Sir George Perley and General Turner, as the men from Quebec who are reall} running this war.
If we had had in Quebec the skeleton of -a military organization and had twenty or thirty regiments with which to start the work of recruiting, the result would have been different. But the recruiting was altogether mismanaged from the start. The hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) came down several times, but he did not seem to be able to get in touch with the proper parties to undertake the work, and those who succeeded him seem to have thrown up the job altogether, because I see in the Gazette that for a week there has not been a single recruit in Montreal. The Government itself is to blame, and until they adopt better methods it is no use trying to place the blame on the shoulders of the people of Quebec. The people will not accept that responsibility, and will protest against it on the first opportunity that comes. The people of Quebec have as much interest in this war as any one, because they would be the first victims if the Huns ever got across. It would be up the St. Lawrence that the invaders would come, and none of their boats could ever reach Ontario. But we in Quebec would get it full. So the province of Quebec is willing to do its share, and if there has been any apparent shortage in recruiting, if all the circumstances are taken into consideration, it is wholly due to the faulty methods which have been followed.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Mr. Speaker, I should not want a better setting for the few remarks I* have to address to the House to-day than the incidents that have taken place. We have heard in the opening proceedings here to-day the announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden) to the House and country that he is prepared to accept the offer of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for joint action for regulation of the conduct and business of this House. When he said that, I think he went a long way to prove what I intend to argue here to-day, that if it is good for both parties in this House to join together for the conduct of the business of the House, then the time has come for both parties and all parties and all citizens of this country to join hand to hand for the successful accomplishment of this war. Then if I wanted another setting for what I have to say to-day, would it not be found in the speech of the hon. member for Bona-fMr. March.]
venture (Mr. Marcil) just delivered to the House? I do not agree with all he says. I regret much of what he has said here to-day, because it went to show that there was a most regrettable divergence of opinion between the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec in regard to the conduct of the war, and also to show that in connection with the election now under way in the county of Dorchester there is a great divergence of feeling, that there is almost, I shall not say hostility of race, but a strong feeling based more ^ or less on race in connection with this war ; and that should not be. Something ought to be done to bring about absolute unity in this country for the winning of this war. The little that I have to say will be in this direction. I am not going to appeal to provincial views or to race views; or to dwell on divisions that may exist between our people; but I am trying to find out if there is' not at this stage of the war-and now it is more serious than ever-an opportunity of in some way uniting the country and doing away with all this discussion about differences between provinces and between races. Why should we not unite as they have united in every other country in the world for the successful accomplishment of the war? They have absolute unity to-day in France for the conduct of the war. There is no party . spirit there. They have got together in England. They have got together in Russia. They have got together in the other countries, and they are all united for the war. Yet here we have to-day in Canada to listen to the speech-and I am not condemning the speech, bear in mind-made by the hon. member for Bonaventure. We have listened to this discussion to-day and have read of the other discussion that is going on in the county of Dorchester, and, in view of these discussions and of utterances of the press of the country to-day, I cannot see how we can have a successful participation by Canada in this war while these dissensions, or what appear to be dissensions, exist.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
I think I will be able to give some reasons why there should be
co-operation, but first I want to point out that the war situation to-day is more serious than it has ever been. Within a few weeks, there will probably be the greatest active line of battle ever known in history. All the battles of the past, all other struggles, will be mere ant-hill contests compared with what is now impending in Europe. The liberties of the world, of Canada, and the safety of our homes and families are all concerned in this enormous struggle, and if the issue is so stupendous, and if Canada is to do her part, as I believe she will do her part, we have to find a way, we ought to find a way, of uniting the country on the conduct of this war. We ought to have an absolutely united Government, a united nation, with a united people be' hind them for the accomplishment of the war. We should not be a divided people. We should not have the discussions we have had, and are having now. These discussions divert and use up the energy of the people that should be directed to winning the war. Mistakes have been made. I could pass reflections on the province of Quebec; I could pass reflections on other provinces, upon my own province. There may have bean derelictions iin certain directions, but these are not things to' talk about in the face of this great 'Struggle and in the face of the Canadian people who -are anxious to see this war brought to a successful conclusion. I thiink this House will learn when we go to the 'Country, and the country has an opportunity to express its opinion, that the people of Canada, irrespective of party, want to see national unity in the shape of a national Government for the successsful prosecution of the war. It is not a difficult thing to bring about. They have accomplished it in England where they had two or three adjustments. Call it a coalition Government if you will. The word " Coalition " may be objectionable; I am willing to take the responlhibility of saying that-call it a coalition government, or a national government or a new party, if you will
