing his inspiration from a very bad and unsafe quarter


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: Oh, yes-I say a very bad quarter and a very unsafe quarter if he is guided by the Manchester Guardian. The (Manchester Guardian up to August 4th was pro-German and if the Manchester Guardian had had its way Britain would never have sent a man across the channel. That was the doctrine of the Manchester Guardian. The Manchester Guardian has had a hard job to keep straight even under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is an unsafe guide for gentlemen opposite to pin their defence of the Bolsheviki too. I am going to take the risk of. saying that I do not believe that this country will ever lie down to such a doctrine as the Bolsheviki preach. What have they done? Did they get elected to power? Not at all. They seized the reins of government. Seized the reins of government, by what?-by the ballot?-no, but by force-absolutely by force, and where do they draw the line? They announce a doctrine which says that you shall shoot down every man who wears a white collar, or a white shirt. They attack women, carry off everything valuable, and disrupt the country. In what way do they convert a man? At the point of the bayonet and at the rifle's mouth. Strong arguments indeed! Yet, we find in this Parliament some hon. gentlemen uttering a defence of that doctrine. The people of Canada will never allow such a doctrine as that to prevail here. You may try to cause a rift between capital and labour, between the so-called classes and the so-called masses, but I tell you that in my

judgment there are enough level-headed men in Canada in the working classes, in the fields, in the mines, in the factories, everywhere, who will say you may count me out if you want to make a distribution of this world's goods on the basis of the Bolsheviki. It means the absolute denial of every law of God and man. If I could conceive that the men of this land will not save us from the doctrine of the Bolsheviki I will tell you who will and I think I know what I am talking about. If the men will not defend us from the Bolsheviki doctrine, the lately enfranchised women will save the country from it. The women know what it means, you had better believe. The women have read the history of recent events in Russia. I am glad that the hon. member for Brome has come in. I am just endeavouring to elucidate the doctrine of the Bolsheviki which I understand the hon. gentleman was backing. I say that that doctrine will never prevail in Canada. I say that if the men of Canada will not defend the country against Bolshevism the newly enfranchised women will. The women know when they have got a fairly 'good thing and they are not going to let it go until they have got something better. Bad as some husbands are. irreconcilable, unconvertible as some of them may be, the woman with a fairly good man in this country and that she can exercise her influence upon is not going to give him up. The women are allowed to rule in this country in a way in which they could not rule were the doctrines of the Bolsheviki to prevail and they are going to say: "While we have some evils at home, we had better bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) may rest assured that his defence of the Bolshevik will not prevail in this country, because that doctrine is one of the most dangerous and seditious that could be formulated here.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker to a point where I have to criticise the Government, and I am sorry to be compelled to do so' The Government has passed a good many Orders in Council, perhaps too many.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: That of course, is a dangerous fault.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: But there is
another fault. far more dangerous, in my judgment, and that is to
[Mr. Cockshutt.)
pass more Orders in Council than are carried out. The Government has passed an Order in Council declaring that to put out seditious literature of the class prepared and distributed by the so-called Bolsheviki in some of our large cities and towns merits punishment by fine and imprisonment, and yet when these penalties have been imposed by our magistrates in accordance with law, the condemned men have been released long before their sentence was completed. I say that this is wrong, and in that respect I condemn the Canadian Government. The Minister of Justice is absent, and therefore I do not know who is responsible for this leniency; I do not know who should shoulder the responsibility. I desire to say that the release of those fellows who were in possession of Bolsheviki literature, and distributed it in this country over and over again-we had this thing in our own town as well- should have been punished to the utmost limit of the law, both by fine and imprisonment, and they should not have been set at liberty until they had served their sentence. That is my opinion of the Bolsheviki. I now call upon the Acting Prime Minister to see that in future when a man is condemned under the Order in Council referred to he shall be kept in custody until his sentence is served, which sentence is all too short for a man holding and spreading such dangerous doctrines.
I am sorry to have to call my good friend the hon. member for Brome to task, because he is the essence of good nature, but I hope that he will accept these criticisms as good-naturedly as I have endeavoured to make them.
I cannot pass over without criticising the remarks of another hon. gentleman, who I regret to see is not in the House. This hon. gentleman is a particular friend of the member for Brome, and defended him in his references to this same vile doctrine last night. I refer to the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy). The hon. gentleman was elected to this House only recently, and last session made a very favourable impression. I was not in the House when the hon. gentleman spoke last night, but I have his speech as reported in Hansard. I want to say that the hon. gentleman made a very grievous mistake in that speech, and, if I am any judge, it is one that he would like to-day to recall. The hon. member for North Essex not only defended those who upheld the Bolsheviki, but he went further and delivered what I call a "sneering" speech. Such a speech as that never gets a man very far, and never secures him a following of the best

class. The hon. gentleman sneered indirectly at His Majesty the King, the Ruler of the British Empire, and sneered indirectly at the Prime Minister of Canada for attending a function that was given by His Majesty, and which was also attended by President Wilson, perhaps the greatest democrat in the world to-day. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that a great offence, or is it a matter for ridicule? While the doctrine of the Divine right of kings, and all that rule and are in authority, does not obtain here, I want to say, and I do so without the slightest fear of contradiction, that among the kings, rulers and emperors the world over no better example of heroic Christian duty, fortitude and regard for the welfare of his subjects was given by any ruler than our splendid King George V displayed during the last five years. It is not necessary for me to enter upon any defence of His Majesty. The King is above reproach; he has been a man of the people; he has not failed to go to the front, to the extent even of exposing himself to and receiving injury there, and his sons have served in the danger zone the same as any of the King's subjects. The King had led us in a noble way, and his devoted Queen equally so, and I say all honour to these rulers of the Empire that they have displayed such splendid and noble traits to their people. I therefore think it ill became the member for North Essex to cast any slurs in that direction. I am very sorry indeed that this incident has occurred. The King was giving a banquet to President Wilson, I am retainded.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of order. It has always been a rule observed in the House that no comments should be made about His Majesty the King or the Governor General. I am sure that no member of the House would say anything that would reflect in the slightest degree on His Majesty, or his representative in this country. Therefore, I think in his remarks the hon. gentleman is getting very close to forbidden ground, even if he has not actually encroached upon it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read what was said.


William Foster Cockshutt: The words to which I object are to he found in Hansard, and if I have placed any false interpretation on them I am willing to retract my criticisms. But as far as I am able to gather such was the language of the hon. gentleman to whom I refer. I desire to go a little further. I regret the occurrence of this incident, hut we cannot pass it over unnoticed. We had a right to expect better things from the hon. member for North Essex. He represents the city of Windsor, which enjoys the same name as the King's palace. We have a right to expect that the hon. gentleman should live up to the loyal traditions which that name suggests, and if the hon. gentleman's remarks accurately reflect the sentiments of the people whom he represents, that community should change its name to something more suitable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Change the member.


William Foster Cockshutt: That would be a
good deal easier. I think that is probably what they will do-change the member; but I am saying that if the inhabitants of North Essex hold the same views as their representative enunciated here last night, the name of W'indsor should be changed to a more suitable title. That name was doubtless bestowed upon the town by its founders to commemorate the historic Windsor over the sea, and the great palace that exists there, the place where His Majesty the King frequently takes up his abode. If there is one place more than'another that should live up to Windsor traditions, it is the people of Windsor, and the member they send to Parliament. Nevertheless it is the very gentleman who represents Windsor who comes here and makes a sneering reference to a function given by His Majesty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Foster Cockshutt: It is all in Hansard -the references to the Windsor uniform, and the flummery


Mr.   OOOICSHUTT@: Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. McMASTER: Does the hon. gentle-I know the rules of the House fairly well, man suggest that loyalty is increased by and I do not think that I have violated love of a Windsor uniform?	,
them in any respect whatever. I am only Mr COCKSHUTT:	A Windsor uniform
endeavouring to refute an imputation that does not always consist of gold trimmings, was indulged in on the floor of the House, ^ Windsor uniform may be composed of and which appears in Hansard respecting other materials, but it ill befits any hon. a function at which His Majesty the King gentleman to utter such sentiments as was the host, and at which President Wil- those to which I have alluded. Whether a son and others were guests.	man is wearing a plain brown coat made in
9	;



Windsor, or a Windsor uniform, such language ill becomes any man coming from that city, and I believe there are a great many people in that community who will tell the hon. member for North Essex when they next see him that they do not approve of his language last evening. Futhermore I have this to say, I do not believe the hon. gentleman will commit the same offence again.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: He will have a chance to be knighted now.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think he will be benighted rather than knighted. It is never pleasant to make references of this kind, but I do so without any personal animosity or bitterness against either of these gentlemen. The remarks, however, to which I have referred, are objectionable as being uttered in the House of Commons; not only are they damaging to our reputation as intelligent legislators-but they are calculated also to do a great deal of injury in Canada. -For that reason I felt called upon to refer to them.
I regret that, among other things, some slight reference was not made in the speech from the Throne to labour conditions, the hours of labour, and the wages paid in this country. I am often accused of being a hard-hearted employer, but in my judgment the very best that we can do for labour and for the working man should be done. In order to do that, we must have conditions that justify giving these shorter hours and these high wages. I do not think that either of these things can be brought about in the way the member for Brome suggests. The member for Brome has a tearing down rather than a building up policy. It is easy to criticise. It is easy to pull down the old structure, but it takes a better and a stronger man to put up something better in its place. While we may deplore the difficulties surrounding Canadian trade and Canadian labour conditions, after all, Canada is a fairly happy country for the workingman, and conditions have materially improved during the war. Personally, I trust that we shall not go back to where we were before the war; getting back to pre-war conditions is not my conception of living up to all that we should do. We should stay where we are in so far as we have made advances; we should not make a retrograde step. At any rate, I for one hope that wages will never get back as low as they were. I trust that labour conditions will be modified and that if it is possible to grant a seven or eight hour day, that

will be done. I trust that the captains of industry and all those employing great forces will see to it that the workingman is relieved so far as possible from adverse conditions.
Our trade and commerce has been flourishing during the war; the tremendous strides that have been made have far surpassed our most sanguine expectations. But we have come to the end of the war; and in order to deal successfully with after-the-war conditions we shall have to be pretty sound in judgment; otherwise we shall strike snags. If there ever was a time in the history of Canadian trade when the best judgment should be used, it is now. Many tremendous problems face us which it is going to be very difficult to meet successfully. We must not be pessimists, but optimists. I heard a pessimist desribed the other day as a man who, having the choice of two evils, took both. There is a good deal in that; some pessimists choose both evils; they see nothing but blackness and darkness and tempests before them. Canada is all right. We have a big debt, and it is going to be bigger, but we can take care of it. We have enough resources and enough wealth in Canada to take care of it; all we want is a satisfactory method of reaching the people who have the money. If the member for Brome wants to write a bigger cheque next year, I shall be glad to accomodate him. I am glad to hear that he is ready to write a bigger cheque for the Minister of Finance next year. His suggestion in that respect is a good one; we must pay bigger taxes individually. We must pay bigger income tax than we have been paying. We have not been paying under the income tax very long. I suppose it has worked out all right, but I want to say to the minister who enforces it that there is room for improvement. There should be a date on which all men should pay. I had the privilege of paying my income tax nearly six months before some people got their papers. I do not know whether the hon. member for Brome, when he spoke of paying his income tax, was writing a cheque for last year or for this year. If he was writing his last year's cheque, he was six months behind the time; if he was writing this year's cheque, he was a little in advance of the general public in his own province.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It was last year's
cheque.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, my hon. friend is six months behind the times. In view of the intelligence and generosity of the

member for Brome, I think that he should pay up the seven per cent interest that the rest of us were threatened with if we did not pay on time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If my private affairs are to be looked into, I may say that the time at which interest accrues has not yet arrived? I assure the member for Brantford that if I am late I will add the seven per cent.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman has been dealt with very leniently. I hope he- is appreciative of his being forgiven the interest that a great many of the rest of us were told we would have to pay if we did not send in our income tax earlier.
Taxation is never very pleasant; it always causes pain. I am sure, however, that our good friend sitting in the front benches (Mr. McKenzie) will back me up in this; that as long as a Scotchman does not have to pay any more than his share and does not have to pay it ahead of the other fellow, he is ready to do his share as well as the rest of them. In passing, may I say that in my opinion not as many bouquets have been bestowed upon the new leader of the Opposition as there should have been from this side of the House. I suggest that the gentlemen who follow me throw a bouquet to our good friend'. He is not so bad; he is all Scotch-


An hon. MEMBER:: And no soda.


William Foster Cockshutt: A little soda. However, we may be able to say more about that after we have dealt with the prohibition measure that is to be brought down.
Having dealt with taxation and trade and commerce, I suppose I would be accused of shirking the issue and not being the valiant man I profess to be if I did not say a word about the tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: sides of the House-because I believe all the critics on the other side are his friends in the bottom of their hearts; they do not want to be hard on the minister although they may hold divergent opinions-he will bring down a tariff that will suit everybody.
Before I sit down I want to make a brief reference to the Peace Conference. That may be considered a little aside of our functions in this House-


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


William Foster Cockshutt: -but as it is a matter of such great moment, I think I would be justified in venturing just a very few remarks upon the Peace Conference and its likely outcome. Sir Robert Borden, the leader of this House, is over there and is, I believe, trying to represent Canada to the best of his ability at one of the greatest gatherings that has ever in the history of the world been assembled. The destinies of nations hang upon it. The map of Europe is being changed. The limits of almost every country in Europe are being defined. Questions of race, creed-everything of that kind are being settled. The whole of Europe is in the melting-pot, as well as a good deal of Asia and some of South Africa. Thank Heaven this continent is free, but the territories of a large portion of the nations of the earth are in the melting-pot, and the maps are being made. We are desirous that all things should be settled on the best and surest foundation, so that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety may prevail through coming generations. That is the desire of everybody, although it is going to be very hard to reach it. President Wilson of the United States has gone across the water-a thing that has never been' done before by any President of the United States since that confederation became a reality. It has always been considered to be ueyond the prerogative of the President of the United States to leave his country while occupying the presidential chair. President Wilson has broken through that rule on account of this being the most important call that any President of the United States has ever had and he has gone across the ocean. He has taken with him certain ideals. All honour to those who have splendid ideals, and President Wilson has really splendid ideals. I do not desire to belittle all that the United States have done in this war; the heroism with which their boys have acquitted themselves at the front, the splendid speed with which they got them across the water, the way in which they got out the arms and
[Mr. Cockkhutt.[
munition and equipment and furnished an army of almost 2,000,000 men inside of twelve months. All honour to the splendid effort they made, but President Wilson has an ideal and an idea that a league of nations can be formed that will preserve peace in the- world for ever more. Far be it from me to cast any doubts upon the success of this great enterprise. I hope it will be all that is expected. I am free to confess that in my judgment it is too idealistic to meet the spirit of the times yet; that the millennium is not sufficiently near at hand to justify anyone in believing that we shall never have any more wars in the world. I understand that General Pau, who is in the city of Ottawa-I have not yet had the pleasure of hearing him-has made the statement that it is useless and idle for us to believe that all wars are at an end. That was my view before General Pau made his statement and his statement only goes to confirm my opinion in that respect that wars will yet be; that while the world exists wars will not cease. We are told so in the Scriptures. I believe that to be the case and that wars and rumours of wars will continue to the end as long as humanity is as frail as it is, and constructed on so frail a foundation as many of us stand upon. This is not an ideal condition, but I believe it is one that is going to stay with us, and believing that I submit that it would have been wiser for the nations assembled at the Peace Conference to frame a safe and lasting peace treaty and sign that first rather than to endeavour to make a league of nations which may take a few months or longer to work out and which may in the end not prove a success. I submit that only as a criticism of the work that is being done. I simply profess to be a poor, humble layman in that respect and cannot see so far as those men who are assembled there; but my desire is that a lasting peace shall be obtained and that we shall not be robbed by politicians of the work that our men have done in the field. Their heroism has done its share. I have pointed out in the beginning of my speech and I cannot do better than to conclude with the same words, namely, that the boys at the front have brought all honour and glory to this country by their splendid heroism on the field. They were acknowledged to be the spear-head of the armies at the front. They were saved for all the knotty points, for every critical occasion; the Canadian boys were there, and in the final stages they never went after anything that they did

not get. I say that in this re-
5 p.m. spect this House and the country have every reason to rejoice that our boys have displayed all those characteristics that make them physically, morally and mentally the equal of any people in the world. What has been accomplished by Canadians on the battlefield, what has been achieved by heroism, self-denial and devotion to duty on the field can be accomplished in this House and in this country if we are as alive to our duties as the boys overseas have been to theirs. If we are as loyal to our duties as the boys overseas have been to theirs, every one of these mountains in our way that now seem insurmountable will be swept away, and we shall stand a united, contented, and a Christian people that need take a back seat to no other nation in the world.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Since prorogation of Parliament, last May, great and momentous events have happened through the world as well as in Canada. We have witnessed the triumph of Justice and Right-, the crushing of Prussian militarism, Hun barbarism and German autocracy. Under the command of the illustrious Marshal Foch, the Allies have vanquished the Teutonic hordes, broken -through the impr-egnable Hindenberg line, and forced the German armies to beg for mercy; they have brought about the downfall of the haughty and snarling kaiser and obtained, on 'November 11 last, the armistice ending the hostilities and putting a stop to the atrocities of this frightful war which appalled the world for over four years.
While at present holding a conference, the Allies are making use of all the talents and energies of their greatest statesmen, and are calling upon all the resources of diplomacy to lay the foundations of a durable peace, which shall open a new era of progress and civilization and make the renewal of the war an impossibility.
As mentioned in the speech from the Throne, none of the troops who took part in the -struggle proved to be more valiant and daring than the Canadians. Their heroism throughout this war has won for their country undying fame.
I take pride in the bravery and gallantry of our soldiers; our men have behaved like heroes. Let us honour the memory of those who fell on the battlefield. May we respect and protect, without delay or faltering, those who were spared from the shells, shrapnel and gases of the Germans.
However, the glorious events which I have just alluded to have made way, here in Canada, to a very sad and sorrowful occurence, which our hearts and minds are loath to accept as an accomplished fact. The empty seat here before me, the laurel wreath which adorns it, are more eloquent than any panegyric of the undying fame of him who has departed. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier is no more . . .
As one of the last survivors of the Liberal group elected at the time of Sir Wilfrid's glorious accession to power in 1896, I feel, it soems, more than any one else the immense gap which his death has created in this House. I find, however, satisfaction and consolation in the thought of always having remained true to him, through bright and dark days, in triumph and defeat, in power and opposition, and it is not for me to feel the pang of remorse at having, at the last minute, proved unfaithful to the greatest, most noble and illustrious Canadian in the social, economic and political history of Canada. Aye, great all through his life, he proved still greater in death; always and everywhere his actions and words were noble and generous; and impartial history will reveal his career to future generations as having been illustrious both at home and abroad.
May those who lived in his days and those who will come after him never forget the high ideal towards which were bent-all his energies from the very beginning' of his public life-the establishment of union and harmony between the two great races of this young country.
In his lifetime we loved him, we admired him and we respected him; under his wise direction the ship of state sailed clear of dangerous rocks put in the way by unscrupulous adversaries who were very often blinded by their hatred of all that is French and Catholic. Let us hope that death has disarmed those despicable foes and that the pact of Confederation, that our lamented chief has always safeguarded like the apple of his eye, will be maintained in all its integrity by all Governments to come.
The main idea that runs all through the Governor General's speech that is now before us, is that of the industrial, financial, commercial and economic reconstruction of Canada. In other words, Parliament is invited to solve the entangled problem of the after-war policy of this country. It is a problem the importance, of which the Government failed to grasp if we are to judge by what has been done since the cessation oi hostilities and the signing of the armis-
1.34

world. Let us bring back confidence in the heart and mind of every citizen; let us forget the mistakes and faults of a few young men who defaulted, it may be, but who are Canadians above all.
Another question comes to my mind, although the speech from the Throne makes no mention of it. I refer to the censure which, it seems to me, is of paramount importance under present circumstances. Seeing that war is ended and truce has been signed, why do they maintain that system of stifling the voice of public opinion? Do the Government fear the disclosure of unspeakable and unavowable deeds; do they fear the outcome of inquiries which would throw light upon the administration of the several departments of the commonwealth?
During the last conference held at Ottawa, in January last, Sir Wilfrid Laurier demanded the abolition of the censure, and following the example of the great departed one, I pray the Government in the name of the whole electorate and, may I not say without exposing myself to criticism, in the name of the press of this country to free us from the censure and to rid of it those mouthpieces of public opinion.
A Bill concerning the franchise is to be laid before the House. Let us hope that the first thing to be done in that direction will be the repeal of the War-time Elections Act, that Act conceived in iniquity whose only outcome was the disfranchisement of British citizens duly qualified to vote, and which resulted in the avowed stealing of the last elections. According to the speech from the Throne, one of the purposes of this Bill is to allow the women to vote, to confer upon them the privilege of sitting in Parliament. I do not intend to deal now with its principle, reserving my right to do so when the proper time comes.
I shall only say that in my humble opinion women have a greater and nobler role to play, a part more worthy of them than that of lobbyist and politician, and I consider that their place is not upon the floor of this House or upon a busting, but at honie and everywhere where they can practice mercy and self-sacrifice, qualities which are of their essence and of their nature.
The policy of the Government involves Bills concerning highways, vocational training, the creation of a department of public health, prohibition and public works to be carried on.
A better roads policy was inaugurated by the Quebec government and it was such a success that the other provinces were stirred up and included that plank in their programme. And the most eloquent testimonial to its efficiency and expendiency is to be found in the words of the Minister of 'Public Works (Mr. Garvell) when he tells us :
I had the pleasure last year of travelling over a part of the highway in the province of Quebec constructed by the Provincial Government in recent years, and I can only say that if we extend that class of highway through every province in Canada we shall have accomplished wonders.
I concur in that opinion of the Minister of Public Works.
The explanations which the honourable gentleman has given the House as to the fulfillment of his programme and the apportionment of moneys, have only been touched upon. We cannot yet, so far as I am concerned at least, pass judgment upon the expediency of special, subsidies by this Government to the provincial authorities in favour of goods roads.
I understand that Parliament will place a sum of 25 millions at the disposal of the Government to be spent on highways throughout the various provinces of the Domihion; but will this amount be divided as provided for in the plan set forth by the Minister of Public Works, according to the census of 1915, in some of the western provinces? If it is distributed by the provincial governments themselves, without any interference or influence on the part of the Dominion Government for the political purposes, and if the works are carried out under the supervision and control of the provincial authorities, then I approve of the plan and I shall support the bill to be presented to that effect. Otherwise, I am against it.
We talk about giving employment to returned soldiers. The people complain about the ever increasing number of unemployed. Well! let us carry out that policy of good roads throughout the country, which will enable the respective provincial governments to give some work to the unemployed, and at the same time to supply the country with highways, thus promoting its advancement and the welfare of the people, particularly of the agricultural class. I am in favor of it, but only on that condition.
As regards vocational training and education, I trust that the measure that is to be brought before this House Will not be along the lines of the resolution which I see on the Orders of the Day, under No. 16 in the notices of motion, in which the honourable member for Frontenac (Mr. COMMONS
Edwards) expresses the opinion "that it is desirable that the British North America Act be amended with a view to establishing a system of national and non confessional schools throughout the whole Dominion of Canada."
I hope that such utopia will not appear in the bill to be presented regarding vocational and educational training. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this question of education is well within the province of this Parliament or whether it is not within the scope of provincial jurisdiction, in virtue of the Confederation Act. This is a matter to be cleared up later.
The Governor General's speech also mentions the establishment of a Public Health department. At this particular time, following a war which claimed so many victims, the public health, in every way, certainly requires to be looked after, and the people should be protected against contagious diseases which are . the outcome of such wars. History mentions outbreaks of plague following wars, which caused more deaths than the wars themselves. As Dr! Osier, a prominent physician, stated regarding the danger of contamination from soldiers returning from overseas, it may be advisable to look to the future and protect our young women and families. But again I wonder whether the establishment of a Public Health Department is within the purview of federal or provincial jurisdiction. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that such a department would conflict with the boards of health in the respective provinces, and with those established by the municipalities in the cities and in the rural districts. I fear so, and this measure suggests difficulties that invite criticism and which ought to be avoided.
I believe the only way out is to leave the matter of Public Health in the hands of the provincial and municipal authorities.
There is another matter which I was forgetting. The honourable Minister of Public Works announced that millions must be expended to procure work for the unemployed, namely $25,000,000 for the building of highways and $20,000,000 for better housing, the latter being connected with the Public Health department. These $20,000,000 for better housing will be loaned by the Dominion Government to the provinces at the rate of 5 per cent; then the provincial governments will distribute the moneys according to regulations to be adopted for that purpose, thus improving the health and comfort of the workers and their fami-

lies. Furthermore, there is to be an expenditure of $75,000,000 for the building of new railway branch lines, in the western provinces only. In reply to a query from the honourable member for Antigonish (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. Minister of Railways stated that there wTas no provision for Nova Scotia. Everything is for western Canada. AVe are not jealous, but let us not forget that the Canadian Northern is running through that part of the country; that Mackenzie and Mann have large interests there.
Is there a nigger in the pile or are Mackenzie and Mann and others going to profit by this expenditure of $75,000,000, such as the profiteers, who made millions during the war-the bacon lords?
The hon. Minister of Public Works stated that considerable sums were to be spent in public buildings at Hamilton, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. But I am surprised at the reasons which he brought forth in explaining such an outlay of public funds. Here is what he said in his speech in regard to these works which involve such enormous expenditure; he did not seem satisfied as to its usefulness:
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the Public Works Department is concerned I am adhering strictly to the principle which I laid down some few minutes ago, namely, that we are not constructing public works simply because they would be a good thing for the community, but we are constructing them primarily because they will provide employment for the unemployed.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an added suggestion: It it not on account of the usefulness or desirability of such expenditure on buildings that millions are being squandered; it is simply to provide employement.
I realize that the view so expressed commends itself from a certain point of view; but is there no other departure more profitable to the country and of better service to the community than spending money just for the sake of giving employment? I say: yes.
I put a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, the other day, whether the Government intented to resume the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. He answered negatively. The people and, I am sure, this House, expected to get an answer at least favorable to the idea that these works would be undertaken and carried on. No, absolutely nothing of the kind. However, is there a better occasion for our Government to achieve a good action than that of resuming the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, a national undertaking

which would procure work to the unemployed who are assailing the Government with requests and complaints? Is there a more fitting time to acquiesce to these requests by employing thousands of these workers in the construction of the great waterway-I would say the great national waterway-to be used for our national trade? In reference to the matter, I read this morning in Le Canada an appreciation of the building of the Canal, which I believe it is my duty to have inserted in Hansard, in order that the people may become acquainted with this great undertaking. The article reads as follows:
The Government who pretend to be taxing their ingenuity in order to find out the means of securing employment for thousands of unemployed have not far to go to find one.
The construction of the Georgian Bay canal which has been advocated for over a quarter of a century by all our public bodies, would have furnished employment to thousands of men and solved the great problem of restoring the welfare of the workingmen.
Then, the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, as set forth in a Senate report in 1S98, would bring about the development of an immense lumber, pulpwood, and pulp industry and other industries. It would open up a new country to colonization and agriculture. It would be likewise the means of working out the problem of the re-establishment of our returned soldiers.
Moreover, as stated1 in the report of the Senate, the Canadian trade would be greatly benefited by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal; it would open up a new water route for the transportation of western freight to the seashore by way of Montreal and Quebec. "While being a shorter and more direct route, that canal would reduce the cost of transportation of those products." The western wheat and cereals would be carried by that route to the east. The eastern coal could, be shipped that way and the cost of food1 and coal would be materially reduced.
The construction of the Georgian Bay canal would develop enormous waterpowers along that route for the purposes of electricity, for the mining of iron ore and other minerals that are plentiful in the Ottawa valley. Such development would result in reducing the cost of lighting, while furnishing work to many hundreds of other workers.
As will be seen, the construction of the Georgian Bay canal would help more than any other work in solving the great after-war problems.
Neither can the Government allege by way of excuse that the exchequer is empty, as the people have subscribed hundreds of millions to national loans, without mentioning all the other taxes which they are paying into the treasury. Besides, the Georgian Bay canal would yield millions of dollars to the Government, as stated by Sir Robert Perth in his paper of February 3, 1914. read before the Royal Society of Arts, In London. In his opinion, the traffic of the canal would yield, on an average, $9,000,000 to the Government. Then, how much revenue would not the country indirectly derive from the building of that canal? Just as the building of the Canadian Pacific railway has Improved millions of acres of uncultivated land, so will the Georgian Bay canal improve the value of that
territory. Moreover, western farms from what experts tell us, would realize a yearly profit of $9,000,000, on the transportation of their grain.
Truly, the Government have no reason to deny to the country the opening of the Georgian Bay canal, unless they prefer to give way before the opposition of the Yankees and the pressure from the large financial interests of Ontario which have always been alone in opposing the scheme.
And the newspaper goes on:
The future of our country and the fate of its population are at stake.
According to my feeble notion that is the most eloquent plea in favour of a national enterprise which by itself would almost suffice to solve the post-war problem of the idle and unemployed. And not only would we have the satisfaction of having employed men for the pleasure of putting them to work, but we would have the satisfaction of having endowed Canada with a national enterprise which would redound to her credit.
Now, Sir, the speech from the Throne touches upon another question-prohibition. I am for temperance, but against prohibition. And I hope that when the proposed measure will be submitted, there shall be in the Bill intended for every province of Canada a proviso authorizing the provinces to permit the sale of light wines and beer, if they are inclined to do so.
As the honorable senator Dandurand said yesterday in the Senate, as long as it is not shown to me that the consumption of beer and light wines is detrimental to humanity and injurious to my health, I shall go on drinking wine and drinking beer if I have a liking for them. I humbly submit that it is an attempt against individual liberty.
At this moment, General Pau entered the House and having shaken hands with Mr. Speaker, he was welcomed by Sir Thomas White, acting Prime Minister, and by honourable Mr. Burrell, Secretary of State and took a chair to the right of the Speaker.
The hon. members who were present at the sitting rose spontaneously and enthusiastically cheered General Pau.
Mr. Ethier, having interrupted his remarks, then addressed Mr. Speaker in the following words:
Sir, seeing that it is my privilege of having the floor when enters the illustrious man who hails from overseas, that worthy cousin from France, will you allow me to pause in order to greet the illustrious General Pau gloriously maimed in 1870, one of the greatest victors of the war that has just ended. The shades of our brethren of Alsace and

Lorraine who fell in 1870 must rejoice at seeing the man who defended them so gloriously then treading the soil of New France inhabited by the brothers and the sons of those for whom he fought so well.
With your permission, Sir, I will conclude these few remarks by shouting with you all: Long live France.
I have but a few words to add to the remarks I was making when General Pau came in.
I was dealing with prohibition in this country and I contented that as long as it is not shown to me that the consumption of beer and light wines is detrimental to humanity and to the consumer who uses them considerately, I shall oppose any drastic Bill purporting to prohibit the manufacture and importation of those wines and beer. As to importation. I do not know whether under the circumstances it would be expedient to put an end to, abrogate and annul a treaty signed by France. England and Canada at a time when that celebrated entente cordiale was entered upon by the two countries, France and England; I wonder whether it would be wise at this moment to prevent the importation of French wines into the French province of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have but a few more remarks to make, but I beg the permission to move the adjournment of the debate, which will permit me to conclude them later on.
Mr. ETHIER moved that the Debate be adjourned.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There might be some
question as to whether the hon. gentleman would have a right to proceed when the House meets again, but I think, under the circumstances, no question will be raised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 6 o'clock.
Monday. March 3, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Statement of superannuation and retiring allowances in the Civil Service during the year ending 31st of December, 1918.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of Civil Service Insurance account.-Sir Thomas White.
[Mr: Ethier.]
Statement of Governor Gfeneral's warrants issued since last session.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended 30th April, 1918.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the National Battlefields Commission.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of expenditure on account of Miscellaneous Unforeseen Expenses from 1st of April 1918 to 21st February, 1919.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of temporary loans outstanding.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the fiscal year, ending 31st March, 1918.-Sir Thomas White.
Copy of the Treasury Board Overrulings of the Auditor General, and accompanying correspondence.-Sir Thomas White.
Public Accounts of Canada.-Sir Thomas White.
Copy of a cable (in extended form) received by His Excellency the Governor General from the Secretary of State for the Colonies on February 14, 1919, giving a summary of the League of Nations Covenant presented to the Peace Conference by the League of Nations Commission.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Secretary of State for the year ending 31st March, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

William Thomas White: I desire to communicate to the House a letter addressed to me by the Assistant Auditor General:
Auditor General's Office. Canada.
Ottawa, March 3rd, 1919.
Sir,-I am informed by the Printing Bureau that they expect to have the first three volumes of the annual report of this office ready for presentation as follows:-Vol. Ill, Wednesday or Thursday; Vols. I and II, probably next Monday.
As far as this office is concerned all the matter for Volume III. was signed oft and returned to the Bureau on February 25th. All the proof for Volume II. was returned to them on the same date and the proof for Volume I. on Saturday.
I am writing the King's Printer again calling attention to the delay.
I am. Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. D. Sutherland,
Asst. Auditor General. Hon. Sir Thomas White, K.C.M.G.
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.



COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS APPOINTED.

Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to consider the question of pensions and pension regulations and all matters1 pertaining thereto, and to prepare and submit a Bill dealing with pensions for the consideration of this House; and that Rule No. 11 be suspended; and that the following members be appointed to compose such committee: Messrs. Andrews, Beland, Clark (North Bruce), Cronyn, Devlin, Green, Lapointe (St. James), McCurdy, Nesbitt, Nickle, Pacaud, Pardee, Power, Redman, (Rowell, Ross and Sutherland.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This cannot be passed
without the unanimous consent of the House, no notice having been given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Hughes: I could not catch
the names of those nominated to be members of that committee, but if he has not already been named I would suggest that Mr. Lang be added to the committee, as one who understands the matters to be dealt with.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should be glad to
accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). But as this addition to the committee would probably necessitate another member from the 'other side, I would suggest that the arrangement be made through the whips.



STATISTICS ACT AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Statistics Act. He said:	The purpose of this
Bill is to change the year for which transportation statistics are to be collected. The present Statistics Act makes the year for this purpose the same as the former fiscal year-ending 30th June. It is proposed to adopt, instead of this, the calendar year, thus making it conform with the year adopted for the gathering of our other principal statistics.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MACLEAN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, respecting the Units of Electrical Measure. He said: This Bill is very technical in its terms, and at the moment I can give but a brief explanation of it. The three fundamental units of electrical measure are the ohm, the ampere and the volt. These were established generally in 1908 by'an international conference called by the British Government and attended by delegates representing all the great nations of the world. The purpose of the legislation is to give effect in Canada to the conclusions reached at that convention.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
MINISTERIAL CHANGES. correspondence between the prime

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would ask the
Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) to be good enough to lay upon the Table any correspondence he may have setting forth the changes that have taken place in the Government during the recess, and the reasons therefor. I have particular reference to the resignation of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) and the resignation from office of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy). I think the Acting Prime Minister will agree with me that the traditional practice of Parliament calls for the laying upon the Table of such correspondence.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend is correct in his statement of the practice of Parliament in such matters. I have under my hand the correspondence that passed between the former Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) with respect to the resignation of the former. I had intended to present this after the conclusion of the debate on the Address, but as the question has been raised I would ask leave to read the correspondence, and I may say that I have the permission of the Governor General to do so:
Ottawa, November 4th, 191S, My Dear Sir Robert,

I hereby resign my position in your Government as Minister of Labour.
Faithfully,
(Sgd.) T. W. CROTHERS. Rt. Hon. Sir R. L. Borden,
Premier of Canada,
Ottawa.
Ottawa, Ont., November 5th, 1918. My Dear Mr. Crothers,-I beg to acknowledge the letter conveying to me your resignation as Minister of Labour which, under the circumstances disclosed to me at our interview, I must accept but with great regret. You told me some eighteen months ago that your health was not good, but that you hoped to continue your duties until the end of the war. I expressed to you my desire and my hope that your strength would prove sufficient for that purpose and I realize the unremitting labours which you have since discharged with great ability and devotion to the public interest.

During the period of more than seven years in which you have been at the head of the Department of Labour you have been confronted from time to time with many difficult questions ; and this has been especially true during the past four years. It must be a matter of great gratification to you, as it is to me, that during that period there have been fewer labour disturbances in Canada than in any part of the Empire. This is a tribute not only to the moderation and patriotic spirit of organized labour, but also to the wisdom and ability with which you have discharged your duties as Minister.
May I venture to express my hope that the well earned holiday which you are about to take will prove most beneficial and that although you find your strength unequal to continuing the labours incident to the head of the important Department over which you have presided you will still take an active and energetic interest in public affairs.	.
Believe me, dear Mr. Crothers,
Yours faithfully,
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Queen's Hotel,
Toronto, Ont.
I shall make inquiry as to the correspondence in the other matter referred to by the leader of the Opposition.



ALLEGED TRADE DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to bring to the notice of the Acting Prime Minister a matter which has on two former, occasions been brought up in this House-once by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntington (Mr. Robb), and on the second occasion by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy).



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This morning I received from London this cablegram which I wish to read to the House:
London, March 3,
Surprised cable statement acting-Prime Minister. Every one here knows trade regulations discriminate against us as compared with the United States. I assert this positively.
(Signed) Macdonald.
This cable was sent to me by a former member of this House, Mr. E. M. Macdonald, who is well known to us all, and . I think it proper to bring it to the notice of the Acting Prime Minister.


William Thomas White: In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) I may say that we had been dealing with this matter upon newspaper reports. Last week, as I recently stated to the House, I despatched a cable to Sir George Perley, High Commis-
sioner for Canada, with the view of ascertaining the facts. I have not received a reply. When one comes to hand I shall make a further announcement to the House in respect to the subject. I observe from the cable which has been read to the House by my hon. friend, that surprise is expressed at the cabled statement of the Acting Prime Minister. My statement on Thursday of last week was. to this effect:
I have no official information in confirmation of the report, and I must take the liberty of doubting that Great Britain would discriminate against Canada in favour of the United States or of any other country.
In private communications that I have received from time to time from the Prime Minister, I have been made aware that representations were made by him and his colleagues, and by Messrs. Harris and Jones, to the departmental heads and to the chairmen of important committees, in respect to the matter of the removal of war restrictions upon trade Still existing. The restrictions referred to were general in their character. It has not been intimated to me in any of the correspondence which I have received that there has been any discrimination against Canada. I have had a good deal to do with the finance and trade of Great Britain connected with this country since the outbreak of the war. I have known of the great difficulties under which she has laboured and the situations with which she has been confronted from time to time, and I desire to say that 1 believe that to the utmost of her power she has endeavoured to assist Canada in her trade, and that in all matters connected with our commerce during the war her intentions towards us have been of the most friendly and generous character.
On the Orders of the Day:



FARMERS' SONS OVERSEAS.

Charles Murphy: Might I ask the hon. the Acting Prime Minister a question? Correspondence has reached me, as I have no doubt it has reached other members of this House, from farmers in western Ontario and elsewhere, pointing out that seeding time is only about six weeks away and that they are confronted with a serious shortage of labour. Only to-day I received letters from points in western Ontario in which, among other things, I am given an instance of one man with 200 acres and his only son overseas, and of another man with 250 acres, one son at home and another son overseas. This condition prevails in different parts of the province as well as in other parts of Canada. I am requested to

ask the Government if some provision cannot be made to bring these farmers' sons home in time enough to take part iij putting in the next season's crop.


William Thomas White: In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy), I may say what has already been said in this House in this debate, that every possible effort is being made by the Government to bring home, as speedily as possible, the Canadian Expeditionary force. I think that within the next few months very rapid progress will have been made-indeed, much more rapid than we and, I think, the people of this country, anticipated at the time of the signing of the armistice.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East), for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session resumed from Friday, February 28th.
Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Mr
Speaker, before resuming my speech which was so fortunately interrupted, on Friday last, by the visit of the illustrious mutilated hero of the war of 1870, General Pau and the distinguished friends who accompanied him I deem it my duty to convey to you, Mr. Speaker and to my hon. colleagues to your right and to your left, the expression of my regret at having perhaps been unable to rise to the emergency and to show myself equal to the task imposed by the circumstances; but let me tell the House that what I said was prompted by the heart and the sincere and frank expression of my feelings. My words conveyed the sentiments of a loyal British citizen and betrayed the love of a descendant of old France for his ancient mother country. I am fully rewarded for it and I am glad to avail myself of the opportunity which is afforded me of conveying to and placing before the House the expression of the emotions stirred in General Pau's heart, on the occasion of his visit to this House, the other day.
Allow me now, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter which I have just received from this illustrious man whom the country is acclaiming to-day.
French Mission.	French Republic.
Montreal, March 2, 1919.
J. A. C. Ethier, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Allow one to tell you how happy I felt, the other day, in hearing you, when, together with the Mission, I was granted the honour of the
sitting in the Federal Parliament. By good luck a French-speaking member was then addressing the House-
La Presse, of Montreal, in its issue o.f Saturday last, pointed out this very same circumstance.
-need I tell you how happy I felt in hearing our mother tongue echoing within the precincts of the House? Need I add how deeply moved I was by what you said with regard to me and respecting France? These are memories which will never be wiped out of our minds but will ever remain green in my heart and in the heart of my colleagues.
Believe me, Sir,
G. Pau.
There is nothing to add to such a letter and to the proof of esteem conveyed to me personally, Mr. Speaker; but my hon. colleagues are quite aware that those congratulations are a tribute paid not to myself but to all my colleagues.
When I had the honour of moving the adjournment of the debate, which is going on to-day with your leave, Mr. Speaker-and let me say, from the very outset, that I do highly appreciate the favour you conferred upon me in relaxing the Rules of the House and allowing me to resume the debate under such circumstances-I was dealing with prohibition. It is up to the Government to legislate on that question which is now being debated by the provincial assemblies, that of Quebec and the no less important one of Ontario. I hope that the Government, in approaching that question, will bear in mind the threat hurled across the line by Labour, which is spreading throughout Canada:	"No beer, no coal." This is, a
pregnant argument, and I hope the Government will bear it in mind, in proper time and place.
Labour and reconstruction seem to preoccupy the mind of the Government; and yet those important questions do not receive the degree of consideration they are entitled to.
The honorable member from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in the course of a few remarks more or less expedient which he made on Friday last, has taxed his ingenuity in order to represent my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) in the shape of a Bolshevik. In his opinion, the Russian (Soviets and Bolsheviks find in my hon. friend from Brome a zealous and doughty champion of their doctrine! He protested against the propagation and distribution of Bolshevik literature, without mentioning the names of those papers and while he was denouncing them, I wondered whether he had in mind the Orange Sentinel. I wondered if he meant the

Jack Canuck or the Calgary Eyeopener, which are protected by the Government and which are circulating under his paternal eye.
But employment must be found for the unemployed, we are told by the Government; public health has to be protected; reconstruction and the re-establishment of soldiers have to be provided for; and postwar problems must be solved. But what are you doing for the farmers? The tariff question is passed over in silence in the speech from the Throne. In his opinion, the tariff is a negligible quantity and you have but to do the bidding of the manufacturers and the capitalists and follow the lead of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt).
The other day, my hon. friend expressed a wish or rather suggested a compromise, in saying that he would be in favour of paying a bigger income tax. That is quite easy for him, as he derives his profits fiom the farmer, and so he will take in the pocket of the farmers the money he will pay to the Government.
In their recent Orders in Council, passed during recess, the Government have put the tractors on the free list. That is all very well but if the tractors are useful to the wealthy farmers of the West who can dispose of enough money to buy those implements, it is quite, quite another thing with the other provinces.
What does the farmer want now, if you really wish to protect him? Put not only farming implements on the free list but also raw material.
An bon. MEMBER: Take off the duty off ploughs.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Is my hon. friend from Brantford in favour of placing on the free list the agricultural implements which he is manufacturing and selling at such a profit? The hon. gentleman spoke smoothly, on Friday; he held out the olive branch with one hand, but with the other hand, he lays the burden of taxation on the farmer. My hon. friend lacks sincerity; he always advocated in this House high duties on ploughs.
My hon. friend from Brantford tried to bring into ridicule the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Kennedy) when speaking of "separated brethren" and with a gesture which he deemed eloquent, he pointed out the hon. member for Red Deer i(Mr. Clark) who was approving him with a smile.
An hon. MiEMBER: That does not mean much.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: No, it is no great matter, because behind that smile lurks a menlai reservation. Those "separated brethren" referred to by my hon. friend for Essex, who have been invited by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) to go back to the fold, saying that the door of the Liberal party was wide open, and who smiled approvingly at the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford, may not always smile, when the tariff question comes up. He did not tell us what transpired at the caucus of the hon. gentlemen, last Thursday; he did not tell us whether the smile was as sweet and as bright as the one he was wearing, when referring to the hon. member for Brome. I do not think so. And when the tariff question is brought forward, I shall ask the hon. member for Brantford what he thinks of the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and of the resolutions passed in the West by the Grain-Growers and approved by the Minister of Agriculture. The smile of the hon. gentleman may not be as sweet and pleasing as the smile of the hon. member for Red Deer, Friday last.
Such are the important matters which the Governor General's speech does not mention and which the Government does not care to deal with.
However, they have had taken great pains in spreading out the importance of the presence of the Prime Minister in Europe. When you read the Government's organs you would believe that Sir Robert-Borden's services there are primordially useful. The President of the Republic to the south of us is nobody, neither is Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain! Sir Robert Borden must remain in France. We see the President of the United States coming back to Washington to deal with the labour conditions and other questions of the hour. The British Prime Minister is crossing the Straits and goes to England to watch and endeavour to solve the labour problem which actually threatens the Imperial Throne. But Mr. Borden is of such consequence that he had to be assigned a position in which Canada is going to play a great part: they are sending him to the Marmorean Sea, to Prince's Island to confer with the Bolsheviks in order that he may become acquainted with their doctrine which the hon. member for Brantford thinks he has detected in the views expressed by the hon. member for Brome. But supposing, Mr. Speaker, that this mission, which I hold is of minor importance, were

justified, and that the Prime Minister of Canada would have-had to play a preponderant part in that meeting with the Russian Bolsheviks in Prince's Island, it is all over now that the Bolsheviks have refused to meet him. Why then should we not have the privilege, the pleasure and the great honour of seeing Sir Robert Borden in this House to-day? We would be pleased under the circumstance to behold his important and commanding personality as presiding over the proceedings of this House. Alas! no; he is overseas, and, according to press reports and rumors, seeking an embassy, perhaps in the United States.
The gentlemen who, in 1911, impeached the United States, and denounced a commercial treaty and reciprocity with that country and refused to make any financial or other transaction with them, now solicit the honour of being ambassador of Great Britain in the Republic which they so despised ! This is a singular contrast.
The Government complain that they cannot, under the present circumstances, as stated by the hon. Minister of Public Works, answer all the questions and satisfy all the demands which are put forth with a view to solving the post-war problems.
The hon. Minister of Public Works says that we may expect each year from now on a deficit of $100,000,000. This year we are going to spend $20,000,000 for better bousing; $25,000,000 for highways; $75,000,000 for new railway branch lines in the western provinces, and then after having increased the debt to $2,000,000,000, -we shall still have a deficit of $100,000,000.
The Government seem ' to have a queer liking for the Bolsheviks. They allowed the Prime Minister to go and confer w'ith the Bolshevik leaders in Prince's Island, then they sent troops to Siberia to fight the very people whom the Prime Minister was asked to pacify.
With regard to this expedition to Siberia -which the press has spoken so much about-may I ask what right had the Government to spend millions to send, without any authorization, that regiment there? Why were those soldiers asked to go to Northern Russia where, unfortunately for them, they are exposed to severe cold as well as retaliation on the part of the Bolsheviks ?
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have dealt with the different problems which concern public opinion. I may have gone beyond that which is mentioned in the Governor General's speech, but I could hardly leave aside such questions as that of the tariff,
the censure and the enforcement of the Military Service Act as regards the defaulters. I thought it was my duty not to ignore them and to call the attention of the country and of the Government to that which the latter have probably deliberately left aside.
I trust that in the few remarks which I made I kept within the limits of parliamentary discretion, and that they will be accepted in the right spirit by the members of the cabinet and my hon. friends on the other side of this House. I believe that the unexpected visit of General Pau ought to be sufficient to let you forget the other part of my speech. At all events I submit it, with the hope that the Government will seriously consider the various questions which we are discussing and will consider my remarks in the spirit in which they were made.