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
I expected that the hon. gentleman would say that. I do not feel ashamed of saying that if it is necessary, if we cannot unite, we may have to fall back on a new party. Not the hon. gentleman, but the people, will be the judges as to that.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
How can this be done? If we can unite for the conduct of the busi-9i
ness of this House, as has been shown here on many occasions, does not the safety of the nation and the welfare of the Empire demand a similar unity? When the conduct of business calls for union, both parties seem willing to unite. Every one of us are doing our utmost for the war, and by union you will force Liberals and Conservatives to do all they can for the attainment of the great end we have in view. Instead of making charges against each other, you will get them to work for the successful prosecution of the war. That means something. There would be no dissensions in this country over recruiting. There would be no dissensions as to the enforcement of the Militia Act. I believe that the day has come when about the first thing to do is to enforce the Militia Act. It may be that we shall have to come to conscription in this country, and I am not afraid to say that if the situation becomes any more critical and the liberties of the world become more endangered, I am ready for conscription. If we are to have conscription we ought to have behind us, supporting it, a united people, a united Parliament and a united Government. To my mind the situation is even more serious than I have indicated. The war has been going on now for over two and a half years, and victory is not yet in sight. The struggle may be extended, and may run into another year. We all hope that it will end this year, hut if so, and if the end is to. be successful, every effort will need to he consecrated to that end. There should not be a single voice raised from a partisan point of view.
Party politics are all right; they have been at the bottom of our constitutional system for many and many a year. But when a supreme struggle comes there has to be a different attitude in the matter, and instead of looking to the advantage of a party we should only take into consideration the success of the war, the greatest war the world ever saw. I am not going to criticise the Government in power to-day, but we have in office a Government that is a peacetime Government and the result of a peace election, and I am not quite prepared to say that because a Government is the outcome of a peace election that Government is the best possible Government for the conduct of a war. A war Cabinet has to be forged out of different material from that out of which a peace Government is formed. I do not say that there is better material in the other party; not for a moment do I
say that the material is better in the one party or the other. I believe that the best material for winning the war is to be found in both parties, and that a union of both parties in order to get a really strong war Cabinet is the only way in which Canada oan successfully play her part in the conduct of this war-
I come to another phase of the matter. I cannot come to this House and say that the House can advise or tell the Government what to do. The only thing that I can suggest, or that anybody in the country can suggest, is that the Prime Minister might see his way to approach the Opposition to the end that there may be union of the two parties and of all classes in this country for the successful prosecution of the war. It is the Prime Minister's absolute right to do this. We in this House cannot tell him what to do; nobody oan tell him. The initiative rests absolutely with him. He may think, as he has a right to think, that he should riot intervene in this matter. Then there is left the only other thing, the indirect drive of public opinion. And he does not need to respect that or obey it, but it might have some influence upon him. All that I am trying to urge upon him, or rather upon the House and the country, is that instead of following the course we have followed, resulting more or less in dissension and disagreement, and also in a manifestation of disloyalty, we ought to try at this stage of the proceedings to follow the example of other countries and have a united party, a united people, and a united Parliament to prosecute the war and to stop the bickering that we have seen in the press and that, I fear, we shall see hereafter to a greater extent-
The Prime Minister does not need to listen to any suggestion of this kind, but if he will listen he will hear something in the country in the direction of what I am stating here to-day. First of all, I want to . speak for my own city of Toronto; I want to speak for the province of Ontario, and I believe I am voicing the views of the people of Toronto and of Ontario, when I say that they are in favour of uniting and solidifying the country for the winning of this war, irrespective of party views or party fortunes. They want to see the people of Canada united. In this connection I want to call the attention of the House to the bon entente banquet given in the city of Toronto and attended by representative citizens of Quebec and Ontario. The big business men and the bankers were there, and