Mr. GEORGE BRECKEN NICHOLSON (Algorna East):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I be permitted to add my word of commendation with respect to the manner in which the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Redman), and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), presented the resolution which we are now considering. I particularly congratulate the latter hon. gentleman on his declaration with regard to national unity. It seems to me that if there is anything to which men of all classes, whether in public life or out of it, in this country, should direct themselves, it is to an effort to break down the unnatural prejudice that exists amongst many of our people on racial, religious and social lines. I wish to say, Sir, that if this country of ours is ever to reach the position to which we think she is entitled, it will be when men who deem themselves to be patriotic Canadians get together, work out a common ideal, and go forward to the attainment of that ideal. As long as we are divided as we now are, we can never achieve real national greatness.
The speech from the Throne submits a programme which, if we give to it the attention and consideration it deserves, will provide this House with work for a very considerable period. It is not my purpose to go at any length into any of the specific problems before us. I would, however, ask the liberty of referring to one or two very briefly.
The first question has to do with the returned soldier. Personally I do not like to hear it referred to as the problem of the returned soldier: it grates on my ears to hear the returned soldier referred to in any sense as a problem. For my own part I

look upon the returned soldier as the greatest asset this country has, or has had. There is a problem confronting us in connection with our relationship to the returned soldier. The problem is simply this: it is our duty-it is your duty and it is mine-to see to it that every soldier who went overseas to fight the battles of this country in Europe, is given an opportunity to get back into civil life just as quickly as he can, and into a position at least as good, if not a little better, than he had before he went overseas. With regard to the returned soldier who comes back to us broken in body and mind, it is our duty to leave nothing undone that can be done to render his position in life just as good as it can possibly be made. We can never restore him to his former condition; we can never make the world for him the same as it was before; but we can, as far as we are able, alleviate his condition and make life at least tolerable. Then there are the dependents of those who have fallen, and in that regard I merely say this: If ever a woman or child in this country is permitted to suffer because of some Canadian citizen who has given his life in this war, then some one will be criminally responsible, and will be held to account for that responsibility.	,
Another point touched on in the speech from the Throne, to which I would refer briefly, is the housing question. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that I am now treading on somewhat delicate ground, because I do not believe that the present policy is universally acceptable. However, I am not going to discuss the matter in detail, because when it comes before the House later on we shall have an opportunity of reviewing it from all angles; but before we make up our minds too firmly that the housing proposition is not a good one, let us just ask ourselves, and if we can do so answer the question, -whether there is a town or city anywhere in Canada, of any considerable size, where a workingman, an ordinary workingman and his family, can secure a suitable house, such as a Canadian workingman and his family should be permitted to live in- one containing five rooms and a bath-at a rental that a workingman can pay? If there is such an one, I do not know where it is, and I would like to have the opportunity of visiting it.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, many times during this debate that there never was a time in the history of this country-in fact there never was a time in the history of the world-when we were face to face with so many problems, upon the solution of

which will to a large measure depend the kind of civilization that the next generation, at least, is going to have; and it behooves us all to approach these problems with calmness, and at least a measure of reasonable consideration.
There is the question of the labour problem-or the relationship of capital and labour, of labour to capital-of employer to employee, if you will. And let me say, notwithstanding the admiration that it would appear some members of the House hold for the system of the Bolsheviki, I am one of those who believe that the relationship between employer and employee will be a factor, so long as this dispensation lasts, in some form or other. It is our business therefore to try to work out a relationship between employer and employee that will be reasonable and that will give to every man without discrimination the right to earn at least a decent and respectable living. That is the basis of the whole problem-to enter upon a detailed discussion of the subject would occupy too long a time at this particular moment.
Another question that we must face in this country, and face in the very immediate future, is the final solution of the railway problem. We have gone some distance towards finding the solution, but we have very many difficulties to overcome yet, and the sooner we get busy and arrive at the best way of overcoming these difficulties the better it will be.
Another problem to be dealt with is the tariff, and again I almost feel as though I were treading on holy ground when I mention this particular subject. People will tell you the question is so difficult, that there are such diverse views of the tariff. That is perfectly true, but the fact that the question is a difficult one, and that people have diverse views of it, is one reason why we should tackle it,. I am somewhat in harmony with the view of the hon. member for Brome that w-e should tackle the tariff problem now; that we should not undertake to reconstruct the superstructure that has been torn down until we shall have re-established the foundation. We shall not have industrial stability until we have determined what the fiscal policy of the country is going to be. I have my own views with regard to the tariff. If I and the other members of this House in turn took the whole afternoon in discussing the tariff we should all go away in just as much a state of chaos as we are in at the present moment. We shall never reach a solution of this matter by discussing the tariff across the floor of

the House; it "will have to be taken hold of in a more scientific, businesslike manner. I do not believe that we could exist industrially under a policy of absolute free trade. Other hon. gentlemen in this House may say just as emphatically that we can; I am not going to quarrel with them; they have the same right to their opinions that I have to mine. But I do believe that there is room for a fair and reasonable compromise between the extreme views that are held with regard to the tariff. I have not even a glimmer of an idea of what may be in the mind of the Government or in the mind of the Acting Prime Minister with regard to this question. It may be that we shall find in the Budget a complete solution of the tariff problem-at least, I hope that will be the case. But I pass along a suggestion; it may be taken for what it is worth. It is that the Government appoint a commission-I hope that no hon. gentleman opposite will collapse in his chair because I use the word "commission"-to take hold of the question of the tariff; that the United Council of Agriculture, the Grain Growers of Western *Canada, the 'Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the United Boards of Trade, transportation organizations and organized labour, be requested to appoint their own representatives to make up that commission; and that these representatives sit around a table and see if they cannot work out a compromise on the tariff that will stabilize Canadian industry.
I would like the privilege of referring briefly to some of the criticisms that we have heard from the other side of the House. First, I wish to refer to a remark made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr McKenzie)-I sincerely trust that he will pardon my presumption in doing 4 p.m. so-with regard to the Department of Labour. If I understood him aright, he intimated that the Department of Labour was, to use a common phrase, simply lying down on the job and doing nothing to bring capital and labour or the employer and the employee together. I hold no mandate for the Minister of Labour (Hon. G. D. Robertson) although I have the greatest admiration for him and had the greatest admiration for his predecessor (Hon. T. W. Crothers). I would however suggest to the leader of the Opposition that he spend an hour some day in the office of the Minister of Labour. If he has not time to do that, I will undertake to introduce him to two or three representatives of organized labour in order that he 10
may find out what was done by the former Minister of Labour and what has been done by the present Minister of Labour with a view to harmonising the differences between the employer and the employee. I wonder if the leader of the Opposition ever heard of Board of Adjustment No. 1, upon which is represented all the railway organizations in Canada and all the employees of railways in Canada, an organization under which such a thing as a strike on the great transportation systems has become a practical impossibility. It seems to me that we have gone a long way towards harmonising the differences between the employer and the employee, and if the lines that have already been laid down can be followed in the future, I have grqat hope that it will not be long before such a thing as a strike or a disruption between the workingman and his employer will be an unheard of thing in Canada. I know that that is the end towards which the Minister of Labour is working, and in that regard he is receiving a great deal of assistance from employers and employees.
One other matter that was briefly touched on by the leader of the Opposition was the franchise. I am not going to go into that, nor am I going to discuss the War-Time Elections Act. I simply say this: if hon. members have it in their minds that by wiping the War-Time Elections Act off the slate they are going to enfranchise enemy aliens in Canada, they have another guess coming to them, because the people will not stand for it.
I listened to the member for Brqme (Mr. McMaster) in his reference to the Bolshe-viki. I listened also to the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Ethier) in his references to Bolshevism, but I regret that I could not follow him very closely, therefore I will not deal with what he said. But I was amazed and shocked to feel that any member occupying a seat in this House should so prostitute his privileges as to stand up and offer a defence of Bolshevism. When the member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) was referring to this matter on Friday afternoon an hon. member on the other side of the House called out: " What is there in the doctrine of Bolshevism to which you object?" Let me ask hon. members what they think of the nationalization of woman, one of the doctrines of the Bolshevik, under which an innocent girl is torn from her home and turned over to some brute of a man-what for? For no other purpose but the express intention of propagating the species, and that the children



born of such an unholy union shall be not the God-given heritage of their parents, but the property of the state, the same as any other animal. Yet we are asked to associate the words " truth " and " justice " with the Bolshevik. It gives one a bad taste in the mouth even to utter the word " Bolshevik."
The member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier)-I regret that he is not in his seat-undertook to fasten on the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder) a charge of partisanship in connection with the appointment of medical officers to look after returned soldiers in Canada. If the member for St. Hyacinthe had contented himself with dealing in generalities he might have been able to make out a very good case, but unfortunately he became specific. I assume that I am correct in saying that if there is anything the matter with the appointments made under the regulation that was read by the member for St. Hyacinthe, it is that the proper persons were not appointed, or that improper persons were appointed. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier) read a list of medical men in the different towns and cities throughout Canada (who had been appointed by the Repatriation Committee. Amongst the number he mentioned Dr. James, of the town of Mattawa; Dr. Bell, of North Bay, and Dr. Cook, of Sudbury, and as he mentioned each name he referred to him as a Tory political heeler. I do not know whether the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville knows the town of Mattawa and Dr. James, or the town of North Bay and Dr. Bell, or the town of Sudbury and Dr. Cook; but I am prepared to pay the hon. member's expenses to each of these towns and to introduce him to each of these doctors for the privilege of seeing what will happen when he says to their faces that they are Tory or any other kind of heelers.


Mr. PROULX:: I remember very well that the hon. member said that Dr. James was a Unionist.


George Brecken Nicholson: Hansard says "Tory. ' Dr. James is not and never has been a Tory. If he has any political affiliations, he is an out-and-out, strong Liberal. Dr. Bell, of North Bay, has never been identified with a political party of any description. Dr. Cook, of Sudbury, if he has any political affiliations whatever, is a Liberal. Let me say further that if the Government had fine-tooth-combed this country from Halifax to Vancouver, they

could not have selected three men more outstanding in their professions than Doctors James, Bell and Cook. Yet these are the men who are held up to ridicule in this House as political heelers because they have been asked to do a work for the returned soldier. Since July, 1914, they have been spending fifty per cent of their time in the interest of the soldier, and they are willing to continue doing so.
You will remember, Sir, that I referred a few moments ago to the appointment of a commission. One of the parrot cries that we have heard from the beginning of this session-and we hear it also outside of the House-is this cry with regard to the appointment of commissions. The Government have been appointing too many commissions. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) went as far as to say that it was time for the Government to get rid of all these commissions, to take off their coats and get busy and do the work themselves. These are not the hon. member's exact words, but I think they are a fair implication of what he said. This leads me to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen opposite either do not understand the meaning of the word "commission," or do not understand the functions of government. To illustrate what I mean, let me put the matter in this way. If I employ a man to drive a team of horses for me in a log camp and tell him that I am going to hold him responsible for doing that work, he has my commission to go ahead and do it. If the board of directors of a business organization tell the general manager to look after their business, he has their commission to go ahead and do the work. If one of the railway companies sends out a superintendent to take charge of one of their divisions, he has their commission to do the work. I think that is a fair statement. What then is the function of government? Is if not that the members of the Cabinet, the ministers of the Crown, shall spend their time in directing the affairs of this country ;n the interest of the ppople; that they shall take charge of their departments; and that they shall employ whatever assistance is necessary to carry out the policy of the Government as expressed by Parliament in the interest of all the people? Are not these the functions of government? If I understand hon. gentle-' men opposite aright, their idea of the functions of government is that the ministers of the Crown, to use the terms of the hon. member for North Essex, shall get rid of all these assistants, take off their coats and do the work themselves, and whatever they

cannot do themselves leave undone whether the people suffer or not. I purpose putting hon. members opposite to a test in connection with this. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who was one of those who declaimed vigorously against these commissions, the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for Laval, Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) are each of them, I am convinced, literally consumed by an ardent desire to place their services at the disposal of a needy, although perhaps, unappreciative State. There is an opportunity awaiting them. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) told the House a few days ago that he had in contemplation an extensive programme of public works involving some work to be done under force account. Supposing these hon. members who are so anxious to see the country get rid of commissions and who are also so anxious to serve the State would take the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) as padrone of the group and go up to the city of Hamilton and pull down some of those buildings which the Minister of Public Works wants to remove. They would be accomplishing two things at the same time by doing so; they would be proving the utility of their own theory with regard to the functions of Government and they would be serving the State to just about the limit of their capacity.
I would like to refer briefly to a statement made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. I regret exceedingly that I was not able to follow the hon. member through the whole of his speech, because I do not understand the beautiful language of France. On Friday afternoon, we had the very great privilege of having with us for a few moments that grand old man, General Pau-a privilege that I believe every member in this House appreciated to the fullest possible extent. When General Pau entered this Chamber the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was speaking English and with fitting courtesy he ceased speaking in English and continued his address in French. I believe that I am well within the mark when I say that every member of this House felt that it was a very happy coincidence that when General Pau entered the Chamber there should have been on his feet an hon. member capable of speaking the French language. But what did the hon. member say when he proceeded with his speech? Did he utter any gracious compliment to that great country which General Pau re-10i	[DOT]
presented? No, he entered a specious plea on behalf of the liquor interests of this country. He intimated that if we abrogated the Treaty under which French wines come into Canada we might disrupt the Entente Cordiale existing between the two peoples. There sat the battle-scarred veteran who has been the personal witness of the greatest vicarious sacrifices that humanity has ever been able to give to the world, listening to a declaration that it would require a traffic in intoxicating liquor to keep intact a bond of unity that has been cemented by the outpouring of the life-blood of sixty thousand Canadians and ten times sixty thousand Frenchmen side by side. Must that old veteran not have shuddered to his very soul at the utterance of such a sentiment? I am not going to pursue the hon. member's argument further than to say this, that if the interests for whom he was pleading have no better argument to put before the Canadian people than that, then their case is, indeed, a sorry one.
I wish to refer very briefly to something said by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) in his address the other-evening. He apparently deemed it fitting to hold up to the ridicule of this House and of the country His Gracious Majesty King George the Fifth because of a complimentary banquet given to President Wilson at Windsor Castle; and judging by the applause with which his remarks were greeted by the hon. gentlemen sitting around him,
I was forced to the conclusion that the sentiments he expressed were very largely concurred in by His Majesty's loyal Opposition.
I have no means of knowing whence the hon. member derived his inspiration, but his remarks followed so closely along the line of a similar attack on President Wilson published in one of the pro-German organs in the city of New York that I at least was forced to the conclusion that minds with like ideals have an almost uncanny aptitude for finding expression in similar words. To refresh the minds of. hon. gentlemen, I shall quote what the hon. member for North Essex said with regard to this banquet:
It was a magnificent banquet. There were thousands of soft shaded lights. The walls were hung with expensive tapestries. Fifteen million dollars' worth of gold plate were spread upon the banquet board. The lackeys were in the costume of the beef-eaters of old, bowing low and moving backwards before the passing guests. Our Premier was there, and he was described in the papers as wearing the Windsor costume, knee breeches and all- democracy pure and undefiled.
I know nothing of the details of the banquet, but I venture to say this: bearing in

mind the splendid example of self-sacrifice and service His Majesty King George the Fifth and every member of his family have given to us during the last four years, the banquet was in perfect harmony with the occasion. What was that occasion? The hon. member for North Essex would have us believe that it was a mere vulgar example of medieval self-indulgence and flunkeyism; at least that was my impression. Mr. Speaker, since the days when the Pilgrim Fathers first set foot on the continent of North America there never was an event or an occasion fraught with greater possibilities for good for the whole human race than the occasion which the hon. member for North Essex held up to the contempt of this House and country. It was the occasion when for the first time in history the head of the great British democracy was permitted to entertain in his own home the head of the great democracy of the United States of America. What does that signify? Let hon. gentlemen cast their eyes back to the summer of 1914 and ask themselves what it was that saved civilization when the war lords of Central Europe opened the flood gates of Armageddon, We have heard a good many explanations of how the world was saved, but I say without the slightest fear of successful contradiction that the underlying reason, the only reason, in fact by which it was possible for civilization to save itself was the "Bonne Entente" between the Republic of France and the British Empire brought about by the matchless diplomacy of the late King Edward VII. Had it not been for that Bonne Entente the hon. member for North Essex would not have had the privilege of speaking in a free parliament in this or any other country. The Huns would have taken care of that. And if King George never does anything else but lay the foundation upon which can be built up a similar understanding that will draw together the English-speaking peoples of the great democracy of the British Empire, that commonwealth of free nations, and the great democracy of the United States of America, he will have given cause to mankind the world over to sing with a new meaning that grand old anthem "God Save the King."
Reference has been made to the absence of the Prime Minister from this House, and the matter was brought to a direct head the other evening by the hon. member for North Essex who demanded that the Prime Minister return to his duties and do the things which the Canadian people are paying him to do. That demand met with such apparent approval by hon. gentlemen 
opposite sitting around the Speaker that I was again forced to conclude his opinions were concurred in by hon. gentlemen opposite. That leads me to ask this question: Can it be possible that even at this late date hon. members have utterly failed to comprehend the true meaning of the times in which we live? During the past four years, sixty thousand of the flower of Canada's manhood have poured out their life's blood on the battlefields of Europe; one hundred and fifty thousand more are coming back broken in body, some of them in mind, bearing scars that will be to their glory as long as they live; two hundred thousand others have with them gone into and come out of the very jaws of hell itself. What for? Simply in order that the world might be made a fit place for decent people to live in. There is now sitting in Paris, the centre around which that holocaust raged, a conference of the heads of the allied nations. The first minister of each allied country is there together with such of his colleagues as he deemed necessary. They are meeting in Paris for what? In order that a constitution may be framed for mankind that will make it impossible for a similar world catastrophe to occur again. Yet we have hon. members in this House saying that the Prime Minister of Canada should leave all that, leave the things for which our boys bled and died, and come back to attend to some matter of parish politics. I will not pursue the subject further except to say this, that if the Prime Minister of Canada was anywhere else than where he now is or doing anything else than the business he is now attending to he would" be unworthy of being the Prime Minister of Canada.
Before concluding, I desire to say a word or two with regard to what our boys did in France. We have heard described in accurate detail the position the world was in when this House rose in May last. At that time the hearts of our people were almost standing still in strained anxiety, watching the bulletins day after day, and hour by hour, to see what next was going to happen. Was that human line, extending from the North sea to the boundary of Switzerland going to be able to hold? It did hold. It bent in places, individual links were stretched, but it held. It held until that moment when the great General Foch, in collaboration with our own great General Haig, General Pershing, and the other members of the Allied high command, determined that the time had come to strike. And they struck. They struck with such effect that in four short months they rolled

up the German forces, brought the Hun to his knees and compelled him to cry for peace.
What part did our own boys take in these events? For the first time in the whole war the four Canadian divisions were brought together in one army, with the addition of one British division, and were held in readiness for a fixed purpose. Near the end of September the time came for them to strike. They struck, and the first blow broke the Hindenburg line and they crossed the Dracourt switch. I will not undertake to follow in detail their course from that to the end of the war. Suffice it to say, they covered more than one hundred miles; they released hundreds of cities, towns and villages; they met thirty-four German divisions, almost seven times their own number, and defeated them, putting four of them practically out of existence. They took more live prisoners than the total number of their own casualties; they captured 1,200 heavy guns, and over 3,000 machine guns. And they finally planted the flag of the Allies in the city of Mons on the very day the armistice was signed.
What spirit did our boys display through that terrible time? Was there any complaint? Never a word. May I be permitted to quote to this House one sentence from a letter written by one of these boys to his mother, written on the eve of the taking by the Canadians of Valenciennes: "Mother, as we pass through these liberated towns and villages, and look into the faces of the women and children who have endured four years of Hun barbarism, we feel that after all what we are doing, little as it is worth, is worth while."
I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to men on public platforms in Canada dilating on the wonderful country we have, the glorious heritage handed down to us by our fathers. And these orators have usually brought their message to a climax with something like this: Will the sons of Canada be worthy of their forebears? That question can never be asked again. But there is a question that you and I must ask ourselves: Are we, the fathers and mothers, the men and women of Canada, going to be worthy of the sacrifices that these boys have made for us?
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outre-mont): Mr. Speaker, in the name of the county that I have the honour to represent in this House and which bears the name of "Laurier-Outremont" I wish to express our most sincere regrets and affliction and
sorrow for the great loss sustained by this country through the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am sure that in no part of the Dominion has his death created more sorrow and affliction than in this constituency bearing his name. He was admired and loved to the extreme limit. His name and memory will live forever. For my part it was a great privilege to have known this illustrious man for more than twenty years.
I had the advantage of appreciating his kindness, his refined and princely manner. In politics he meant about everything to me. He was the wise adviser, the great friend, the Chief. He had all my confidence and respect. His sweet memory will be cherished in my heart and soul as long as I live. On this occasion may I offer to Lady Laurier our sentiments and expression of our sincere regret and sympathy for her immense and irreparable loss.
It is with satisfaction that I note that in the speech from the Throne, mention was made of the glorious deeds accomplished by our gallant officers and soldiers at the front; they have rendered great services to this country and to the world during the four years of the war. The glory that they have cast on Canada is so great that I had anticipated that the speech from the Throne would contain a vote of thanks in the name of this Parliament addressed to the officers and to the soldiers, and some recognition offered to these officers and to the soldiers that have most distinguished themselves; a grant of money or a sword of honour could have been offered to the general in command, Sir Arthur Currie. Such a step has been taken previously in England and in the Congress of the United States. A nation honours herself in honouring her heroes and her great men; it has been done by England to Wellington, to Lord Nelson, to French and to Marshal Haig. I am sure that the people of this country will resent such an omission. I consider it is a mistake. While I am on this subject, I may say that I am surprised that this Government, through the military deoartment, has not seen the advantage of presenting medals of honor to our soldiers and officers who so well deserved them; it is true that some of our men have received distinctions from England and from France, but surely this country should be in a position to recognize the services of our soldiers in this manner and necessary orders should be given at once and should have been given before. Also wlme speaking on these matters, I may

say that the people of my province and the soldiers of this country speaking the French language were highly disappointed by the refusal of this Government to organize a French Canadian brigade. You will remember that at the last session I had rhe opportunity to put this question before this House, and after hearing the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Minister of Militia and Finance '(Major General Mewburn) we had nourished the hope that such a brigade would be formed and organized in due course. We had in Europe all the elements to organize such a brigade, we had the officers and the men, we nad more than enough men to keep at the full rank this brigade; it would have been a great stimulant and a great reward for these men and officers to obtain this recognition on the part of this Government. I have myself cabled to the Prime Minister of Canada while in England to again call his attention to this matter. For reasons unacceptable to me, this just demand was refused. It will be written in the history of this country that this Government, supposed to have been elected to take the best means to carry on this war, preferred to play politics and did not take the best means for the advancement of victory; it will be written that this Government was unfair towards the province of Quebec, has committed a great injustice to the men speaking the French language and who have fought bravely and gloriously with the other soldiers of Canada in this war. In their name, once again I desire to protest energetically against such a wrong done to my province.
As you are aware, this country is passing through a period of uncertainty and crisis. Industry is stagnating, a great number of labourers are unemployed, leaders of industry are looking around hoping for practical direction from this Government, the large class of agriculture-the basis with industry of our wealth and prosperity- are also looking anxiously toward the future. They fear a lack of markets for their products. Our soldiers are coming back by thousands from Europe. The present situation is unsettled and it is a dangerous one.
The future prosperity of the country depends on the legislation to be passeu mostly at this session. The Canadian people were expecting, and they had a right to expect, that this Government, through the speech from the Throne, would bring forward, in plain language, solutions for these problems; that a direction would be given to

promote the commercial and economical position of this country with the object of bringing about prosperity, reducing the high cost of living, and producing peace and contentment. The farmers are hoping for a market for their products. They know well that in the future the artificial markets due to the war will be closed for them. It is to be regretted that the policy, if any, mentioned in the speech from the Throne does not give us much hope. During the last two or three years the Government have been notified again and again to prepare for the time coming after the war, for reconstruction and readjustment. I am sorry to say that not much has been done. In fact I would be justified in saying that nothing very practical has been done for this country. While new markets have been prepared and opened by our neighbours to the south, new policies and new methods of business have been adopted in England and in France, while a new understanding has been arrived at in England between capital and labour which has given satisfaction to the latter, here in this country a great unrest exists; we are to-day unprepared for this big problem of reconstruction and readjustment, we have no new markets offered to us or proposed to us by this Government and no practical policy suggested.
The position of this country is quite difficult and we have an immense task before us. We have to be careful in what we do. Our net public debt, five years ago, was about 335 million dollars, it is now about two billion dollars. When the army is demobilized and our different obligations are met, it will be above two billion dollars, this not taking into account our responsibility for our railroad liabilities, which reach more than 500 million dollars. It is a large debt for a population of eight millions; more than $230 per head, and represents an increase of about six-fold as compared with the figure at which it stood before the war. To meet the interest and the sinking fund, we will have to exercise great economy in many departments and find large sources of-revenue. We are thinking much too easily in hundreds of millions to-day and the public credit is endangered. Before the war the interest on our debt was about 12 millions, while to-day it will be about 100 millions. Then the military pension list may reach 25 million dollars or more, the deficit of the Government railways will represent another large amount, and over and above this amount is the cost of the general administration of the country,

which may represent 140 millions, and perhaps more. This brings the total expenditure on current revenue account to the enormous amount of about 300 million dollars, which represents about $37 per capita, or, for a family of five persons, it means that this family is taxed for $185. This will be met only if business activities and general prosperity continue. The last fiscal year has given us a public revenue of 261 million dollars. This amount will necessarily drop with the actual mode of taxation; prohibition of the liquor traffic will cut into both excise and custom receipts; prices of goods will recede and come to a reasonable price. To date, our revenue is based on, income tax, business tax, business profit tax, increased postage rates and additional custom and excise taxation. We have to reduce the custom tariff for the cost of living is too high. This Parliament has to remodel our system of taxation and revenue. At the same time, we have to carry out certain public works and spend large sums of money to put this country on a basis to compete with the outside world in foreign markets. I refer to transportation and promotion of home and foreign trade. We must also spend large sums of money upon soldiers' lands, settlement and re-establishment. The Government has to see also that there is if possible no unemployment of labour and of capital. The prosperity of this country is based upon its exports. Our exports are to come from agricultural products and manufactured articles; we have to look after these two items so as to keep prosperity at home. Capital, labour, resources, transportation and markets; these constitute the factors of trade and commerce. Business will have to go on as before. During the last two years of the war the value of our exports has increased to an enormous sum of money, due to the fact that the people of Europe needed at any cost our farm products' and our war material. Canada was in the position of a firm that had a monopoly of certain goods and was selling those goods to a firm that had to buy and pay or otherwise go out of business. The price received for agricultural products and the market that we had were artificial owing to the demand due to the war conditions; but this market and these conditions will disappear with the end of the war. More than that, I would dare to say that it is likely that England will buy from us less farm products than before the war, because, as you are aware, they have increased enormously their capacity for producing farm products since the beginning of the war. They have improved their methods of agriculture and according to the figures shown to me, the agricultural production of last year in the British Isle was four times more than before the war. In England, the farms produced last year enough for forty weeks, while in the prewar period they were not producing more than enough for ten weeks. There is no doubt that the English people, practical as they are, will continue these improvements which were new to them. You are aware also that, great economy has been taught to the English people during the last war. They will therefore be disposed to buy less and live with less expense and luxury. The result of this will be that the English market, which was one of our largest agricultural markets, will be greatly restricted for us.
We have to bear in mind that under the present conditions Canada cannot manufacture for large export on a permanent basis, and this system has to be changed, for industry as well as agriculture are and must be the two main sources of our wealth. We should have always in our mind the fact that the basis of our wealth in this country will be the development and the selling of our agricultural products and large manufacturers' products. We have to produce more on our farms, we have to develop our agricultural lands; we have to put more farmers on our lands, and we have to find new markets for the agricultural production of the country. Where shall we find these new markets? We have one close to us, separated from our country by only an imaginary line. This market is the United States. It is our natural market. In consequence, I could summarize the new policy that this Government should follow, for one important part, and this is the revision of our tariff with the United States. We have to open new markets for our agricultural products; we have to encourage agriculture; produce more and more, and have more and more good farmers. Then the Government must from to-day, and to-day is the time, make a step further in establishing a new economical and commercial system. I submit that the basis of our economical system is entirely wrong and not adapted to our conditions, taking into consideration our geographical position, our population, and our raw material.
For a long time in this country it has been the custom to protect certain industries by imposing a high tariff. This meant that certain goods necessary to life, an-

alogous to those manufactured here-had to pay a high duty. The people of this country paid from their pockets for this protection and I say to-day, in this era of democracy and of justice for all, it is tune that certain of these taxes imposed on the necessaries of life should disappear and a revision should take place.
To-day these manufacturers are not in the position they were some years ago. They are rich. I submit the principle that the industries that should be specially encouraged in this country, and what can add to the wealth of this country, are the industries that can work on raw material from our own country. Industries manufacturing on imported raw material cannot compete, as a general principle, with the industries of other countries that manufacture on their own raw materials. When factories manufacture and work upon imported raw material, the only practical market for the product is the home market and not the foreign market, because they cannot compete with other countries. Therefore the people of the home market pay high prices, according to the protective tariff given to such industries. If an industry cannot compete with foreign industries, it is bad for manufacturers, it is not sound for a country to have it; it is better that it should disappear.
Of course this policy of encouraging industries that work on our raw material is laid down as a principle and must be worked out gradually. A practical commission should be appointed to study these matters. What I am suggesting to the Government is a policy of reconstruction, not of destruction. The actual position of our different industries should be studied, taking into consideration the position also of the mass of the people, and gradually the effort of the Government should tend to the improvement of this policy. Many industries can support competition to-day. Maybe all the industries in this country, with proper management and reasonable profits, could support competition without, protection. Competition will give life to these industries, they will be contented with less profit but they will produce more and probably they will get a better result. There will be more employment in this country because we will produce more; the cost of living will be less, articles manufactured here, and for which we pay high prices due to the high tariff, will cost less and therefore, the cost of living in all lines will be reasonable and within the reach of the ordinary people.
We all know, and it is not a secret, that the price of manufacturing goods in this 
country is fixed by the manufacturers according to the protection or tariff imposed. It costs a huge sum of money to the people of Canada every year. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid by the consumers to allow the Government to receive 50 or 75 millions of customs duty. The Government should impose larger taxes on large incomes, and large fortunes, but only at the same time as they decreased the tariff.
It is to be deeply regretted that the Victory Loan Bonds are exempted from duties. It may prevent the Government to a certain extent from following this policy. This does not necessarily mean that we are, or will be, in a bad position. On the contrary, Heaven has given to this country immense resources of raw material, and what this Government has to do to-day, if it desires to bring prosperity and wealth and the proper business basis, is to begin anew. It is time to see and encourage industries that can employ our raw material so that we can sell to other countries these manufactured goods. People of this country have paid enough to protect those industries that will not bring wealth to this country. We have not the. population, and we are not in a position to continue such extravagant and foolish methods. With this policy of encouraging agriculture, of developing our own raw material, of encouraging our factories working on our raw' material for exportation, we wi'll establish this country on a sound business basis; living will become cheaper, we will have plenty of work for our labourers and at good and permanent wages.
Establishing free trade in farm products with the States will open a large market, will encourage our farmers and will help to develop our unproductive lands. In connection with these principles and this policy, the Government could:
1.	Bonus the agriculture.
2.	Conserve and increase forest production. This policy is carried on in the province of Quebec, in France and in different countries of Europe with great success and much promise;
3.	National supervision of water-power;
4.	National supervision and development of the raw material in this country;
5.	Bonus and assist factories that use our raw material;
6.	Subsidize and build cargo boats and open markets for our agricultural and manufacturing products;
7.	Develop an export trade in frozen meats and have refrigerator boats;
8.	Open new markets in the United States and South America, etc.

Again, in connection with agriculture, we were surprised some time ago to read that this Government or commission appointed for this Government found out at the end that they had not sufficient land on which to establish the soldiers coming from the front. I must say that it is regrettable that governments in this country have seen fit to give to different private firms large tracts of agricultural lands. It has been said to me that great quantities of good land, unfilled or badly cultivated, toelong to private firms, railroad companies and so on. Some land is in the hands of investors looking for profits. I would submit that these lands should be taken by the Government by some legal means according to justice and equity. Those that retain these lands should not retard the progress of this country in the hope of making profits. Strict stipulations should be imposed, and if these lands are not put into bona fide activity, they should be confiscated.
I hope the Government will do its utmost to attract the soldiers and give them the advantage of establishing themselves on farms. It will be for their future happiness and prosperity. This Government must be careful not to buy lands that are not good for agriculture. Most of the lands in the West are in the hands of speculators and the expectation that the Government is to buy these lands from them is looked upon by them as a piece of great luck. The Government should be careful, buy direct and take the responsibility.
A very important question to be dealt with is the labour problem. A new epoch begins in the civilized world regarding the position of the labouring class, and after the splendid effort and sacrifices made by this class during the last war it is just and right, as it has always been just and right in the past, that these men should be dealt with and treated with more justice and equity: action along these lines should have been taken before. It will always be a stain on the civilized world that a better policy has not been followed in the past. I am in hopes that during this session some practical laws and regulations will be passed securing better relations between labour and capital. The capitalists and the employees are looking for a common ground of understanding, and while the employees claim a just compensation for their sacrifice and an amelioration of their condition, the employers understand that it is impossible that the present state of affairs can continue. It is hoped therefore that laws will soon be passed by Parliament permitting the employees, under certain
conditions, and in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, to be represented on boards of directors so that they may have a voice to explain to these chiefs of industries their needs, not only from a monetary standpoint but with a view to moral and intellectual betterment. More effective results every one admits will be attained by conciliation and a better understanding between capital and labour. If this is done I am sure that capital will yield better results and labour will be better pleased. The Government must, however, face the problem at once and in a serious manner without delay. I had the opportunity some time ago to hear a very good address on this subject delivered by Hon. Mackenzie King at the Reform Club at Montreal. If the Government will refer to this address it will find all the necessary food for thought, and the elements and policy calculated to give satisfaction, according to my mind, to the Canadian labour world. Some such policy must be adopted; it is only a question of justice, and of good management on the part of the Government. The^Government must also in this connection subsidize and open technical schools in this country, so that we may have in Canada skilled labourers to work in our factories. I know that at present, in many of our industries we have to hire skilled labourers from other countries. This should no't be the case because it is detrimental to our trade. I would also warn the Government to be careful as to immigrants admitted to this country. Immigration is a very good thing if the newcomers are of a good class. They are very careful with respect to these matters in the United States where strict examination of each arrival is made. What we need here is farm immigrants and I hope this Government will see to it that men of a type likely to cause trouble and disruption are excluded.
We will need capital in this country and to obtain investment of capital, the Government should take at once proper steps to ameliorate our financial and trade relations with the United States. To attain this aim:
1.	A Canadian commission should be appointed at Washington;
2.	An advertising propaganda should be instituted to advertise this country as a source of raw materials; in short, to make us thoroughly know-n in the States, so that the investors from that country will know what prospects exist here in trade and finance. The Government was able to finance its war policy through the patriotic

good will of the banks of Canada and the people of Canada.
The Government last fall borrowed a huge sum of money, over 500 million dollars, in the Victory Loan. The undoubted security, the interest offered and the promise connected with it that no future tax would be imposed on it all contributed to making the response a great one; the subscription was over 600 million dollars. In this connection, I am sorry to say that this Government has offered such interest, per cent, and especially that they have promised solemnly and obliged themselves not to impose duties on these bonds in the future. This Government at the beginning of the war has helped many people, many of their friends, to enrich themselves, and today they are millionaires. We have many millionaires in this country now and in the first years of the war, if I remember accurately, in the second year, no duties or taxes were imposed on their profits. This country having to pay heavy taxes, cried aloud that the rich, those that had big revenues, large incomes, those that had made money out of the war, should pay, but the Government was there, and after having enriched those men, this Government wanted to help these friends again so that they could keep their fortune intact, and the Government found a way out for its good friends the millionaires in offering them bonds at a high interest, guaranteed by ,.nis country with the promise that tney would remain intact, without for the future any tax to pay on their money. I say that this is a great drawback in tnis country for the future. In the States, no such promise wras made, and still the Victory Loan was only at 4i per cent. I say that it is a great injustice done to the majority of the population of this country. To pay our debts, our interests and to have the money for our needs, our public enterprises, the Government should in the future tax heavily those that have large revenues, because a day may come in this country with the Government that will succeed this one soon when the custom duties will drop considerably or disappear, when we will have free trade, which has given wealth to England, and when that day will come the Government may have to depend mainly on duty imposed on income, as is the case in England.
If this Government is really sincere in its reconstruction, it will act, I submit, according to the principles submitted, and I hope, nay, I am sure, there is a great prosperity and happiness in store for us in this

country. If this Government continues to tramp on the same ground as it did since the armistice, I have great fear for this country.
There is another important question that I wish to deal with, and that is the war indemnity which this country should receive. Some days ago I read in the newspaper an alleged declaration by Sir Robert Borden that this country would not especially insist upon an indemnity being paid to Canada. If the Prime Minister said that, he did not voice the opinion and the desire of the people of this country, because I am sure that Canada wishes to receive an indemnity equal to the amount of money which she has disbursed in the carrying on of the war. Take into consideration, Mr. Speaker, the taxes that the people are paying to-day which were imposed by the Government after the outbreak of war. We are paying on income and on profits; we are paying extra postage on letters; we have to affix stamps to notes and cheques; we pay a tax on drugs; the tariff has been raised on certain commodities to the extent of 7i per cent. Our debt has increased from $335,000,000, which it amounted to before the war, to about $2,000,000,000. This generation and future generations will be called upon to meet the heavy interest charges on this huge debt. The other day a member of the Government told us that we would have to find about $300,000,000 in order to carry on the business of the country during the current year, and that we owed about $2,000,000,000. We do owe about $2,000,000,000, and that does not take into consideration our liability in respect of our railways. The debt of Canada is about $240 per capita; but it costs about $140 per capita to carry on the affairs of the country. A man with a family of five pays about $200 a year in the way of taxes imposed by the Federal Government and about the same amount in the way of municipal and provincial taxes. That means that every family of five persons in Canada has to pay $400 a year in taxes. It is most important, therefore, that the Government insist on our receiving a proper indemnity from Germany. I was surprised that in the speech from the Throne no reference was made to any steps proposed to be taken by the Prime Minister through the proper channels to obtain such an indemnity from Germany. If we cannot get the indemnity direct, we could get it through the indemnity that the British Government may receive. Some of the belligerent nations will receive compensation or indemnity through

the annexation of territory or through the securing of advantages in trade or commerce. We shall not receive anything of this nature. We do not need territory; what we have here is enough for us. The only way to obtain compensation for our material loss is to receive an ample indemnity from Germany; therefore I hope that the Government will take this matter in hand, recognizing it as one of the most important questions we have to
5 p.m. deal with. I am sure that the people of Canada will resent any inaction on the part of the Government in this matter.
The speakers who have preceded me have made an appeal for union in this country.
I am sure that they are sincere in their appeal, and I hope that such union will exist in fact. My last wish is that the leaders of this Government will look higher and seek a purer aim than hitherto; that they will endeavour to render justice to all the people of this country, to all individuals, all classes, all nationalities, remembering that we all belong to the same country; and that they will put into practice the sound policy followed and worthy example set by our great statesmen since Confederation. The real prosperity and development of this country can only be attained by Government action and Government methods based on mutual understanding and confidence. This is justice and true democracy. I hope that "rights to whom rights are due" will prevail; that racial appeals and prejudices will cease; that sinister influence for purely party ends which prevents national unity and obstructs the progress of this country, will cease. In this connection allow me to read to you the following short quotation taken from a paper, regarding the position existing in Belgium:
Far different is tire spirit of the Belgian rulers. In his speech from the Throne, King Albert of Belgium, on his triumphant return to his capital after an enforced exile of four years, set an example which Canadians might well emulate. Coming from the Yser, after passing through liberated towns and hamlets which have been swept toy the war, King Albert's first thought was for the unity of Belgium. That part of his speech which deals with the differences in race and language in Belgium might well toe applied to Canada, so close is the resemblance in the relations between Fleming and Walloon with those that obtain here between French and English-speaking Canada. His words should he printed in letters of gold and hung up in every school-room in the Dominion. It is as follows :
The necessity of a fruitful union demands sincere co-operation and collaboration between all the children of the same mother country without distinction of race or language. In the
domain of language the strictest equality and the most absolute justice will inspire the drafting of a Bill which the Government will presently lay before the national representatives. Thus will he brought about a concord destined to perpetuate the unity and indivisibility of the country, affirmed during the war by the sacrifice of so much precious blood.
The Government, in every department, must be permeated by the reciprocal respect for the interests of Fleming and Walloon and bestow upon each the certainty of being understood in his own tongue, and, moreover, assure him full intellectual development, particularly in the higher branches of education. The interests of the whole country demand that each of our two peoples shall be able, each in its own tongue, fully to develop its individuality and originality in both industrial and artistic expression and production.
I hope that these noble sentiments, so well expressed by the ruler of Belgium when he entered his capital, will prevail in this country. I am sure that if the Government follows those principles and acts upon some of the suggestions that I have put before the House this afternoon, there will be in store for this country contentment, prosperity and happiness.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add my congratulations to those that have been tendered to the two gallant young soldiers who have moved and seconded the Address. They have given us evidence upon the floor of this House that they are quite as able to serve their country here as they were brave and resourceful in serving their country at the front. It adds distinction to tills session that two men who had gone overseas and taken all the chances that were involved in the service there should be those to open the debates during this session.
I also wish to offer my congratulations to the Government which has in my judgment, shown a great deal of courage and a good deal of wisdom in dealing with the difficult conditions that have confronted it during the past four years and particularly during last year. A certain amount of. criticism has been levelled at the members of the Administration because it is charged that they have not been quite quick enough in providing for the demobilization and repatriation of our men. It may he that everything we desire has not been accomplished, but we have had an exhibition of good judgment, resourcefulness and courage on the part of the Government in facing and solving these problems. I believe I am within the fact when I say that, so far as demobilization is concerned, no country is in advance of the Dominion of Canada. While it is too much to expect that the