I never saw such a representative meeting in Toronto. If I gathered anything from that meeting it was that the people of Toronto, as represented by their leading citizens, were in favour of joining together the people of Ontario and the people of Quebec, French-speaking and English-speaking, in order to win the war. That is the sentiment of the people of Ontario, and I believe it is the sentiment of the people everywhere. I think it is the sentiment of the great West, and I have had opportunities, directly and indirectly, of ascertaining what the people of the West are thinking upon this question. My summing up of it is that the people of the West are among the most loyal in all Canada and are prepared to make the greatest sacrifices in order to bring about the successful conclusion of this war. They have sent to the front their full quota of soldiers and are prepared to send others. I met farmers in the West within the last two or three weeks who, speaking on behalf of themselves and of their fellow-farmers, said: The Government can have every bushel of wheat that is left in our barns-and they have immense stores yet-if they say they want it for the winning of the war, they can have it, take it at their own price and we will never object. That is the feeling of the West. I ' believe that the same feeling animates the whole of the people of Canada. There was a meeting held here the other night, a meeting of the Canadian Club of Ottawa. I was not able to attend, but from what I gathered of that meeting I believe that the members of that club are in favour of a Canadian policy and a united Canada in regard to this war. I know that is the feeling wihioh has been expressed by some of the Canadian Clubs in the West, and that is the feeling which is being expressed all over. It was expressed yesterday, I believe, by the Canadian Club of Winnipeg. We may have to wait a time until they have had the opportunity of expressing their opinions, but the feeling of the people of Canada is for union and the discouragement of any kind of dissension until the war is . won. -
If the Prime Minister saw fit to make a bid in the direction which I have suggested-and it is only a suggestion-what should we get? First of all we should get a war cabinet, and that is the essential thing in this matter. You want a war cabinet and you want men in that cabinet who will best represent the sentiment of the people. I do not think that a cabinet, selected in time of peace, is the best
possible cabinet for the conduct of a war. If you had a war cabinet you would get a good start. The cabinet to-day may represent the people of the country, but it is to be remembered that it is six years since we had an election and the greatest political force that Canada ever saw has been developed and developed in the Canadian West within the last five years. I have paid some attention in my own way to what has been going on in the West and I have found out what that force is, The greatest democratic force in Canada today is located in the Canadian West. They are men of progressive ideas, they have new ideas in regard to economic questions, they have strong ideas in regard to this war, and they constitute a powerful political element in this country which is bound to dominate the country in the next election and say how it is to be governed. That element should have a voice in the national Government which, I hope, will be created forthwith. The support of that great and new democratic and modern element which has developed in the West would be the greatest backing that the Prime Minister could have in the successful carrying on of the war. The new war cabinet, which I hope we will have, will also find a place for a representative of labour in this country. What is the strength of the new war cabinet in Britain to-day? It is that it is headed by Lloyd George, who has the confidence of the labour men of the Mother Country and who has in his war cabinet the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, one of the ablest representatives of labour in the British Islands. The British Parliament to-day has in it not two or three labour representatives, but it has a great number-I forget whether it is forty or fifty. For the first time labpur there has a strong and absolute fores in the conduct of the war; and labour in Canada, under the proposal I suggest, would be represented in this new cabinet, and the working men, who are at times questioning what has been suggested to them in connection with the conduct of the war, would come in and would be a strong influence in aiding the Government. Would it not be a good thing if in some way we could find a way of uniting our people in accomplishing the object for which we are striving in this war? If we could have labour represented in the war cabinet, if we could have the farming element represented -Hand the great producing element to-day is the farming element, and they are all loyal
and devoted to the cause-it would be a good thing because such a readjustment would bring about that union Which is so necessary to success.
The farmers and working men of this country want to know something about two things. A good mission has been undertaken by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) with a view of bringing about the mobilization of the man power of the country. 1 am glad to know that satisfactory progress has been made
in that direction. But not only have we to mobilize the man power, we have to mobilize the industrial power and the accumulated profits if we are to succeed in this war;
and the only proper way to mobilize the man power of this country and its resources, for the successful prosecution of the war, is to reconstruct the Cabinet in such a way that it will be representative of the farmers of this country and of labour. If we had a National Government such as I have described, we should have all the support for the war that we now have, and we should have a more definite declaration from the farmers and from organized labour as to where they stand with regard to the war. The whole resources of our country would be mobilized.