Government can please everybody, all reasonable men will, I am sure, agree with me that they have shown a real desire to meet all the problems confronting them in the same earnest way that they have succeeded in carrying this country through the war.
There is a great deal in the programme for this session, but there are some things that I am porry are not there. Before, however, referring to that, I would like to make a very brief reference to the war as it has been presented to our attention by the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). In a very kindly spirit, the hon. member endeavoured to furnish some consolation to those who had suffered bereavement by the loss of some member or members of their family in the war, and he gave as his judgment that those who died would be looked upon with favour by the Almighty and that their future immortality was assured. I find myself unable to interpret the characteristics of divinity, as I understand them in any other light, for if ever men died in a high and a holy cause it was the gallant gentlemen whose bodies to-day lie in France. It is most repugnant to my mind to think that their sacrifices should go unrewarded; for as I see me great issue that was before the world, it was this: the Germans, during forty years, had succeeded in driving Christ out of their country, and if they had won this war they would have attained their ambition which was to drive Christ out of the world and all that Christian philosophy means for the welfare, happiness and prosperity of the people of the world. Surely the men who fought for such a cause as that, and especially those who were called upon to die for it, will have a reward that will compensate them for their sacrifices.
I offer this thought to those who have suffered the loss of some one very dear to them.
The item, Sir, in the Speech from the Throne that impresses me most is that which promises us a Department of Public Health. The phraseology might be improved; and for my part I would like to see it described as "The Department of Public Welfare," which term would include not only health, but many other things that ought to come within the purview of. this Government. There was a time not long ago,-and I think the idea persists still with some men in representative positions-that Government ought to deal solely with roads, bridges, and tariffs. That has been the idea largely in the past; but during the last 
decade, particularly upon this North American continent, an entirely new principle, and one which is going to be recognized more fully in the future, has been adopted by many governmental bodies. That principle is that Government is concerned not only with making roads to travel upon and providing other means of transportation, but in looking after the personal welfare of those who are left in such a position that they are unable to take care of themselves. You may call that paternal government-it makes little difference to me what it is called-but those who have done their part and have done it like men and like women are entitled to such aid as may be necessary to enable them to carry out to the full their duties as citizens, and especially those duties appertaining to their children and their home.
One of the things that I would like to see this Department of Public Welfare take up is the question of mothers' pensions. I think we are to be condemned that we have come to this period in the history of the world and still impose upon a woman 'who has lost her husband the necessity of going out to daily labour in order to earn money to provide bread for her children. She is suffering through no fault of her own. She has been a good wife, and she is a good mother or she would not go out at seven o'clock in the morning and toil until six o'clock at night that her children may have bread. All the circumstances surrounding her life proclaim her to be a woman to be admired. Yet by our social system or our governmental system, we place her in a position so difficult that I wonder it has been allowed to continue so long. I can cite instances of women of my own acquaintance, in my own city, who have four or five children, all of them too young to dc- anything for their own maintenance, and the mother left by the hand of death to take charge of them, to care for their physical comfort, and to try, in some way, to bring them up as good citizens. We have imposed on her a task that is practically impossible of accomplishment. If we should be concerned for any class of our people we should first of all look af^er the young, and if a mother has to go out and toil all day, leaving her children to their own devices, how is it possible that they can get the care needful to train them to be good citizens? How, under such circumstances, can she take care of their morals and look after them in all the thousand and one ways in which a mother does look after her own children? We have departments dealing
MARCH 3, Lii'J
with neglected children in our provinces	to take	the	children	away
from a mother who neglects	them,
to find foster-homes for them, and to educate them; but except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba no effort has been made to assist the widowed mother who herself does take care of her children. Surely she is deserving of more consideration than the mother who does not. Aye, Sir, such a good mother is deserving of every encouragement from the State, for she is carrying on the duties of both mother and father to those who in the years to come, and not very many years, will be the citizens and the voters of Canada. I hope, therefore, that a Department of Public Welfare will be put into operation speedily, and this particular phase of public duty undertaken.
There is another sphere of welfare work in which I think we should follow the example of our own mother country, whence we derive so much of our inspiration; I think we should establish an Old Age Pension scheme. Take the case of a man who has served his day and generation until he is sixty-five years old. At that age, because of the severity of his employment, he is perhaps an older man than others are at seventy-five; he is beyond the age at which he can find work and take care of himself. Is it fair that we should say to his children: You who are making only about enough money to maintain yourselves must assume this additional burden; all the service that your father has given to his country, in industry and in citizenship generally, shall receive no recognition from the State? I submit that a man who has. worked as long as his physical fitness will enable him, and has used every dollar he could get through his labour to maintain himself and educate his family, when the time comes that he cannot take care of himself it is the business of the Government to look after him. That duty has been recognized in Great Britain and in other countries, and I hope the day is not far distant when it will be recognized in Canada.
I offer another suggestion, and that is that in addition to an Old Age Pension Fund, we should provide insurance against unemployment. There is no sadder sight in the cities and towns of this or any other country than to see a man who is able and willing to work, walking around the streets unable to find employment, until he and his are suffering the pangs of hunger; not through any fault of his, but simply because, owing to existing conditions, he is unable to use the only capital he has-his labour. This duty, too, has been recognized elsewhere, and I think a Department of Public Welfare, such as I hope to see established in this Dominion, should take the initiative in these things, and give a lead to the whole Dominion. Ilf some of these matters ought to be looked after by the provinces, let that be arranged with the provinces, but at all events the present state of affairs should not be allowed longer to continue. I have known men to walk the streets seeking employment, until their last dollar was spent and then have to depend on the charity of their neighbours and friends. Surely there must be some remedy for this state of affairs, and it must be found if we wish the labouring men and artisans of this country to turn deaf ears to the appeals to unrest and Bolshevism which are being made to them by the foreign population of this country. We have to recognize the fair and legitimate demands of the workers of Canada, and I want to say that in no country in the world will you find men more sane, more sensible, and more intelligent than the men working on the lathes and machines of our factories in Canada. I am one of those who believe in trade unionism. It was my good fortune to belong to a trades union at one time, and I want to see the trades unions strong, for my experience has been that wherever a trade union is strong the particular industry with which it is identified is more likely to be operated with certainty and regularity than if the union is. not strong. I happen to be engaged in a business which is regulated, so far as the employees are concerned, by the strongest international union on the continent of America, the International Typographical Union, which I think is the most closely organized and most intelligently managed of any trades union. As a result, that particular industry has carried on for nearly twenty years without strikes or lock-outs. I say that the views of these men who have intelligence .enough to organize their free parliaments as they do must be considered, and I am glad to know that the capitalists of this country realize their responsibility in this regard and are showing greater interest in the welfare of their employees.
I wish to say a word on the Government's housing programme. One hon. member has said that in no city in Canada can a man get a house to-day at a reasonable price; and I think he was very near the

mark-at all events that condition applies to the city of Toronto. Up to a year or so ago, almost every artisan in Toronto was able to live in a self-contained home, with a front lawn, and back garden. But now these artisans have to rent out rooms, lessening the privacy of their homes, in order to meet the demands of the landlord. That is a state of affairs which it is the duty of the Government, of some government, aye, of all governments to rectify, and to rectify as quickly as possible. It was my good fortune at one time to be mayor of Toronto, and during my term of office many American visitors came to the city. The thing I had most pride in, and which I always took a visitor to see, were those streets, of which there are hundreds in Toronto, where our working people live; every man in his own self-contained home, where he was able to bring up a family under splendid conditions, aril give them a good start in life so far as ideals are concerned. I was proud of the fact that more than half of the men who toil in the factories of Toronto are their own landlords, and because of that fact, are better citizens than they otherwise would be. Any man, no matter whether he is a clerk in a bank, or a book-keeper, or a blacksmith, who owns a little piece of land with a house on it-it matters little what the size of the mortgage is; once he can be called the proprietor of that property and is entered upon the assessment roll as the owner-has a very much better and higher outlook on life. Owning a home helps to develop the finest type of citizen. It conduces. Sir, to alert and honest municipal administration, and from that alertness in the municipal sphere must surely come greater alertness and interest in the citizens in provincial and Dominion spheres. I submit that nothing can be done for the working man that will tend to make him reliable and steadygoing, a steadying influence in the country, like giving him his own home. So I was glad to see that this Government, although the question of housing may be a little out of its realm, was prepared to take the action that, has been indicated in the speech from the Throne. I think the Government has adopted a policy that is eminently sound from every standpoint. The responsibility for the spending of the money which the Government intends to lend rests entirely, in the last analysis, with the municipality, where it ought to rest, and where the expenditure can be most closely checked. The action that the Government has taken puts 
every municipality in a position to deal with the housing question. But for that assistance many municipalities would have found it extremely difficult to deal with that question at the present time. You will appreciate that when I tell you that in our city the people last year paid $4,000,000 in taxes on war account, and they are paying $0,500,000 this year on the same account. All of that, or nearly all, uras spent upon objects that should have been financed by this Federal Parliament. With a load of debt like that last year and this year totalling something like $12,000,000,' it can easily be understood that the finances of our city are somewhat strained. And what I say of our city pertains, I think, in practically every other city in the Dominion. Their credit needs assistance, and where shall we look for such assistance if not to the province or to this Government? The province itself has undertaken very large expenditures, and the natural place to look for the necessary assistance is right here. It has been a pleasure to me to see that the Government has risen to its responsibilities in this regard. I hope that Parliament, when this matter is worked out finally, will insist as far as possible upon the principle of personal ownership. I have no great sympathy with the building of rows of houses to be rented. That is better than nothing, of course.	But I think that
those who are	in charge of	this
programme or plan should make every effort to render it possible for each individual to buy the house he lives in. That may require some extraordinary measures, but when you consider the advantages involved in the increased efficiency of the men as workers and their improved status as citizens, I think that extraordinary measures are fully justified. Take the man working in any of our factories who goes home to a crowded house-two or three tenants living under one roof as we find in many cases. It is impossible for that man to have the privacy and restfulness that he would have in his own home. He goes back to work next morning not quite so efficient a man as he would be had he been able to go home to his own little house where he could, perhaps, work in the evening in his garden, and where he could sit in the cool of the evening on his own doorstep without having tenants accompanying him. These are considerations in connection with the Government's policy on housing to which I would ask the ministers to give consideration.
We are promised legislation to deal with pensions and assistance to returned sol-

diers. What I think we need more than anything else is that the men whom we have appointed as commissioners to deal with pensions, or demobilization, or repatriation should be men with human qualities strongly developed. I find myself dissatisfied with hard and fast rules as to how much a man shall get. One man may find a measure of disability not nearly so serious a handicap to him as would another. I know that there are difficulties in dealing in a different way with two men whose conditions are superficially similar. I think that the men who have come back to us maimed and partly disabled should be treated more as the sons of the country and not as citizens merely. Suppose that a son, a very dear son, had come back broken, wounded, partly disabled-what would you do in your own home? That is the question that we should ask ourselves in this House, and in asking it we should see to it that the man who is given authority in this matter of pensions should have more than a merely official interest in the welfare of the men with whom he has to do. I would like, if possible, to have engraved before every man who is dealing with the soldiers the statement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If we can keep in mind what our boys have done for us, if we can keep in mind the things they have endured, I think we shall not carp or haggle at generous treatment, and more than generous treatment. I would like to put upon record what Lloyd George has said concerning what our boys have done. He was speaking of the boys of Britain, but surely what he said of them applies to our own boys who were in the thick of it, just as much as to any troops that fought in this great war. He said:
To this hour I cannot think of the heroism of our soldiers without wonder-without wonder and reverence. There has never been in the history of mankind such a courage as theirs. Never! Think what it was. The least of us is capable of a flash of valour. In a sudden emergency the meanest of us might be brave. Once or twice in his life a coward might do noble things. But think what these men did. It was not for an hour, nor for a day, nor for a week, nor for a month, nor for a year that they did fine things.
Year after year their life was a fine thing. It was not valour they displayed; it was not even heroism; it was something so new and terrible, so undreamed of, that man has created no word for it. I try to find some word to define it, to suggest it; I can't. The nearest word I can get is Endurance. They were in hell every day of their lives; and they endured. They were in peril of death, and worse than death, day after day, night after night; and they endured. They were exposed to all the nerve-shattering rage of artillery, artillery which rived the soil like an earthquake, which
hurled the bodies of the dead into the air, and flung the bodies of the living into a deeper sepulchre; and they endured. They went out into the darkness to storm the trenches of the enemy, to destroy machine-gun nests, to break a line of fire the very thunders of which deafened the men; and they endured. But something more. That is what haunts me. They endured for all these years a manner of life utterly	unnatural-utterly	unnatural, and
horrible beyond the expression of words.
Our people are the cleanest in Europe; to keep their bodies clean is one of their joys,, a part almost of their religion; and think how they lived! They lived in mud, and worse than mud; they lived in unutterable filth, breathing an air that choked the lungs with disgust, their young bodies attacked by vermin, their feet sinking into squalor, their hands touching at every turn things which one dare not speak about. And our people are the most domesticated in Europe; our climate has forced us into making indoor life the very heart of existence; and these young men were exiled from their homes, were forced to live almost entirely without the grace and charm and consolation of women, were obliged to herd together in great companies in a foreign country, and not only a foreign country, but a torn and blasted country from which the sulphurous flames of Satanism had scorched the leaf of the meanest weed.
There they lived, always in the presence of death, always in the midst of horror, always on a rack of torture, a rack which stretched and tortured not the muscles of the body, but every nerve, and the whole mind, and the entire soul, and they endured. Yes, they endured, endured inexpressible agony with patience, even with humour, and at the end flinging themselves upon the enemy, they drove him headlong, they drove him out of his trenches, sent him flying, beat him, beat him to his knees. There has been nothing like this in the history of the world.
Mr. Speaker, that picture should be in the mind of every person who has to do with the men of our Canadian regiments. If it is kept in the minds of those commissioners in whose hands lie largely the destinies of our broken men I will be satisfied that they will get good treatment. But if we forget what these boys have done for us, if we forget all they suffered and endured for us, we will be unworthy of the sons who fought and died for us. I want to express my agreement with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) in one of his opinions. He said that at least $1,000 a year pension was little enough for a disabled man and that to offer him anything less than $1,000 would be a disgrace. You cannot get a mechanic to work to-day for less than $25 a week, and yet we are offering to men who have gone to the war, who have lost their ability to earn their own living a pittance of $600 or $700 a year.
I am inclined to go farther than my friend from South Toronto and to say that

$1,000 is not sufficient. A man who has lost his physical strength and is unable to earn his livelihood should at least enjoy an income equal to that of a mechanic, and $1,000 is not equal to a mechanic's wages in this country at the present time. There is no likelihood that the mechanic's wages will ever be decreased. Twelve hundred dollars is as little as any man can live upon, and if he is a totally disabled man and has a family of four or five children, a less amount will subject him to the pangs of poverty in addition to the suffering entailed by the loss of his powers. Surely, if there is any gratitude in this country, if we realize what these men did for us, what they endured in doing it, if we realize what they saved us from, we can afford to be generous and not pare down the amount which is to be paid to them as compensation for their losses.
Another matter of importance is the War-times Election Act. I want to join with my colleague from South Toronto there again and to say that, in my judgment, it would be a calamity for this country to restore the franchise to men who have shown themselves to be alien enemies during the war. If Canada is to realize its possibilities, it must be governed by men who appreciate British institutions and ideals. If you fill your voters' lists with men who come from Central Europe, and who will still tell you that blood is thicker than water, you will find that very shortly political combinations will be made that will place the government of the country in the hands of those who would have handed Canada over to the German tyrant. We have been very patient in the province of Ontario. We have been neighbours to thousands of foreigners, some from neutral countries and many of them from enemy countries, who laughed in our faces when our boys had to go and when the way was opened for them to take their places in positions in civil life.'
If ever there was danger in Bolshevism in Ontario that was the time. I am glad that time has passed. There is no danger of a Bolshevist uprising in Ontario, but if ever we had a condition which would have justified some kind of a protest or uprising it was the condition that existed under the Military Service Act in our own city when men, young, strong; of military age and capable of bearing arms, came before our military tribunals and, with a smirk on their faces, said: We are not naturalized. And because they were not naturalized they were left at home to reap the profiteering rewards that were incident to this great

war. Now that the war is over, now that our men are coming back, are we going to stand for that in the industrial centres of Canada? Are we going to allow these men who laughed in our faces when we could not help ourselves, when our first duty was to carry on and win the war, to usurp the places that ought to be filled by the men who went overseas, men who left their positions in factories and workshops and wages of $5, $6 and $10 a day to go out for $1.10 a day and live under the conditions I have just described. Are we going to allow the men who were left at home to remain in their places? If it is Bolshevism to put these men out and to put our own men in, then I am a Bolshevist, because I submit that no decent manufacturer in Canada will keep in his place men of that type while there are soldiers seeking employment.
There is an awful lot of unrest in this country. It could not be otherwise. Could you expect anything different? We organized our whole system of industry upon the basis of war and we have to suddenly turn around and organize for peace.
There are factors entering into this situation that we never had to deal with before, and I hope we shall never have to deal with again, but under the circumstances, which are apparent to every intelligent man, unrest is absolutely unavoidable. It is for us who appreciate the situation, and it is equally for the British-born artisans and workingmen of Canada to see to it, and they will see to it, that these foreigners who advocate dangerous doctrines get no support from the intelligent English-speaking, and I hope French-speaking, people of the Dominion. We have a right, Mr. Speaker, to make an appeal to labour, and to say to the man that works: The governments and the municipalities of this country are going to do for you the very best that can be done. What we want from you is that your efforts, individually and collectively, shall be applied to increased production. If labour responds to that appeal there will be no danger of lower wages, no danger of permanent unrest, and this country will go on to a period of prosperity.
I have a few more remarks to make, and they pertain to a matter that was discussed in this House last session. At that time I said that the Civil Service Act was badly conceived, and in its operation would work out in filling the Service with the friends of officials. I hardly expected, Sir, that in ten short months my prediction would be so fully realized. I have not the gift of prophecy, but I think that any man examining the Bill when it was before us last
year could realize that the result of its enactment that the Civil Service would be handed over to be filled by a group of officials with their friends. That is what has happened, and that is what is happening right along. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), in his 'sfwfcch the other day, approved of the appointments to the Toronto post, office. I want to associate myself with him so far as the choice of postmaster is concerned; the appointment was made promptly with the best man available. But when it came to the position of deputy postmaster, what happened? The postmaster, who had worked with the present deputy for twenty-five years, sent the recommendation to Ottawa for his appointment. That appointment was held up in this city for months. It was held up until I instituted inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay, when I was told that it was due to the Civil Service Commission endeavouring to ascertain whether the official recommended was the senior man. It was none of their business, Mr. Speaker, whether he was a senior man or not-he was the one best qualified for the position. As it happened he was the senior official, hut the Commission refused to accept the recommendation of the postmaster, who knew all the men that were available for the position, and spent some time before consenting to make the appointment. Why? Because the next man in seniority was a friend of a friend of the Secretary of the Civil Service Com. mission.
The same thing happened in regard to filling'a position in the Custom House at Toronto. A hardware appraiser was needed there, and the collector of the port forwarded three names from which to make a selection. But, Sir, these three names were taken by an official in this city, and cast into the wastepaper basket, and the Civil Service Commission appointed a man in the city of Victoria, B.C., to come to Toronto to take the position of hardware appraiser. The commission passed over three qualified men recommended by the collector of the port, who knew each man's capability. He was aware that the three men nominated by him were fit for the position, and that the Toronto public would be satisfied with the appointment of any one of the three. But a friend of the official was appointed over the heads of the three qualified men recommended by the collector who had known the men and their qualifications for years. Does that instance prove what I said last year, that the Service
would be filled by the friends of the officials, or does it not? The official to whom I allude is a very prominent man in the Civil Service in the city, but what did he care for the recommendation of the collector of the port? He had a friend, and even though his friend may be a good man-


Samuel Hughes: Were the members of Parliament, the men who are officially responsible for the riding, consulted in regard to that appointment?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not to my knowledge, but I have no grouch about the matter. I was not consulted, and I do not want to be consulted.


Samuel Hughes: You should be
though.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, I was not consulted, and I was not aware of the circumstances until the appointment was made. Here you have a city of half a million people yet a man qualified to act as hardware appraiser could not - be chosen there but has to brought from three thousand miles away. If that does not prove that friendship and not fitness is operating in filling appointments to the Civil Service, I do not know where you can look for evidence of it. To my mind there could not be a more striking proof of my contention.
But, Sir, the same thing is happening in practically every quarter, and advertisements are only sent out as a matter of routine.-A man is picked for the job before the advertisement of the vacancy goes out. He is picked by somebody in this city, some official in the department. Why, Sir,' I have an advertisement here calling for a man to take charge of the fruit inspection for the district of Western Ontario, under the Department of Agriculture, the salary to be $2,000 per annum. The candidate is required to have a thorough knowledge and experience of fruits' and vegetables, from the standpoint of both growers and consumers, and to possess the confidence of the fruit trade generally. The man who had been acting as the local fruit inspector in that district had recommendations sent down to Ottawa by the score and he was qualified in every way for the position, but before the advertisement was issued a man was selected. What kind of a way is that to make appointments? Is that the method of appointment we were led to expect would be adopted when appointments were placed under the Civil Service Commission? As I say a man was selected for this position and he was appointed temporarily. He was kept on for six months, then his term



was extended, and afterwards the advertisement was issued because the Act requires it. The man chosen had been an American citizen before the last election in Canada and could not vote in that election. True he was Canadian-born, but he went across the line and was naturalized there. He returned to Canada, and was not entitled, as I say, to vote at the last election, but he happened to become naturalized here since. ' Then he takes precedence of men - who have lived here and have been serving this country, men who never ran away and were naturalized in a foreign country. This person is placed over qualified men because he is a friend of the officials. The understanding is that the late Mr. Johnson desired this man to be appointed. That is the way the Civil Service is operated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he a returned soldier?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He was not a returned soldier, and had never been near the scene of hostilities. He told a friend on the streets of Toronto that he had the job. "1 have the position," he said, and that was sometime before the advertisement was published.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was his profession?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know what his profession was, but the facts are as I am stating. This man came over from the United States, and was immediately taken on the staff of the Food Board. He worked on that Board as long as there was a job for him, and when the Food Board was dissolved, another position had to be found for him. He had some friends in the service and he was elected to the position in question. His name is Mr. J. R. Hastings.
We have over the signature of Mr. William FoTan, the chief guide of the Civil Service Commission, the statement that when the time limited for receiving applications has expired, the applications will be submitted to a competent board of judges, who will select a man who is in their opinion the best qualified for appointment. Is that the way, Mr. Speaker, we understood that this thing was to be worked out? Are these commissioners Civil Service Commissioners, or are they not? Have they power to appoint a committee which immediately becomes an unofficial Civil Service Commission without any responsibility? We were not told, and I do not think any person believed when this matter was before us last session, that the Civil Service Commission could hide behind a committee of three 
whom they might name to make appointments. The responsibility of these three men to the House and to the country is just as little as it could possibly be; yet an appointee to the important position of Chief Inspector of Fruit for Western Ontario is to be selected by a committee. In the natiSal order of things, Mr. Speaker, who would form that committee? Would they not likely be friends of an official who was interested and who was close to the Civil Service Commission? If I appoint three of my friends to decide whether or not I am fit for a job, I shall have a pretty good chance of getting that job, and so would anybody else under similar circumstances.
And this is the very principle that was adopted when a Superintendent of Penitentiaries was to be appointed. The Civil Service Commission had not the knowledge or the intelligence or the courage to make an appointment, and they selected three men to deal with it, at least one of whom whs known to be hostile to the best qualified man in Canada for the position of Superintendent of Penitentiaries. What chance did he have? Among one hundred applicants his qualifications were the best; but this committee says: None of these candidates are quite satisfactory; we throw them all out and we will advertise afresh. You see how they double-cross the soldier; how they wdiipsawed a qualified man who is a returned soldier, who fought with the Canadian army at Courcelette, who was promoted on the field of battle to the rank of Brigadier-General and who had had twenty-six years of experience in the very -work for which applications were being sought. No one neecT tell me that the people are going to stand for that kind of treatment. That man's application goes in and it is thrown aside; he has not a friend on the committee; there is no official anxious for his appointment. Is there any other conclusion, Mr. Speaker? I do not think that any other conclusion is possible.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose, I was directing the attention of hon. members to the method by which the Civil Service Commission delegates its functions to committees. I do not think that was ever intended by the Act, and it appears to me to be a most

reprehensible way of doing business. If my memory serves me aright, the Prime Minister last year promised or intimated in some way that it would probably be necessary to appoint provincial branches of assistance for the Commission. Our experience, as far as we have gone, proves the necessity of providing some kind of assistance for the Commission. When they have to appoint a special committee to decide so many questions on so many appointments, it is evident that they are not capable of performing the functions which the House expected them to perform when they were appointed. Perhaps that is not surprising when we face the fact that the chairman is a man who is not in very good health and that one of his fellow members is in the South and has been there for a considerable time owing to ill health. And then there is Mr. Larochelle. But if these men are unable to perform their duties, it is not proper that their duties should be delegated to some group of men who have no authority, no responsibility, and who may shelter themselves behind the Civil Service Commission. I hope the Government will take that into consideration and take some steps to see that if this Act i? to remain in force, the men who fill these positions shall at least be responsible men.
I have another case that goes to prove just what I said before, namely, that there seems to be a man selected for every position before it is advertised. Let me read this advertisement which has been sent out by the Civil Service Commission. It says that they want:
An Assistant to the Chief Clerk of Files and Records under the Soldiers' Settlement Board, at a salary of $1,600 per annum. Candidates must have five or six years' experience with flies and records in a Government department, and must be thoroughly familiar with such a system.
That seems to be a most astonishing requirement. I am informed, and I believe, that a man can begin- and complete his studies in medicine in five years; that a man can begin and complete his studies for the bar in four years; hut to be an efficient and capable filing clerk, a man apparently requires five or six years' experience. Is there any intelligent mairin this House who will say that that length of experience is requisite for that kind of a position? In the first place, it cuts out every returned soldier, because most, if not all of them, have been away for over four years. It absolutely eliminates that particular class of men to whom this country owes most; and yet this is a position that I venture to say at least a thousand capable young
officers, who may be suffering partial disability, could fill. A man without a leg could fill that position. There are young officers coming back so broken that it will be impossible for them to take up their former avocations, and it is the business of this Government and of this country to see that they are offered opportunities of this kind. Let us assume a ease. A young officer may come back who is fifty per cent disabled. Under the present scale he will get somewhere about $500 a year as a pension. Here is a position at $1,600 a year that he could fill, and it would give him, along with his pension, a decent livelihood; but such a man as that is cut out, he is prevented from even applying for such a job because it requires five or six years' experience to know how to file records.


Samuel Hughes: What is the job, please?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Assistant to the Chief Clerk of Files and Records. My deduction is, I think, reasonable, namely, that a man, who is now in the Government service has been picked out for that position. The job-is practically filled before the advertisement is put into the newspaper. Is there any other possible conclusion than that? Not only officers, but privates by the thousands who will be on our pension list could fill a position of that kind, and it will take a good deal of argument, I think, to convince any intelligent member of this House that five or six years' experience is necessary before a man can file records properly. I venture to say there are young men coming back from the front who could learn that work in as many weeks, because many of those young men have had a liberal education; they have certainly had their powers of initiative and application developed by this war. If we have a Civil Service Commission that is going to cut men out of all opportunity of obtaining such positions what is the use of putting in the Act the statement that the returned soldier shall be given a, preference? Is it not a fact that there is no place for the returned soldier except at the bottom? I presume they put a good many soldiers into such jobs as messengers or elevator men or some menial employment of that kind, but I stand here to protest against that sort of treatment for the returned soldier. Nothing is too good for him and, I care not how important the position is, if he has the qualifications to fill it, he should get it before anybody else. This Commission which was to produce such

reforms, in the filling of positions in the Government service, is being used to pay debts of friendship or something of that kind by putting into jobs men who are not as well or not better qualified than the men who are coming back. But what I protest against with the greatest vehemence is that men are selected for these positions before any advertisement is issued, and I think my contention is borne out by what I have said this afternoon and what I say now.
This afternoon, I gave an instance of a man who was so certain of obtaining a position as Fruit Inspector that before the advertisement was printed he told a man in Toronto that he had it. Here is a case from Halifax. On February 3, Mr. McCoy telegraphed to Michael Dryden at fit. John advising him to return to Halifax as he had been appointed Superintendent of one of the employment offices. The applications were to be in the hands of the Civil Service Commission on February 18, but Mr. Michael Dryden gets a telegram on February 3, that he had been appointed. What do you think about that, 'Sir? That is just in line with the case of Mr. Hastings and practically in line with the case I quoted in connection with the Toronto Customs House. They select a man; in many cases they put in the advertisement qualifications that nobody else can fill and in some cases qualifications that no man can fill, as in the case of a publicity agent, and then they appoint some man who is a friend of some high official in the Civil Service or a friend of some one in the 'Civil Service Commission. We are in danger of filling up the 'Service with not merely unqualified persons, but dishonest persons.
I am credibly informed that in this city of Ottawa there is a certain school. Nobody knows where this school is unless he is directed to it. It does not advertise; the name is not on the door, but candidates who are fortunate enough to be directed to this school are always able to pass with the highest marks. The system has been explained by one of the pupils, a young lady, in this way:
" I was there three weeks and all my time was taken up being drilled in three subjects." And, do you know, when she came to write her examination, the questions were confined to the very three subjects in which she had been drilled. Now, is that a coincidence? Or has the man in charge of the school powers of divination? Does he use a Ouija board, or is he a spiritualistic medium or a clairvoyant? I do not believe he is any of these things, but I do believe that by some method he 
knows the subjects that will be dealt with in the examination. How he gets that information I am not prepared to say tonight, but it must be evident that if the only three subjects on which his pupils are examined are the ones in which they have been drilled there must be a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. I have been informed that the method is this. Let me say, first of all, that this process of getting through the Civil Service examinations has passed its primary stage, and is now at the second stage. I do not think it has yet reached a state of perfection, but I have no doubt it will, if given time. The first arrangement was for the party trying the examination to work out the scheme in the room where the examination was being held. The candidate carried into the room a book simijar to the book given out by the presiding examiner, containing the answers correctly written therein. This plan, however, has since been improved upon to meet all the emergencies that might arise, and this improved plan has for its final act, if necessary the substitution in the Examination Department of the Commission of papers having the same number as that given to the candidate by the examiners in the examination, but with the correct answers written by an expert. If an expert wrote the answers he must have had the examination papers before him. We are not left in any doubt as to that being possible. In fact, we can speak with the utmost certainty; we say that it is not only possible, but that it has taken place. There was a case only last week	where
a Mr. Joseph Peticlerc was caught red-handed with examination papers in his possession by the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Where did he get them? If there are no leaks, how can the papers get to him? And if they can get to him, they can also get to the principal of this school.' The whole thing can be worked out in a scientific manner and a regular tarffic set up in examination papers. According to Mr. Peticlerc's own statement he was to pay $310 for the papers, but he was not to pay that sum for two months. The reason for that is that all examination papers are kept by the Commission for two months and then destroyed. After that, there is no possibility of getting evidence against candidates, and it would therefore be safe for Mr. Peticlerc to pay the $310 when the two months had expired. Strange to say, although Mr. Peticlerc had been caught red-handed, when the facts were brought to the attention of the secretary of the Commission, Mr.' Foran said,

" Now that is very singular, because recently a young lady passed an examination with the highest marks, and her success was so astounding that the nuns of the convent told me there must be something wrong, because she was their most backward pupil." These good sisters were amazed at the proficiency of their most backward pupil, and no wonder, when we know that some of their brightest pupils also wrote on the same examination. One would have thought that when this case was brought to the attention of the secretary of the Commission he would have done something more than make a cursory examination. But all that was done was to bring the young lady before the Commission, and as no proof could be secured the case was allowed to drop. Now that young lady is a next-door neighbour to the man who was caught with the examination papers in his possession, and if that case does not arouse suspicion I shall think this a very credulous House of Commons. When Mr. Peticlerc was caught, he said, " I got the papers from General Delivery at the Post Office." Now, if a candidate can get the examination papers in advance from General Delivery, why any person can pass the Civil Service examination. I have no doubt T could pass it myself under such conditions, at least, I would venture a small bet on it. But afterwards, Peticlerc tells a different story. He says, " I got these papers from Mr. Robert" who is also a clerk in the Service. When this story became current, newspaper reporters went to the Civil Service Commission, and whom do you think they saw? One would have thought that they would go to the chairman of the Commission, but I assume they knew that there was some person evert more influential and more likely to have the information than the chairman. So they went to Mr. Foran, who made a long explanation, in which he said:
We are doing all we can to get at the facts ol the case, and I am satisfied that the leak is not here in the Commission, The only man who handles them is our confidential printer, and he keeps the papers in a vault, of which he alone has the key. When they are sent to other parts of Canada they are despatched in sealed boxes by express when the quantity is large, and by registered mail when the quantities are small.
One explanation offered by the secretary of the commission was that the examination papers must have been taken out of the registered mail. That is an accusation about which I think the postal authorities should have something to say. It should be established whether or not it is possible to tamper with the registered mail of this
country. I do not know whether Mr. Foran still adheres to that view, but that was the view he expressed when the case was brought to his attention.
What did Mr. Foran do in the way of investigating? He had Mr. Robert arrested, and he was charged with handing the papers to Mr. Peticlerc. Let us assume the case goes into court. The evidence of Mr. Robert would probably be that he did not hand Peticlerc the papers, and the evidence of Peticlerc would probably be to the contrary. The chances of getting a conviction when conflicting evidence is given by two witnesses is practically nil, and the result would be that the man under arrest would be discharged and the case would be allowed to drop. That would be the end of it, except that the conspirators would go on to perfect their system, so that such a bungle would not occur again. But if the Commission had arrested the man who had the papers in his possession they could have secured a conviction against him, because he was caught red-handed. But they did not want that. I say here, Sir, they wanted to close the matter up without getting the facts. I submit that if that were not the case they would have arrested the man whom they knew to be implicated and from whom they were likely to get better evidence than from any others. I do not know what has been said to him, but I am sure the Commission will not get anywhere under the form of investigation they are holding now. I make that prediction with the same confidence as I made the prediction last year that it would work out as it has done.
Where are you going to place the responsibility for this? Surely it must be upon the secretary. He is the chief executive officer of the Commission and the custodian of the examination papers. If there are clerks under him who are handing out these papers for a consideration-they would hardly do it if there were no consideration -he is the man who must be held responsible. If in your own business, Mr. Speaker, you had a man upon whom you depended, a man whom you had placed in the chief position of responsibility with regard to a thing of this kind, would you go all down the line and pick out the office boy for dismissal? Or would you go to the man who was primarily responsible? In this case that man is the secretary of the Commission. As I said before, do you expect the people of Canada to stand for this method of filling the Civil Service? If you do, 1 say with entire confidence, that you will find yourself mistaken. We want the

Civil Service reformed; but this is not reform, this is establishing a system under which the grossest corruption is practised to the detriment of fair-minded, honest young men and women who are desirous of serving the country in the Civil Service. We have heard the patronage system cursed up and down the country, and a good deal of opinion has been manufactured against it; but the patronage system at its worst was better than this. If you are going to continue this system, you are going to have not only an ineffective service but a service filled with people upon whom you cannot depend. For the man or woman who would take means such as these to' secure an appointment is not fit for a place in the Civil Service.
I have just one suggestion to make in closing, and that is that the Civil Service Act should be amended at a vital point. I would have every position in the Outside Service filled upon the recommendation of the man who sits for the constituency in which the appointment is to be made. I do not want the annoyance of patronage, I would like to get rid of it all; but I would rather face my responsibility in this regard than see the present method continue to be employed in filling the Civil Service. There is no man so well qualified to speak as to the character and general attainments of one applying for a public place as the member for the 'constituency, who knows the applicant, knows his family and his antecedents. By consulting this representative you are on much safer and sounder ground than you are to-day. I have felt it my duty to bring these things to the attention of the House and of the Government. I have only touched the fringe of the subject. There is not a member of this House, I venture to say,-I should be surprised if there were one-who could not relate to you incidents of a similar character to those which I have related. I have one thing to say about the Commission, and that is they have shown remarkable impartiality. In Ontario they have appointed to Civil Service positions more men and women who supported the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the last election than those who supported the Union Government. Now that is a form of impartiality which I think is a little strained. I would give 'my hon. friends opposite the right to nominate in their several constituencies every man and woman appointed in the Outside Service; but I would give to the men on this side of the House the same privilege. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a fair system and that it will 
work out better than the present one,

that there will be less inefficiency in the Service, and more satisfaction in the country. I do not want any man or woman appointed to the Civil Service of Canada who is not needed. That is where I begin.
I do not want any man or woman appointed who is not qualified. When a recommendation is made by the member of the constituency-perhaps two, or three or four names sent in-let the Commission test the efficiency of the candidate in any way they think necessary. But let the appointment rest on the responsibility of the man representing the constituency and you will have a much better result than you will ever have under the law as now operated.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: My desire on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, is to make briefly a few observations on the important questions referred to in the Address. Before going into my subject let me refer to the death of my late honoured chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir Wilfrid Laurier during his long political career was animated by the one desire to promote the welfare of his country; and never was a great life more nobly spent in the accomplishment of such a great purpose. His career has been recognized as a most useful one, and the last tribute paid to his remains is but one mark of esteem and appreciation manifested by the whole Canadian people.
. But, Sir, this country is mourning the loss abroad of other good citizens who have given up their lives within the last four years for the cause of liberty. Widows and orphans are turning their eyes every day * towards Europe, towards the fields of Flanders and the soil of France. They have been left in this Dominion of ours with few resources, and -without much assistance. At this time they look towards this capital of the Dominion where we are assembled as representatives of the people and they are asking us if what we have done thus far is all that we can do, and they pray that we should take a deep interest in their welfare. Our returned soldiers to-day are turning their eyes to the capital of Canada and they are asking us whether we have done our duty to them. We must put aside all personal interest and devote our energies to the task of doing justice to the men who have so distinguished themselves on the field of battle.
It is true that several of the different classes of people who compose the Dominion are able to take care of themselves.' The capitalists met in Ottawa during the

war as well as since the war. The farmers met in Ottawa last year and we know what kind of a reception they had from this Government. They were told by the Prime Minister and his colleagues to go back home and work on their farms. They went back home with the remembrance of what they had heard and seen in Ottawa and with the determination that in the near future they will be heard by those who will take the places of the Government who refused to listen to them. They will not only be heard at home but they will be heard in this house. The labour men came to Ottawa and met the Ministers of the Grown. The returned soldiers came to Ottawa and submitted their grievances to the Government but very little has been done for them. Commissions were appointed during the war and many also since the signing of the armistice in order to make provision for the returned soldiers. Let me make a suggestion to the Acting Prime Minister. It is this that every commission appointed by this Government during the last four years should be required to make a report to this House. The Acting Prime Minister should inquire into the details of these reports and we, the representatives of the people, should have these reports before us so that we would be in a position to discover what is lacking' in the provision made by the Government for our returned soldiers.
There has been a slowing up of business since the armistice was signed when we should have had an entirely different condition in a country such as this. This is one of the richest countries in the whole world. The enemy was kept away from our firesides and everybody in this country is ready to help to build up the country's best interests. One delegation came to Ottawa to present the claims of their respective industries but the Government did not welcome them too well. But, prompt and wise measures must be taken by the Government if we are to restore our industries to the position which they occupied before the war. We should invite the capitalists and the workmen to meet at Ottawa. We will never succeed in re-establishing our industries until we get the capitalists and workmen to understand one another. Let me read a paragraph showing what has taken place lately in England:
Committee of 60 members to probe the labour conditions. British way is to have 30 Capitalists and 30 Laborites thresh matter out and report.
London, Feb. 28th.-After an all day session devoted to airing the various phases of labour unrest, the industrial conference called by the Government and in which Government Ministers, labour leaders and representatives of the big employment interests participated, adopted a resolution presented by Arthur Henderson, Laborite, for the appointment of a joint temporary committee to be composed of 30 Laborites and 30 Capitalists to make a thorough investigation into the question of hours, wages, general conditions of work; unemployment and its prevention and the best means for promoting the relations between capital and labour and report back to the conference which will reassemble on April 5th.
It is not necessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to repeat that we must bring about a better understanding between capital and labour before we can re-establish pre-war industrial conditions.
Very little has been said in reference to the great and noble work that was done by the young girls and, women of Canada .during the war. We are perhaps not sufficiently appreciative of the magnificent example of devotion and patriotism set by our young girls and women both at home and across the ocean. They have splendidly seconded the efforts of our gallant soldiers.
The mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne were very wise in their statements. I followed their remarks very closely and I noted that they preached unity in this country. I understand what unity means. Brought up in an English-speaking province and being a French Acadian by descent, I have learned from my big neighbour the meaning of toleration and good-will. The sun shines upon the head of every Canadian. This country is big enough for every one of us whether we speak one language or the oher. We are all true Canadians and we would like to remain so.
My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) stated in his address the other day that several millions of dollars will be spent on highways. The policy of building good roads in Canada has been well established and I believe that the money that will be spent on highways, as well as on railways, will contribute greatly to the development of the country.
In my own province within the last two years highways have been improved a great deal and there is no province in the whole Dominion where according to population so much money has been spent for this purpose. Our provincial Minister of Public Works and his colleagues have spent a great deal of money and I am glad to see that this-Government has seen fit to trust the provincial government in each province with the money that will be devoted to the purpose of improving highways. I hope that this policy will produce the result that is expected of it.

We are asked to economize. We had to do so in order to meet our expenditures during the war. We are at the same time asked to build more railways in Canada. I do not agree with the policy of the Government. Let' us stop for a while building railways in Canada. We have enough of them. Let us take care of the railways we have already on hand because we have more than we can afford to attend to. We have bought a number of branch lines and very few are left that are not controlled by the Government. I hope the Government will buy those that it has not already taken over, but, Sir, no more new lines of railway for the present.
On the question of the tariff, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this country will be unable to maintain the indispensable industry of farming if the tariff is not lowered in this country soon. Before long the farmers will have to sell their products at lower rates than they are selling them for now, and, though deriving a diminished revenue from their farms they will be called upon to pay high prices for their farm implements. They will be debarred, if the tariff is not modified, from selling their products in the highest markets, and compelled to pay the highest prices for their farming implements. Sir, this question will present itself again at a later date and therefore I shall not further discuss it at the present time.
Now let me deal with another point. During the last three or four years posters were conspicuously displayed-in public buildings, on the streets, and on the cars carrying our soldiers to the ports of embarkation for the front, not only the volunteers, but the conscripts, also-bearing this motto:	"Your services are needed." Today the bodies' of many of those soldiers are lying on the field of battle, but their widows and orphans in Canada need to be cared for. Let me express the Jiope that that care will be ungrudgingly bestowed, and in a manner worthy of those who gave up their lives for their country.
The restoration of our industries to the strong position they occupied two or three years ago is a task that must be undertaken. What are we going to do in that direction? I am not considering those industries which yielded immense fortunes to their owners out of the manufacture of war munitions and materials for war purposes. The gentlemen who accumulated millions of dollars in this country from these sources during the progress of the war, in my opinion, should be required to make a return to' the Minister of Finance of the immense
] Mr. Michaud. [
profits which they derived and contribute to the public chest some portion of those profits, whereby a long step might be made in the direction of re-establishing our national revenues. If we could receive only a percentage of the immense sums which have been earned during the war-time period, beyond all question we should be in a much better position to administer the affairs of Canada.


Mr. WALTER DAVY COWAN (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, as an humble supporter of, that party which the Canadian people by insistent demand brought into existence less than two years ago, permit me to express my extreme gratification not only at the many compliments which have been paid to the mover and seconder of the Address, but also the compliments paid by the leader of the Opposition and some of his supporters to the members of the Government and to other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. The compliments paid to the mover and seconder of the Address were certainly deserved,, and as a westerner I feel exceedingly pleased at the manner in which they presented their case.
I have travelled a good many times east and west in this country in the years that are gone, and I have never yet discovered where the East stopped and the West began. I do not want ever to see that line marked out. At the same time we cannot help but feel that those who belong to Fort William and the West are realy westerners, and if the speeches delivered by the mover and seconder of the Address are to be taken as an example of wliat is to follow on the part of hon. gentlemen from the West, I think Eastern Canada will soon have to sit up and take notice. But apart altogether from such considerations, I was exceedingly pleased at the compliment paid by the leader of the Opposition to the members of the' Government. The latch string that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) spoke of is pretty well worn out, and it is rather dangerous perhaps for me to refer to the sentiment, but I am sufficiently old to recall the early days in this country when the latch string -was very commonly in use. I can recall quite well the class of people that were invited to make use of that latch string, but I never saw a highway tramp or a person of disrepute in the neighbourhood invited to lift the latch string and enter the domicile; it was always genial soids whose friendship was desired; those who were considered worthy and well thought of. Those were the only people who were ever invited to lift the latch string and walk in. Therefore I can

quite understand the new leader of the Opposition, desirous as he is of building up a new political organization, entertaining the desire that hon. gentlemen from this side of the House should go over and help him. Indeed I fancy that when he looked around, with that instinct of Scotch canniness and prudence of which he is possessed, he surveyed the material on his own side, and he lost no time in issuing the invitation to this side, "Come over and come over quickly."
But, Sir, while gratified at the compliments bestowed by members of the Opposition on gentlemen on this side, I must confess to a feeling somewhat of resentment at the tone of the speech delivered by the member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), That hon. gentleman rather attacked the Prime Minister of Canada-in fact, he tried to mix him up with Hottentots. I do not know just how 'the hon. gentleman did that but he told us that the Prime Minister had no business being where he was, and that he ought to return to Canada and attend to the business of the country. It was a matter of wonder to me how the hon. gentleman in question, standing as he did behind the seat of his former leader, could so soon forget the lessons taught by his old chieftain. Several years ago, probably ten or twelve, in a political campaign which we were fighting in Western Canada, when I was a bitter opponent of the Liberal party-lor ' I have always been a very ardent Tory and I am not ashamed of the fact-I remember the assertion being made throughout the country that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had made Canada a nation, an assertion I found it 'exceedingly difficult to combat. A great many people believed the statement when it was made, and the great majority of them are stall of that opinion. I quite agree with those who say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did splendid work in assisting to make a nation of Canada, but, Sir, what was the good of the late lamented Liberal Chieftain helping to make a nation of this country if it is not to play its part as a nation? And, Sir, what is a nation's place? Is it to surround itself with a fence and have no truck, trade or treaty with the other nations of the world? Or are Canadians to take their place, as other peoples do, in discussing with the rest of the nations of the world great international problems, and assisting as far as they can in their solution? To me it seems that the proper place of the Prime Minister of Canada at the present time is where the other nations of the world are at work
helping to solve the great problems that are pressing for settlement.
What have we in this country been doing for the last four years? We sent four hundred thousand troops to Europe to do their part in fighting for us and helping to settle international questions. That was assisting Canada to play its part as a nation, just as Sir Wilfrid Laurier wanted Canada to do, and be a nation in every sense of. the -word. After we have done this, after our troops have assisted in winning victory, are we to bring back our whole army from the front and leave the fruits of victory to be enjoyed by other, nations? I have, of course, no right to speak for the Government because I do not know what it intends to do, but interpreting future action by past events, I should say the policy of the Government of this country should be, that wherever Canada has business to attend to, we are going to have men there to look after that business. Wherever the interests of Canada have to be watched, there we are going to have delegates or representatives, whatever you may choose to call them, to look after those interests. I say this to the Government: If they do not attend to business where it ought to be attended to, they need not expect any support from me. I want the business of the country .to be, done where it has to be done and when it has to be done, and I want it to be done promptly. If hon. gentlemen want these things done in some other way, they will have to get into power and do them. But of all the people on this earth to suggest that Sir Robert Borden should be called back to Canada, hon. gentlemen opposite are the very last. What has been their policy? As an old Tory I should not be at all afraid to leave the settlement of these questions in the hands of the Imperial authorities. But if we bring back our Prime Minister before his work over there is finished, where are we? What must happen? One of two things: Either our interests must be neglected, or we must look to the Imperial authorities to protect our interests., Hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly their late leader, have been .very insistent in maintaining the principle of Canadian autonomy and the right of Canadians to look after their own affairs. That is exactly what we purpose doing-look after our own affairs just as soon as we can. We are quite capable of looking after the affairs of Canada, even though four or five members of our Cabinet are at present overseas attending to overseas affairs. For four long years