You cannot mobilize labour only. You have also to mobilize the profits that have been made in this country and devote them to the war. So far the talk has been largely of the mobilization of men, but I want to see a mobilization of all the resources of the country, as well as of our man power, in order that they may be devoted to success in this .struggle.
Not only have we before us his great task of winning the war, and it is still ahead of us, but there is another very serious task to be accomplished, and that is the regeneration and reconstruction of our country after the war. How can we build up this country and find employment for all our people after the war unless we have some kind of co-operation between the two parties to that end? I say that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party in this country, as we know them to-day, is in a position to reconstruct this country after the war unless the two parties co-operate. That may be a rather strong statement to make, but when you see how stupendous the task is, and what are the things that have to be done, and how easy it is to create dissension over these things if dissensions
are encouraged by party appeals, you can also see how easy it would be to reconstruct the country if there was unity between all parties, and a united Parliament, as we ought to have. And the first thing in the work oi reconstruction in this country is what? Great reforms in regard to the finances of our country. As I have said before in this House-and the war has fully justified what I have said-we have got to have in this country a national currency instead of a banking currency, and we have to have a great system of re-discounting in connection with our finances.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
W. F. MACLEAN: We have got to have farm loans, based on the credit of the country, in order that our farmers may get cheap money, on good security, for the development of our country and for the raising of live stock and the grain crops of the West. To-day the farmers are paying .too high a rate of interest, and they are living alongside of a people who have all the advantages of which I have spoken in regard to financial reforms. We have even got to have, in addition to our larger banks with their branches-and I had the pleasure of speaking on this subject to a western audience the other day-a system of small banks, based largely on the same principles as those of the United States. When the American farmer comes to Canada, with all his experience of what they are doing for the farmers there in the way of small banks as well as large, cheap farm loans, which they have there, and a system of rediscounting which can be carried right to the farmer, and which gives him a low interest on mortgages and banking accommodation on live stock for long periods at low interest, that American farmer is going to draw a line of discrimination as between the United States and Canada. We must have progressive legislation in connection with the regeneration of this country after the war.' They already have it in the United States, where it was worked out by that same progressive democratic element that we have in Canada to-day. The victory of President Wilson was not the result of the votes of the people in the East; they voted against him. But for the first time in the history of America-and I want to tell the House of Commons what they are up against-the majority of the voters in the United States happened to be located in the West, and it is from the West that all the progressive legislation came that they now have in the United States. To-day there is an equally
strong demand from Western Canada for the isiame kind of legislation here, and that will form part of the work of regeneration of Canada after the war. I can see no way of doing this unless we get both parties together and have a real national policy for the successful accomplishment of the war, and for the regeneration of the country when peace is re-established. If anybody thinks that one party can administer the country and carry on the work of regeneration and do it successfully without asking the assistance of the other party, in my opinion he will be disappointed. But if in some way the two parties can get together and get the movement started, it would quickly gather impetus and would he carried forward successfully, and the war would be, won in a way that none of us could expect.
While I am speaking only for myself, somehow I think I am reflecting the opinion of the great bulk of the people of this country, and if the people of this country cannot be heard in Parliament through the action of the parties in Parliament, and especially through the action of the Government, the people may take the matter in their own hands, as was suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the other day. Perhaps the best thing would be to have the free wind of a general election blow over the country and the people find out just where they are in regard to the war. But to my mind there is no necessity for that. This is not the time for an election appeal; this is not the time for party discussions; this is not the time for such a contest -as is now going on in Dorchester, though I blame neither party for that contest. This is a time when all * parties should get together and form a war administration, so that we may have unity, and get the best ability in the country devoted to the war.
What would be the result? Is there any better news that we could send forth to the world to-morrow, in view of the present severity of the war and its uncertainty, than this: that all Canada was united; that both political parties were united for the successful accomplishment of this war. That would have a disciplinary effect on Germany which would be surprising. It would cheer the people in the old land, and put heart and hope, though they are full of heart and hope yet,'"into our boys- in the trenches, and aid them in doing their best to win. Would not that be a 5 p.m. great thing for Canada to give to the world to-morrow? Would it not be a clear intimation to our neigh-
hours to the south of us of what Canada really thinks of this war and of the issues [DOT] at stake?