400,000 of our best men have been in Europe fighting our battles for us. Did we, while they were away, play the part of cowards, sit down and say: Well, Canada must drift, because our boys are away? Not at all. The very fact that Canada to-day is more prosperous than any other nation and that we have less industrial disturbance than is to be found anywhere else proves conclusively that the Canadians who were left behind knew their duty, were able to do their duty, and did it. While we should like to have these Cabinet ministers back -I for one would be pleased to know that their duty was done, and that they were back with us,-we must carry on the business of cur country while they are away-and I feel satisfied from past events that that will be properly done.
Why is it that Canada is to-day in such a prosperous condition? The speech of the member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) contained a wealth of bitterness and was singularly free from anything in the shape of suggestion; it accomplished nothing. Bitterness is the last thing that we should have in Canada to-day. What has been the policy of the Government?
9 p.m. Has it been one of bitterness?
I fancy not. To me it seems that they have invited co-operation throughout the whole of the Dominion, and, what is better, they have succeeded in getting the co-operation which they desire. I remember quite well the time when it was considered to be a proper thing for the provincial governments to be at the throat of the Federal Government and to be causing as much political unrest ap they possibly could. Is there any dispute to-day between the provincial governments and the Federal Government? I have not heard of any in the far East, and I know that the people in our part of the country are exceedingly gratified because of the splendid co-operation which has been brought into existence. I do not know who is wholly responsible for it, but I feel satisfied that one of my old political opponents, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder) is very largely responsible for the feeling of harmony and cooperation prevalent in Western Canada. He is an old Liberal, as he told you the other day, and I am an old Tory, as I tell you now; and we have fought many a battle in the past. It may have been necessary for him to tell you that he is a Liberal still; he does not have to tell me that, for I sadly know it by experience. But although he is a Liberal and I am a Tory, there is a common platform on which,
1 .V:r. Cowan.]
on occasion-and the occasion exists to-day -we can unite, and that is, the common interests of our nation.	As long as
he and other members of this Government stand on that platform, I shall be glad to support them. We have, of course, in Western Canada a few-you could count them on the fingers of one hand-who are bitter and narrow partisans. Yet I speak for the great bulk of the people out there when I say that we desire harmony, co-operation and unity. I am satisfied that the policy of the Government is in that direction, and I am confident that they will continue it; at any rate, I urge them to continue the policy of co-operation which they have so well established.
To me it seems that four bodies ought to be invited to unite with us in this spirit of co-operation to decide what is best. First, the provincial governments, in highways, in housing problems or whatever problem it may be, and then, our Great War Veterans-their organization should be perfected and they should be asked to co-operate with us to the limit. When I say that their organization should be perfected, do not misunderstand me. This Government should not take any part in the organization of that body. Let the Veterans choose the organization they wish; let them create the machinery; let them elect their own officers; let them determine their own policy. But give them every encouragement and assistance in order that they may make it as perfect an organization as they can from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There are some, I know, who say that this is a dangerous organization and should not be encouraged. There is no question about the fact that if it is but half formed and if ill-managed it will be a menace to our country, but if it is-as it will be; we oan-not stop it-perfectly organized from the Atlantic to the Pacific it can be of inestimable value to all the governments in the Dominion. I would urge the Government, therefore, to assist as much as they can in this respect in order that we may have the benefit of the advice and assistance of this organization at an early date.
I do not think that we should attempt to come to a -final settlement of the problem of the returned soldier

if you call it a problem; some object to that term-until all the men shall have returned. I do not think it would be fair to those men who are yet overseas to make a settlement before they have had an opportunity of being . consulted in regard to it. Let us continue to do the very best we can for the men who are here to-day, leaving the final set-

tlement until the time when all these men shall have returned, and then this entire body, its organization perfected, will be able to assist our Government, and a satisfactory settlement of matters affecting their interests will be assured.
Then, I think we ought to ask our press to co-operate with us a little more than they have done. I know that during the - four years of war they were subjected to the censorship, and some of them smarted under it-perhaps justifiably so; but it had to be. Now that that ban has been lifted, we ought to ask them to give us every possible assistance; the Government should take them fully into their confidence so that they will know what policy should be pursued. One thing which is being done by one of the committees through the press and which,
I think, is of inestimable value to Canada, is the publishing of advertisements by the Repatriation Committee. Those advertisements are enlightening our people and our returned soldiers as nothing else ever has enlightened them. They are clear, concise, definite; our people know exactly what that Repatriation Committee is doing. -In that respect I think that the Repatriation Committee differs very much from the Food Board, whose publicity was thg worst conducted thing I ever saw in my life.' It caused confusion in the minds of the people, we knew not where we were at all. But this body is doing it splendidly. The member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) the other day took up one of these advertisements and held the Government up to ridicule on account of them. He read a long list of gentlemen who had been appointed to certain positions, and he said: "Has patronage been abolished? Look at this: Tory, Tory, Tory, Unionist, Unionist, to whom patronage has been extended.-' But if that hon. gentleman had looked at this military or semi-military organization from the inside instead of through a long-distance telescope from the outside, he would have appreciated the position much better than he did.
What is patronage? To my mind it is something which contains a profit. Is there any profit to these medical men in the work which the hon. member told us about the other day? Why did the hon. member not tell us the amount that these men were getting? Instead of that, he simply held them up to ridicule. I know whereof 1 speak, because I belong to an allied profession and have been in a service where 1 could see what occurred. These medical men throughout the Dominion of Canada
who have been and are to-day serving the Government are doing it for one-third the amount of money they could make if they devoted their time to civilian medical practice. As paymaster for the Army Dental -Corps in my district, I have had exactly the same experience. I have issued cheques every two weeks to the men under my command; I had previously issued cheques every two weeks to the same men in my own office, and I know that both the medical and the dental profession in this Canada of ours have been and are fo-dav serving for one-third of what they could get in civilian practice anywhere in Canada. It is a common thing in western Canada, because of the dearth of medical assistance, for medical men to make from ten thousand to twenty thousand dollars a year, and I doubt if any one of them is making less than $5,000 now. Let the hon. gentleman procure a list of the salaries paid to these men and compare them with what they could obtain in civilian practice, and he will see that it is patriotism and not patronage that is moving them, and that he owes an apology to them.
I want to come now to one or two things of probably a more practical nature. The Government has submitted to us a housing scheme and asks us to accept it. The first question that comes to my mind is this-Is a housing scheme necessary? I say most unhesitatingly that something of that nature is necessary, because, go where we will, our people cannot find places in which to live. If that be the case now, what is going to happen in the future? I am told on fairly good authority-I do not know just whether it is right or not-that some fifty thousand of our men overseas have married while in Great Britain. That is a large number; it seems so large that it is almost incredible. If it be true there are so many, I must say that either the English girl is an exceedingly good-looking girl or there is a matrimonial agency of some kind in Great Britain. But be that as it may, a great many of these women are coming for the first time to Canada, strange people in a strange land. Most of them come from comfortable homes, and if they come to Canada and if the Canadian homes are not comfortable we are going to find a great deal of dissatisfaction in a very short time, because Canada is a cold country. There is no getting away from that. If our homes are comfortable there will be no trouble, and the question is to get good comfortable, modernized homes. Have we them? Unquestionably we have not, and we cannot

at present accommodate these people. What, then, is to be done? While I support this scheme I sincerely hope this Government can bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the municipalities to induce them to give the entire amount of money for the housing of our returned soldiers. I think none other should be allowed to share in the benefits of it. I would also like to make this suggestion to the Government: In our part of the world a new condition of affairs altogether has come into existence. In the province of Saskatchewan particularly for years and years our farmers have raised nothing but grain, and grain requires no stabling. In the last three or four years they have changed their methods and have now gone into stock raising to an enormous extent. The progress which has been made in that direction in the last three or four years is surprising. What does that mean? It means that thousands of our farmers to day require more commodious stabling or entirely new stables. If they started to do the building that they should do and want to do and will do, if conditions are satisfactory, we shall not require anything at all in the way of a housing scheme to assist in furnishing employment. In addition to that, many of the farmers are now, I am pleased to say, in a sufficiently prosperous condition to be able to afford to have better homes. What is their complaint? Their complaint is that the cost of lumber is prohibitive; that if they go to work to-day and build a house or a stable -and the same thing is true in the cities-and if in a year or two the cost of lumber and other building material goes down, they will lose a substantial amount of money upon their investment.. Therefore they hesitate, they say; It will probably be better for us to wait until the price of these commodities comes down. Building hardware has, I understand, already fallen considerably in price. But I would suggest to the Government to do would be this, although my suggestion may seem radical to some of my Tory friends:-in view of the tremendous amount of building that can and will be done in that section of the country if conditions are made satisfactory, the duty should, temporarily at least, be taken off lumber so that some reduction may be made in the price of it. It will not, I fancy, be a sufficient reduction. In addition to that, therefore, because a reduction in the tariff will not accomplish everything, I would suggest to the Government that for this year they try to make some arrangement with the railway com-
panies so as to get a lower freight rate on lumber from British Columbia into the Prairie Provinces. In that way they will assist the lumber industry in British Columbia and they will also assist in reducing unemployment in the Prairie Provinces. If they will do that, then the problem, apart from that of the returned soldier, will solve itself, and if we can induce other people to do things for us, there is no sense in our doing them at all. My idea would be to hold out this inducement so as to get the farmers and others to engage in that work.
I am not going to hesitate to discuss the question of a reduction of the tariff. Probably some hon. members may, but being an old Tory and a believer in protection, as I have always been, I have no hesitation in discussing this question.


Samuel Hughes: That's the stuff.


Walter Davy Cowan: But my hon. friend and 1 may fall out when I utter my next sentence. The other day the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), speaking about the removal of the duty on tractors last year, tried to ridicule the action taken by the Government, and he said,: If they take the duty off the tractor, why is it not right to take it off the. plough? That is logical; that is the proper way to state your case; but the attitude of the western farmer- and I suppose it is the same in Ontario-is that every Government, Liberal as well as Conservative, has been protectionist and the former Liberal Government was just as protectionist as any other government in Canada. I may tell my hon. friends that to-day there are more protectionist Liberals in Eastern Canada than there are protectionist Tories in Western Canada. The attitude taken by the former Liberal Government is this: They removed the duty from the minor article and leave it or increase it on the major article, the result being that they give you one dollar and take away ten dollars. This Government took an entirely different attitude. They said:	We
will remove the duty from the major article; we will give you ten dollars, and it will cost yoji only one dollar. The western farmer says: Keep on at that rate and we shall be entirely satisfied with you. I would suggest to the Government that they ought, at as early a date as they possibly can, make a substantial reduction in the duty on the major article, namely, on agricultural implements.
Just a word or two in regard to the statement made by the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Michaud). He said he was

opposed to the Government's building any more railways in Canada at the present time. I do not know what part of the country he lives in, but I can assure him that there is more profit to the Government in building branch lines, or laterals, as we term them, in Western Canada today than any other enterprise they can embark upon, and I was pleased at the statement made, I think, by the Acting Prime Minister, that the work done in Western Canada this year would be chiefly in building branch lines.
Let me draw attention to the conditions which prevail out there. In the south and southeastern parts of Saskatchewan there is one block containing if I remember correctly 220 townships without a single foot of railway in any one of them. There is a settlement there of good substantial farmers who are raising lots of grain, and in many cases they are from twenty to thirty or forty miles from a railway. The consequence is that they have to team their grain that distance to market. Some people say the farmers are profiteering with wheat at $2.20 a bushel. I would ask those who say that to team grain for thirty or forty miles and see how much profit there is left with wheat at $2.20. These farmers cannot get to market with one load and back again in less than three days. There is really no profit in it at all. The section I am speaking of lies along the Montana boundary line. Thousands of these farmers, in fact the great bulk of them, are Americans who have been brought up where marketing conditions are splendid, and naturally they do not appreciate the conditions on this side of the line. As a result, with a railway on the American side of the line built much nearer for the farmers to. use, they send their grain to the American market, because you cannot have enough police out there to stop it; and the farmers buy the goods they need on the other side of the line, so that Canada loses the trade both ways. Such a condition seems to me to be entirely improper, and I think it should be remedied as soon as possible. Northeast from that there is a block of 190 townships, in which there is not a foot of railway, and people have been in there from ten to fifteen years, twenty and thirty and forty miles from a railway. Women have been in there ten or twelve years and have not seen a railway during all that time because they cannot leave the children and the stock, and the husband is the man who must go to the nearest town to transact the business. In the place I speak of there are
good stores, and the storekeepers are using continuously two, three, and four-horse teams hauling their merchandise from twenty to thirty miles. 'The result is that they add the cost of that teaming to the price of the goods they sell, and you can quite understand that the price the farmer has to pay makes him feel he has a grievance.
What are the conditions along the north bank of the South Saskatchewan river? There is a railway on the south side but none on the north, and this winter I am informed that there are hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat still lying on the north side because the farmers cannot get it to market. There is a ferry there which runs in summer, but there was just enough ice there this winter to prevent it running, and not enough ice to allow farmers to haul across the river. Their grain is still lying on the north side as they are unable to market it. And then people wonder at the farmers being discontented and seeking a remedy at the hands of the Government.
I understand that this Government is going to build laterals to make connections with the main line, and I hope that when this is done they will see that the Canadian National railways get the biggest portion of the business because the Canadian Pacific has had forty years in which it could have entered that territory, and as it has not seen fit to do so, it should not receive very much consideration at our hands. Furthermore, in the building of these laterals, there should be no parallel roads within a few miles distance of each other. It should be compulsory for the roads to be built a certain distance apart, so that we shall not have a condition where a certain number of farmers will have two lines of railway two or three miles apart, and another lot of farmers will be condemned to live fifteen or thirty miles from a railway for some years to come.
I wish to compliment the Government upon the re-establishment of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. Some people might ask: Why do you require a large body of police in Western Canada? Are you going to use force and keep the people of Western Canada in subjugation? After forty or fifty years knowledge of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, it is my opinion that there is not a body of men on eartli who can maintain peace with less exhibition of fprce than the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, they have a prestige which no other body of men on -earth possesses. Let me illustrate. I was a defeated Tory candidate in a Re-

gina constituency in 1911 and I was given that cursed patronage for the district. Thank God that has been done away with; I do not want any more of it; I have had enough. A deputation came to me from the village of Ceylon which lies near the Montana boundary, and asked if I could have a detachment of the mounted police sent to their town. I asked what they wanted a detachment of police for, and they told me that there were a number of outlaws and roughnecks coming across the Montana boundary and getting drunk in the village, and things had got so bad that the women had made up their minds to leave. I called no Commissioner Perry on the telephone. I knew him sufficiently well to know that when I laid a case before him and he said he would attend to it, it would be attended to, and I need not bother any more about it. So I told him the facts, as given to me, and he said he would look into it. About a month afterwards the head of this delegation came to my office in Regina and said " I have just come up here to thank you for cleaning up our place and sending the police down there." I asked if Commissioner Perry had sent a detachment down there, and he replied " No, he only sent one man." I asked if that one man did what was needed, and he said that the outlaws and roughnecks vanished on the night this one policeman with his red coat appeared on the scene. The sight of his red coat was enough, and that is the case all over the West. The prestige of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police is such that at the sight of the red coat lawlessness immediately stops and force is not required, because everybody knows that if force is necessary force is going to come, and come effectively; there is no nonsense about the Mounted Police. For that reason, because of the confidence which our people have in the force, I am very glad indeed that the Government has decided to re-establish it. As soon as this became known the people out West on all sides expressed their satisfaction.
I hope the Government this session will continue to carry out their promise of last session. I have reason to believe they have already started to solve the problem of the coal supply in southern Saskatchewan. Last session $200,000 was voted for the purpose of conducting experiments, and experiments have been made in connection with briquetting lighite, of which we have fifty-nine billion tons in southern Saskatchewan. I hope there will be no departmental sloth in this matter and that the Government will expedite the completion of the briquet-
ting plant because our people are anxiously awaiting it. The people in southern Saskatchewan and southeastern Manitoba feel. that they are being bled unmercifully by the coal barons, who have no right to rob us as they are doing. We feel it is the biggest robbery in western Ganada to-day and we think the problem can be solved, and solved easily, and in a way that will tend to develop our own resources and furnish employment to a great number of our Workmen. The coal is there by the billion tons, and all that is required is to put it, as it can be put, into a marketable, commercial shape, and there will be a ready market. -I urge the Government to expedite that matter so that we may as quickly as possible have the benefit of this great natural resource.
The Government, I understand, intend to bring down a Bill to establish a Health Department. That was opposed by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I thing it was the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) who said-but I may be mistaken in attributing the remark to him and I do not want to accuse him of that of which he is not guilty-that we did not want more duplication in our public service and that this would be a duplication. I cannot see duplication in it, but I can see direction, and much better direction than we have now, in matters vitally affecting the interests of the Canadian people. There are several defects in the British North America Act, defects which must be overcome by co-operative action on the part of the representatives of the people. There is a defect with regard to the medical profession, with regard to the dental profession, with regard to the veterinary profession. Under the British North America Act these are made provincial, with provincial bounds. As a professional man, if I go into Manitoba to practice my profession, I become a criminal. And so throughout the Dominion we have these limitations in the handling of a problem affecting the happiness and welfare of all the people. Does not my hon. friend know that the importance of public health has made tremendous advance in public estimation of late? Take the ease of the Red Cross. That whole worldwide organization is shortly to meet, I understand, in Geneva. And for what purpose? To arrange that their body may engage as a world wide organization in peace work, in other words in the education of the public in regard to health and its preservation. And in Canada we find our Red Cross meeting no longer ago than last Saturday, determining to petition Par-

[DOT]175
liament to allow them to engage in the same work throughout the Dominion. What are we, as a nation going to do? Are we going to see these great organizations undertake this work voluntarily and give them no national assistance? To my way of thinking provincial bodies cannot all properly undertake this work. In the great province of Ontario where they have unbounded wealth, or in Quebec where they have so much, they may be able to establish laboratories and provide for the research boards to gain the necessary information to establish the best practice in matters of public health. But can we expect the same of the little province of Prince Edward Island? I say we cannot. Yet, are we to regard the health of a Prince Edward Islander as of less importance than that of a citizen of Ontario or of Saskatchewan? I strongly believe, therefore, that it is necessary for the Government to take this problem in hand on national lines, and, by means of a research council and a system of publicity and advice, to enable the provinces to combat epidemics and everything that would menace the public health. I think that the address of the hon-r member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) was a most admirable one, and I would like to repeat every word he said on this subject.
I will not detain the House any longer. I feel that up to the present this Government, as was said in the admirable speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address, has done exceedingly well. If it continues to do as it has done in meeting the demands of the people in a sensible energetic way, and in giving to our returned soldiers that which is coming to them, I, for one, am prepared to continue my support. Their treatment of the soldiers in regard to the war service gratuity, I think, was exceedingly commendable. I regard that war service gratuity as compensation in part,

a recognition of the fact that we owe these men something. As to whether or not that compensation is sufficient, I am not going to say-except, that I do not think it is. I think we shall have to do a good deal more than that. We shall have tb bring a portion of our men who served in England, but who nevertheless gave good service, within the operation of the war service gratuity. We receive a great many demands from the several units of the Great War Veterans' Association who are probably not so completely organized as to be controlled as they might be. Some of them are making elaborate demands. The other day the Great War Veteran meeting in Calgary requested that
the men who served in Canada only should get $1,000, those who had served in England, $1,500, and every one who had served in France, $2,000. We owe it to them, there is no question about that, if we put it on a basis of the difference between what they earned as soldiers and what they could have earned in Canada. But we must face this thing in a sensible way. Is it possible for us to give them this amount of money in cash? The aggregate amount would be about $750,000,000. I wish I could think there was that much money in Canada. But it may be possible for us to capitalize the amount and pay them, after the expiration of the war service gratuities, for their service, and- without regard to rank, extending over a period of time, and in that way really effect a final settlement. But what I do think is that we should as soon as possible take these men into our confidence and let them know where we stand. Immediateness is their pressing demand. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been complaining because some of our Cabinet ministers are overseas. I would like to see one more cabinet minister leave his post here and go off upon another mission, right here in Canada. If there is unrest to-day among the great war veterans, it is due to the fact that the Canadian people have not been sufficiently candid .and frank with them, and they do not quite understand the situation. I think that the best thing we could do to allay that unrest -would be for one of our ministers to jump his job here and spend three months in meeting the Great War Veterans in their own halls. I do not mean that this minister should go to Halifax or to Calgary and stay there in his private car or in his hotel room and ask two or three .men to meet him to talk the situation over. Not at all, the minister should go plump into the Veterans' own rooms. He will find them a sensible body of men, ready to discuss things in a sensible way. I have been at their meetings, and I have never heard men discuss affairs more intelligently or with less tendency to be extreme. But what they do want is to meet somebody in authority with -whom they can talk. They will not be bothered with understrappers-no use sending such people, for these men will not listen to them. But if any member of this Cabinet will go out and meet these men as I have suggested he will perform an excellent service. A great deal of this unrest arises out of merely 'minor things. These veterans see a piece of land held by a speculator and they think they would like to get it, and want it right away. Or they see two or three townships held for

quarantine purposes, and they do not see why they should not get that. If one of our ministers would go.and discuss the matter with them as soon as possible, and would give them to understand that the people of Canada intend to do them absolute justice, we should find the unrest cease. I do not know that the suggestions I have made are of value to this House, but at least I have had the satisfaction of mentioning some of the things that I think ought to be dealt with.


Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have listened with admiration to the many eloquent addresses that have been delivered thus far. I am sorry to be the first to break the line. As you know, I have not the distinction of being a man of letters; neither have I the privilege of being a lawyer. I am a farmer and the humblest of all the hon. members here. If I cannot favour the House with an academic dissertation, I can assure hon. members that they will not be compelled to listen to any lengthy remarks.
As I look to the vacant chair, may I be permitted, in my own name, and in the name of the people of Bellechasse, whom I have the honour to represent, to express our sentiment of the deepest sorrow that the greatest of statesmen is no more. We loved the great Canadian because he believed in Canada and the Canadian people, because he had an abiding faith in the future destiny of Canada, because he had a high conception of what this' great, new country should be and because he followed out that ideal with loyalty and truth. He spent his long life in teaching unity, the most powerful lever by which the rights of all classes are to be respected. He was the soul of personal honour and integrity. He wore manhood's great and noble crown. We trusted him because we were safe with him. We well nigh worshipped this great Canadian living, and true to him to the last, we will continue to honour and reverence him with an unchanging fidelity in death.
I desire to offer to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) my best wishes and I must say to him that I will be a Highlander in my loyalty to him and to Liberalism. I desire to join with the hon. members who have previously spoken in tendering my most cordial congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. While I am on this side of the House and while I may differ from them, I may say that the lofty views to which they have given expression and the

manner in which they have presented them, assure them of the brightest parliamentary careers.
This Government has taught me, as it did the rest of the farmers, to be a little suspicious of what it does and says. I do not suppose it expects that I shall say that [DOT] ilt has done exceedingly well. I shall not dwell upon the effort that Canada has made during this war. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) in a public meeting, made the statement that Canada was the only allied country that had maintained its divisions at the front to their full quota. Therefore, as far as men are concerned, Canada has done her duty. As far as money is concerned, our debt furnishes the answer.
I desire to say a word with regard to the failure of the Government to make adequate preparation for meeting after4he-war problems. The Government knew well that the war would end some day. The Government refused, practically speaking to confer with the representatives of the people to assemble Parliament. They preferred to deal with Orders in Council-all of them autocratic and arbitrary-and one of the greatest of them was, if I remember well, "work or fight." The fight is finished, Mr. Speaker, but the work is left. Orders in Council will not produce work where the positions do not exist. Therefore, we have unrest in this country due to the failure of the Government to prepare for the after-the-war problems. Far from the seat of hostilities the war has created problems and these problems must be solved.
It was the fashion at the outbreak of war to prophesy smooth things of these post bellum conditions. They, we are assured, differ materially from those before the war. I confess I am not convinced. In a war which, if prolonged, can end only in the ruin of the vanquished and the exhaustion of the victors, I find it difficult to believe that the havoc and destruction wrought. in human life and property can be repaired except by much travail and privation. I find it hard to believe that the industry of this country can be lightly turned from the arts of war to the arts of peace, from forging swords to beating ploughshares, or its foreign trade restored to its former volume and channels without long and painful effort.
Nor am I comforted by those who assume that by the simple expedient of increasing the national debt we can transfer the burden from our own shoulders to those of posterity. I believe that to be a delusion.