And the issues at stake, are they not the liberties and the freedom of the world? Would not Canada disappear from the map if Germany should succeed in her attack now on the liberties of the world, and would there not be a great German influx from the United States? But the thing to let the Huns know, and to let the Mother Country know, and our boys at the front, is that all Canada is united now, irrespective of party, for the successful accomplishment of the war.
I have to repeat it, come back to it, and yet it is what is forced on me to say to-day. and I have said it in as plain a way as I can say it, thinking that 'in some way I am reflecting the views of .my fellow-countrymen from one ocean to the cither. They want to win this war; they want the strongest and best .meal in the Cabinet for the conduct of the war, and they want all the energies we have to be dewoted to the wax. We have not yet begun to give what we ought to give, 'and we must give more. Is it not a fact that .at this moment we are hardly keeping up the strength of our fighting force? I have met officer after officer who is practically stalled in his efforts to enlist the full strength for his regiment, and regiment 'after regiment throughout the country is stalled because it cannot recruit up to full Strength. The progress is slow; il is hard to get the men, and there are not enough of us out preaching to the men of this country that they must go to the front. I do not agree with the horn, member for . Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that the man who produces on the farm or the man who works in the munition factory is the equal of the man who is in the firing line. The man in the firing line is the man of all men in this country, 'and we have to go* out and get fighting men, because the regiments are not filled up, and their officers are discouraged on that laocoumt. I trace the cause of that largely to the political dissension in this country and to the fact that even yet, in the third year of the war, we have not begun to realize what war means. How many of us know what the English prayer book means until we read it now in the light of this war? The prayer book of the Church of England from tone end to the other is a repetition of thanks to God, and also of prayers to God to save the nation from its enemies, and one understands what that means in the British Navy and in the British Army. We have
been a peace-loving people, knowing little about war; but now we are 'beginning to see what war is and wlbait it means for us and for our country, and if we are to' keep a hundred thousand men in the fighting line and provide for the wastages and the reserves, we must change our system or we are not going to accomplish what we set out to accomplish in taking our proper share in this war. When I have said that I have said practically all that I have to say to the House; but in saying it, I think I speak for the people of Canada, and although no duty can be forced upon anyone in regard to the matter, it is incumbent upon this Government and upon the members of this Parliament not to think about party dissensions, but to thank bow they can get together and strengthen their resources for the winning of the war. The mO'St discreditable thing that could happen to this country or to the Empire or to civilization would be that this war should not prove to be a success in putting down for all time the abominable doctrine that the Huns are preaching to-day, that they are the elect of God to rule and govern mankind, and that a military system made up of land-holders and men devoted to the business of soldiering must rule and govern the world. Germany has that in view to-day, as well as the destruction of the liberty, not only of the British and of all the other European peoples, but of America and especially of Canada, and our Canadian people would suffer terribly for the next twenty or thirty years if in any way Germany succeeded in carrying out her nefarious designs. If any one tells me that we are on the eve of a great victory, I say that I hope that is the case, but the evidence is not in sight. There is more fighting to be done, more enlisting required; more money must be spent, more munitions must be made, and, most of all, immense sacrifices must be made. There is no happy day for any of us in this House or in this country for the rest of our -lives. The losses are so extensive up to the present time, and so many more have to come, that we are now a sobered people by reason of this war, and we are all, men, women and children, beginning to realize what sacrifices have to be made. Even our youngest children will grow up in the atmosphere of this great war, and will understand what it means for families, for homes, for the nation, for liberty and for the right to live. We are all in that sober attitude now; we know what war means in the prayer book and we know what we ought to do. There
is only one thing to do, and that is to cease this partisan struggle in connection with the war, and to hold out the hand of fellowship of one iparty to the other and join together, consecrating our lives and energies to winning the war. We are not doing that, and we shall not 'be able to do it as we are trying to do it now. When the members go back to their constituencies at the adjournment of Parliament, I want them to visit the homes of the men who are making the sacrifices. In my constituency in one church a list was read out of over a hundred men who had been killed in the war, and I can go from church to church and find lists of a hundred or a hundred and twenty or a hundred and fifty men who have gone to the front, and many of them killed. Crippled men are beginning to appear in the streets of Canada, and if you go into a street car, you will meet men who have lost a leg or an arm; you will see everywhere the evidences of the atrocity of this war in its inception and what it is going to be hereafter, and the settlement is not in sight. If that is the case, I appeal to the members of this House to forget party, to unite irrespective of party.