It is present capital that is being destroyed, and it is the present generation that must repair the loss or go-without'the capital. A national debt, in so far as it is raised within the country, is a device for transferring money from private purses to the coffers of the state. The state becomes a competitor in the market for capital, and every increase in the rate' of interest which it is obliged to offer tends to withdraw capital from more and more productive enterprises. It is inevitable that capital should become scarcer and dearer, and the surplus available diminished. The material welfare of Canada in the last four years has been maintained by the war. The same influence that has depopulated the country has also, by reason of higher prices for all kinds of agricultural produce, and by reason of the industry arising out of the manufacturing of war materials, supplied the means of financing the nation's affairs at home and abroad. But the real testing time for Canada is after the war, when the present abnormal conditions affecting values have passed away, and we are brought into full competition again with all nations in the markets of the world. Canada has not yet been wholly and severely tried economically. We were prosperous during a period of ten or twelve years before the war because of the commercial activity created by borrowed capital. Money has always been coming into Canada for purposes of development. These sources will not be open now, and we must rely on ourselves. This will be the testing time.
I come to the burning after-the-war problems of demobilization, reinstatement of our valiant sons into civil life, and reconstruction. The Acting Prime Minister said that demobilization was progressing rapidly. I think it is a little slow yet, and I see the statement in the press that the big ships that used to take our soldiers to England ' were withdrawn because the port at Halifax was not equipped to receive big ships.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that the same vessels which conveyed our soldiers overseas could very well convey them back to Halifax, or some other Canadian port. The circulation of any contrary statement without challenge in thp press must be a great injury to this country, and most certainly to the port of Halifax.
Now as to the reinstatement of our soldiers into civil life I have a very warm spot in my heart for these brave men. Much has been said of their patriotism and their sacrifices. Nothing can be too good for them, and if it rests upon my vote,
Mr. Speaker, they can have all they want. But I must say this it has come to a time where soldiers cannot live on compliments. You cannot stuff them any longer with compliments; it is a diet, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor I would exist very long upon. The soldier needs something substantial to subsist, on, and we are told that he is to be Settled on a farm. Nobody quarrels with land settlement. In America it always was the basic scheme for absorbing soldiers in civil life; how good the scheme may be it depends how it is worked out. It is not my desire to make premature criticism but in my opinion, this plan, as far as outlined by the Government, bristles with potential troubles and dangers for the man who has no practical land experience, and especially who has been dazzled by promises that he would be lent money and established on a ranch, or its eastern equivalent, a farm. I see great dangers ahead, in connection with the scheme, and great care should be exercised to prevent individuals disaster and to the country as well. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the first thing to do is to get behind a returned man's mind and find out what, under his own power he elects to do, and not to tow him into anything that will mean a failure. Failures we must prevent, and we must assure the returned men success. There are just as many discontented men on farms to-day as in any other business, and the farmer is the poorest remunerated lot, and since the armistice, the farmers were the first to suffer losses. I am of the opinion that the enthusiasm displayed at the Hun line, will not be of the same nature in pulling out stumps. It is well advisable that the returned soldier, before he is allowed to drift to civil life and to root for himself, should be dealt with with the greatest care in order to assure his success. So much for the man. Now let me consider the land. As far as I am informed speculatively held land is to be bought by the provinces with money lent by the Dominion, the buying to be done by the province-in plain words the provincial government is to handle the provincial speculator. He is the bone of. contention. I submit, Sir, that great care should be exercised in connection with this scheme. Speculators and land sharks have been praying the Lord for such an opportunity to be rid of their holdings. It is not my desire to say that the land the speculators own is all bad, but in our simple trust and innocence let us not go and pay for orchard land the price of mixed farming lands, otherwise the soldier settler and the country will get



stung. I do not impute impropriety to any government or its member, but speculator's influence is strong, and they know it. In my humble estimation the Government has no right to delegate the buying of lands for returned soldiers to anybody; in so doing it is taking a chance which it has no business to take involving expenditure of Canada's money and the future of Canada's fighting men. Canada at this juncture has no money to fritter away on half-baked schemes, and it is well to look sharply to a possible land speculator's long deferred clean up. Let the Government examine into this just as quickly as the Minister of the Interior would make a Franchise Act.
This brings me to that subject which is contained in the Address. The War-time Elections Act was an Act born of desperation and it served the moist reprehensible purposes. It disfranchised all those citizens who had been teased, coaxed and towed into this country under the solemn guarantees of rights and liberty. It has been a base deception and despicable persecution of foreign settlers, and a direct violation of the State's promise, and it should be wiped off the statute-book, for it is a shame that it should'remain one minute longer. The new proposed franchise mentions the admission of women as members of Parliament. My views on the matter are well known and are recorded in last session's Hansard. I may say that I am not a " rapid change artist," and I see no reason to change my mind and principles. Nevertheless I say this, if the proposed new Franchise Act is to create another hand-picked electorate to rob another election, that, Sir, will demonstrate beyond controversy to my mind, one thing, and that is if the word " hypocrite " should be lost to the English tongue, the word " Unionist " would stand in its place.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be judged not by the prowess of our fighting men, but by the sacredness of our pledged words.
Now, as to reconstruction. My utterances on this subject, Mr. Speaker, may be a shock to my hon. friends the high priests of protection. Tariff reform is a part of reconstruction. The member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) who spoke this afternoon, said that when you speak of tariffs you are walking on sacred ground.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Holy ground.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: that one is inclined to wonder if the mil-lenium has arrived over night, or whether Sir Joseph Flavelle is still the cock of the walk, and with him we could all sing the following song:
Is there a profiteer so dead Who never to himself hath said;
"This is my own, my native land."
I've got this country by the hair In what they eat and what they wear,
I'm glad' the boys are over there Upon a foreign strand ;
And so I'll bleed this country white,
They're suckers all, and they will bite,
I'll help myself while others fight;
I'll own my native land.
The price of living so complex It Wen master minds doth vex,
So soak the plebians in the nex Before they understand.
And then when home the hoys are come I'll wave the flag and beat the drum,
And if they're good I'll give them some Of this -dear fertile land.
I do not care a rusty pin,
So' long as I can save my skin,
Preserve my well-clad self.
Why should I care, alas, alack,
While shysters shyst and slackers slack,
If I can make more pelf?
Why should I care who pays the price And gets their heads .packed up in ice,
As long as I can smile?
I hardly care who wins the war,
As long as I can make some more Additions to my pile.
I do not care a tinker's cuss Who goes and cleanses up the muss,
And loses all most dear.
I shall be, if I riches get,
A knight, or p'r'aps a baronet,,
Cos' I'm a profiteer.
And then when I am gone and dead,
Upon my tombstone shall he said:
"He helped I himself while others bled,
For this his native land."
I would like to refer briefly to these wholesale visits of our Cabinet ministers overseas. There are two aspects from which these visits of Dominion politicians and ministers of the Crown to London may be viewed. The first is that they go to give advice on Imperial matters. This is the usual interpretation of Imperial Conferences, and in so far as this is their function they form a fitting superstructure to the organization of our splendid Empire. Well and good. I do not want to reproach Sir Robert Borden for being overseas at the present moment, but I do object to so many ministers going across when there was no need for it. But there is the second aspect. Our Dominion politicians may go to London for the purpose of giving advice and conclude simply by receiving it. Instead of exerting the influence of the Dominion upon 
Imperial matters, the influence of Downing street may be exerted upon the affairs of the Dominion. Unless our Canadian politicians are possessed of a hardy, indigenous national culture, those perennial peregrinations to the Imperial fount are. likely to exert a centralizing effect upon their policies not entirely in keeping with the feelings of the people generally, who have not the advantage of yearly pilgrimages to the shrine at Westminster. A more steady policy can be developed only on Canadian soil.
My hon. friend, the Acting Prime Minister, has said that an indictment before an impartial tribunal of the guilty, the wholesale murderer in this war, would.be a good lesson to prevent a future recurrence of war. I fully concur in that, and I hope that the breeze will carry the utterance of the Acting Prime Minister to the ear of Sir Robert Borden. If the Kaiser, the guilty, the wholesale murderer, cannot be punished, or if they do not punish him over there while the conference is going on or after it has concluded its labours, I would like to suggest that Sir Robert Borden *and his honourable colleagues should get the Kaiser away from the castle in which he lives in such splendour, bring him to Canada and compel him to live on an average Canadian pension.
I know that the problems that confront us are very serious, but I do not like to hear the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) say that mistakes have been made and that more will be made. That reminds me of a story. In the antebellum days a well-known family physician in a southern city had for a coachman an old darkey who by reason of his long service with the doctor was considered by the community as an authority on matters pertaining to health. One day this darkey was accosted by a passer-by, who asked him "who has died in the next block?" The old darkey straightened up, gazed intently in the direction indicated and breaking into a broad smile replied "I do not know, sir, he is none of our killing." I understand, of course, that mistakes will occur, but we should try to avoid mistakes.
I cannot resume my seat without making an appeal to the Press of this country. As an aid to civilization and human fraternity, there is no greater force existing in the world than the Press, if its best powers are employed for the noblest purposes. The Press ought to resemble a mighty ship which with brave, true men at the helm moves over a straight course, clearing the waters of darkness and error and making direct for the highest shores of peace and

promise. But it must be a ship indeed, grandly built, nobly manned, and steadily steered; not a crazy, water-logged vessel, creaking with the thud of every wave, or bobbing backwards and forwards uncertainly in a gale. The Press is a great educational force. In its hands is the social moulding of a people and the dignity of a nation as represented before other nations. There could hardly be a nobler work; there can never be a higher responsibility.
My hon. friend who seconded he Address said that an antagonism existed between the two great races in this country. For my part, I should like to see all antagonisms submerged. Providence has put us here side by side, and in that relation we must live whether we like it or not. We all'have faults, but let us be men and say "The faults of our brothers we will write on the sand, and their virtues on the tablets of love and memory."


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, rising for the first time seriously to address this House, I ask the kind consideration which any man placed in this embarras'sing position needs, and which I feel will be gladly accorded by every hon. member. I wish first of all to pay my humble respects to the late leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Though differing with him on many matters of principle, as most of us did on this side of the House, we recognized in him a great Canadian, and a great man. He had passed some forty or fifty years on the political stage of Canada, sometimes tasting the sweets of office and at other times the bitterness of defeat, but on every occasion he played the part of a great Canadian. We were proud of the way he represented us on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, and at the coronation of King Edward VII. Now, in the fulness of time, he has passed to the peaceful bosom of eternity, honoured by peasant and king, and we mourn his loss. He was unique in the sense that he belonged to a departed school of statesmen. He was a scholar, gentleman, and statesman, and as the poet says, lived-
.... to clutch the golden keys,
To mould a mighty state's decrees,
And shape the whisper of the throne.
I wish also to congratulate the hon. member who is at present leading the Opposition (Mr. D. D. McKenzie). Whether he occupies that position for a long or a short time, on him has been conferred a great honour, and ^ can only hope that so long as he leads his party in this House he will
be worthy of the great leaders of the past and build for himself a monument worthy of the honour which has been conferred upon him.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, we must all be impressed with the changed conditions under which we meet this year. A year ago our great Russian ally had ceased to be a factor in the war. Rumania had been forced to make peace, and the Germans reinforced by two million men on the western front had broken our lines and were fast marching to the channel ports and the. strategic positions commanding Paris. Those were indeed dark days for us, and-,we remembdr only too well the sadness with which we used to scan the bulletins and read that fateful message of Haig's to his men to stand and "die facing the foe. Then, as if by Providence, in the early days of July things began to brighten. Peace loomed up on the horizon, and by November 11th had wrapped the whole world in his glory. To-day.there are sitting in the beautiful palace of Versailles representatives of all the great nations of the world, in an endeavour to establish a tribunal which will forever do away with-war.
I have also been impressed with the change in the attitude of hon. members of this House from a year ago. Then the hon. member for Russell (Mr. - Murphy) rose from his seat and with all the eloquence which he possesses said to certain members on this side of the House, if not in so many words, at least in effect, "Depart from us ye workers of iniquity. We need you not." I leave it to the House if I am not right when I say that on that particular occasion it was the ambition of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
Then, this session, we have had the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), arising in his place, and with all the prestige of his position, telling them that the banquet is prepared, that the light is in the window leading them to the fireside where they can all sing,' " Home Sweet Home." Truly, that is a marvelous picture. I know not whether it was the intention of hon. members on that side of the House to seek some political leader to lead them out of the political wilderness, or whether the hon. member for Russell wished to exercise his ability in playing the part of Mark Antony and to make a funeral ovation over the hon. member for Durham. But I believe it will all be in vain. I believe the hon. members who heeded the Scriptural injunction, "Come

ye out from among them," feel that their duty to their country is not yet performed and will not cease until that task is completed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say something in reference to a statement by the last speaker (Mr. Fournier), a statement which was made also by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), and that is that the Premier of this country has no right to be sitting at the Peace Conference at Versailles. I want to say, Sir, as one who got pretty close to the Huns on several occasions on the battlefield, that I think I can speak for others when I say that we consider the place of the Prime Minister of this country to-day is in helping to settle the great questions in Europe, and we think he should stay there and attend to that duty until it is accomplished. I can readily understand that the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), who carries the terrible burden of the country's finance on his shoulders, may well wish to have the Premier back; but I think the affairs of this country can be carried on successfully during the Premier's absence. In this connection I must make a passing reference to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). He told us with great emphasis, that the War-time Elections Act was a blot upon the fair name of Canada. Well, I hope to have the privilege, before this session closes, of voting to keep the German and the Austrian from ever again having a voice in the selection of members of this Parliament. We did not go and fight them on the battlefield-60,000 boys of Canada did not lay down their lives on the sunny fields of France-that there might be handed back to the Austrians and Germans power to control the affairs of this country and I cannot see why in the name of reason there is anything unfair in depriving our alien enemies of any such power. I couple with this the "hope that I may have the privilege of voting for the disfranchisement forever of all the slackers and deserters in this country. I believe that a man who refuses to fight for his country should have no part in the direction of its public affairs. I hope the Government will have the courage to bring in a Bill to disfranchise such people for the rest of their lives.
Now, I desire to refer for a moment or two to a few things spoken of by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I quite agree with him that this country is heavily in debt. Two billions is truly a [DOT]colossal debt for a population of eight millions of people. I also agree with the state-
,
ment made in this House that when a nation, as when an individual, is in debt, there are just two things to be done-produce more and save more. But I would like to draw attention to something which previous speakers seem to have passed by, and that is that we are in an entirely different position from any of the European countries. Take France, for example, every inch of her land is under cultivation, and her population overflows. The same is true of Great Britain, of Belgium and of other countries of Europe. But in Canada we have a country capable of supporting hundreds of millions, and up to the present time we have a population of only eight millions. But those eight millions of people last year had on deposit in the chartered banks and savings banks something like two billions of dollars, a sum about equal to our national debt. Last year we had field crops worth 81,367,000,000; live stock worth 82,000,000,000; fisheries, $52,000,000; dairy products, $93,000,000; minerals, $189,-000,000.,-Yet our natural * resources are almost untouched. We have roughly speaking one thousand four hundred million acres of land, of which practically one-third can be cultivated. But of this cultivable land less than twelve per cent is under cultivation at the present time. If twelve per cent of our arable land can produce wealth in the quantities I have just indicated, what may we not hope for the future, especially-and this is a very important part of it-when, as I strongly believe, we are to have population coming into this country by the million? The advertising that Canada has got in this war through the work of our army, and what the people over there think the extravagant way we paid them, is going to attract to our shores untold millions of people. I do not believe I am wrong in saying that within the next fifteen years the population of Canada will double. If that population is wisely directed towards the development of our natural resources, I think that Canada can get through this war and the liability connected with it better than any other nation on earth, and I believe we shall. What we must do is to produce more, not only from our soil, but in our factories, and in every industry of the country. We must find some place, if possible, to market our products. In this connection I think we should congratulate the Government on the step they have taken in giving to the countries of Europe a line of credit. I wish they could double or treble it, and thus bring to this country orders to keep every factory

and machine shop going, and thus solve the labour problem to a very great extent.
Along with this we have-and it is a very big problem-the repatriation of the soldiers. Some people object to it being called a problem. I think it is one of the greatest problems we have. I would like to call the attention of the authorities to the fact that the problem is partly, and mainly, psychological. That remark is not original with me. It has been made by many, particularly by Col. Molloy whose reasoning is absolutely good and sound and who points out that until this country gets into the way of considering the problem inx that light and of replacing what it has taken out of a man it cannot expect him to start off from where he was before. For three or four years we have-trained a man for one thing and that was to destroy the enemy. We have never allowed him to think for himself. We told him when he should rise, when he should go to bed, how he should dress, what he should eat, and so on and for four years we have treated him in such a way as to have driven out of him practically every ounce of originality. Then he comes back and we immediately expect him to start off from where he was when we took him four years ago. To my mind, Sir, that is, in many cases,' impossible. We have to restore the initiative in that boy, the desire for self-preservation, for creating a home, for creating an estate of his own and along that line I think there should be some serious thinking done.
I want to say a few words with regard to the treatment of the returned soldier. The first thing that I want to touch on is the question of pensions. Wa have a scale of pensions which, I was going to-say, is disgraceful. Probably that is not too strong a word. You draft a boy into the army, or he volunteers for active service, he goes over to France, he comes back with both of his eyes blown out, or he has lost both limbs or perhaps both arms and legs and we have fifty or sixty of those cases in Canada. Is it creditable to the country that we give him $600 a year? That is not the price of one meal per day in a first class hotel in Canada. Canada cannot afford to treat her soldiers in that way. They have earned better, they should get better and I believe the people of Canada want them to get better. Then, too, there are many things connected with them that are not right. Canada has taken the stand that she will not stand by the examination of her own medical officers when soldiers enlisted. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is grossly unfair and there are those to-day
who have volunteered and given their services for Canada who are going around begging for a living. I have taken cases along that line before the Pension Board and they say that they can do nothing under the regulations. I only mention these things to bring them to the attention of the House, feeling that this is all that is required to have them remedied, but, I think they should be remedied.
Then, I must touch upon the matter of promotion and of appointment for returned soldiers. I agree with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) that they deserve a little better than the average person. Are they getting it? I do not think they are. I have not been able yet to get the figures from the Civil Service Commission, but if what I have heard is true the soldier is not getting very much sympathy there. I would like to say too, Mr. Speaker, that as far as the Militia Department is concerned, I do not think the returned men are getting what they ought to get. I would like to see the different positions in the military centres of this country filled by returned men instead of those men who have never been out of Canada. I do not believe, excepting a few men who have special knowledge and fitness, that the men who have been performing these duties are as good or as capable as the men who could be got from amongst those who served in France. As far as the medical fraternity are concerned, it does appear to me that those who got nearest the Hun in France are kept farthest from places of emolument when they return to Canada. It would appear almost as though their service was like the blood on the lintel and door posts of the Israelites: a sign by which they were to be passed over.
I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend to the condition of the tubercular patients who have returned to this country. I think it is a great mistake to put these patients in civilian institutions. These institutions have been overcrowded for years. We medical men could not get room for our own patients. Now, the military authorities come along, and, instead of looking after the military patients, as it is their duty to do, and as I believe they will have to do, they simply pass them on to the provincial authorities, pay them a certain price and ask them to look after them. I have visited many of these institutions from the Atlantic to the Pacific and I have not yet seen one of them where I considered these men were under the very best, or even fairly good, conditions. I think it is

the duty absolutely of the Dominion Government to shoulder the responsibility of organizing proper institutions for taking care of those patients.
I would like to mention one or two things in the speech from the Throne that met with my very hearty approval. One is the announcement of the Government's policy with regard to public roads. I do not know of anything that will so add to the comfort and convenience of the people in the north country especially as the building of real good roads. It is hard to realize what life means to some of these men. They, are away in the back woods, they get a mail once a week, they have no neighbours, they are there week in and week out trying to hew homes out of the backwoods, and if we wish them to stay there and to build up this country we must make things pleasant and convenient for them. I do not know of anything that will do more in that direction than the building of good roads, giving them a good mail service and possibly a rural telephone. I wish that the Government could see its way clear to give twice the amount of money to the different provinces in order that these ends might be accomplished.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there legislation promised to create a Department of Public Health. I do not think the Government, late as it is, could have found a more appropriate time than the present in which to introduce that Bill. As I have already stated, I believe you are going to have millions of people coming to this country before long, and they will bring with them many of the diseases of Europe. Those people will have to be very carefully scrutinized and examined, and therein lies great work for the new Department of Public Health. Then there is our infant mortality to be considered. More children have died from preventable causes during the last four years than there were casualties resulting from the war. Again there is the great tubercular problem, the great white plague, that scourge that is passing through this country claiming its victims by the thousands and tens of thousands. These are problems worthy of the consideration of the best minds and the best men that can be got for that position. I agree with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) that in order to get the best results, the best medical minds that can be goFin Canada must be placed in charge. I hope the Government will do that; it is not a department that can be run by laymen and run successfully. Furthermore, we have our

great international waterways. We know how they are contaminated from time to time, and the plagues of typhoid and other diseases that spring from polluted sources of water supply. These are problems, affecting the health of the citizens of Canada, which the Department of Public Health, administered by the very best minds available, must deal with.
With respect to the admission of women to this House, it does seem to me that if the enormous amount of labour and suffering our women have gone through during the last four years, has fitted them for anything, it has certainly fitted them for admission to the legislative halls of the country.
In conclusion, I cordially agree with what my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) has said with respect to the real heroes of the great war and I hope that the people of this country will ever keep those heroes in mind, because forgetfulness is so easy once a service has been rendered.
The man who has lived for three or four vears in the trenches in France and Flanders is entitled to our best consideration. He has gone over the top time after time into the very mouth of hell, and sixty thousand of them have laid down their lives on those blood-soaked fields. This country should remember with all reverence those gallant boys who saved the honour of this country, and who helped to maintain intact the integrity of the Rritish Empire, and the civilization of the world.
On motion of Mr. Pedlow the Debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell, the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, March 4, 1919.