As this is a constitutional machine and works as a machine, a union of parties can be made only along political lines; it cannot be done by sentiment. Would the Conservative party or the liberal party be disgraced if they joined together on the conduct of this war? If they unite to work it out, they will be doing only their duty, and they will be voicing the views of their constituents and of the nation.
I could go into details concerning the records of the different parties and of the two races, but I do not wish to widen the breach; I rather prefer to try to heal it in some way. I wish to impress upon the House how necessary it is to consider the political union that can be accomplished here and that will assist in winning the war. Unless we get that union the war will last longer and cost more. Canada's record in this war will be judged largely by what our boys have done, but it will be judged also by what we have done here in this House. We have started well at this session, and since it is demonstrated that there can be a joining of hands in regard to the conduct of the business ,of this House in order to assist in the effective prosecution of the war, surely there can be a joining of hands and a union of hearts with regard to the main object-that of
winning the war-of all the parties, peoples and races who call themselves Canadians.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
pious Tory editors are anxious to 'have a national government. Mr. Speaker, a national government is overdue. It is not a revolution that will take place, but a revulsion of feeling, when the Liberal party will again he placed at the head of affairs. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will be able ito form, not a Nationalist Government, but a truly national government.
I agree that during war time the discussions in Parliament should be as harmonious as p'ossible, that there should be no party wrangling and that the Government measures should he given a fair hearing and generally the Cabinet should be given fair play. But, Sir, you are too good a parliamentarian not to admit that if during ordinary times, in peace times, criticism is healthy and necessary in order to secure a proper administration of the affairs of the country, in war time, when there is a huge expenditure going on, criticism is even more needed in the interests of the country and of the Treasury. If it had not been for the healthy criticism of His Majesty's loyal Opposition last year, do you believe that we should have to-day the Imperial Munitions Board? No, we should still be saddled with the old Shell Committee. En passant,' let me say that I congratulate the Imperial authorities upon having confided the war orders of Canada to the present Munitions Board. I believe that with Mr. Flavelle and Mr. Gordon at the head of the Imperial Munitions Board, the country need not be nervous; the affairs entrusted to that Board will be run in a businesslike way, and with honesty of purpose. Again, I say that even during war times a loyal Opposition should not abdicate its duties and functions.
The other day I listened to the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) when he was speaking about the probability of a general election. He told us that it would be sad indeed if we were to send the ballot boxes into the trenches. Would you believe it? Why his words are still ringing in my ears when, sitting in the old Commons chamber, the right hon. gentleman charged the leader of the Opposition and all those who questioned the propriety of sending the ballot boxes into the trenches, with returning officers passing over the graves and the crosses of our boys who had laid down their lives at the front, charged ns with disloyalty. I remember that his slogan-if it was not his, at least, it was that of the Minister
of Militia at the time-was: for each gun, one ballot. It was refreshing to listen to the Prime Minister the other day. Thanks to our criticism of that objectionable law, the right hon. gentleman realizes to-day that it is improper to give it effect. Sir, the Opposition should never Abdicate its function-in war time less than in any other time. Who did not hear, year after year, the criticisms levelled at the Roes rifle in this House. When war began, during, not the short session of 1914, but the session which followed, at the very opening of the House, I called the attention of the 'hon. Minister of Militia of that day to an item which had appeared in the Canadian Courier, a paper published in Toronto. In that item it was reported that one of the soldiers, a Canadian, writing to his father, had said that when our boys had left Shorncliffe, the first thing they had done was to discard the Ross rifle. I asked the minister whether the statement was true or not. He denied it. Later on, complaints and criticisms were made. Finally, in the month of May last year, if I mistake not, there appeared mysteriously, perhaps, in the Ottawa Citizen, the letter of General Alderson condemning the Ross rifle with which our boys had been equipped. Mr. Speaker, can you say that it was not the duty of the Opposition to find out whether or not the facts mentioned in the letters from our boys at the front concerning the national weapon of Canada were true -or not? When that letter was read in the House, my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) who never goes half way, stated that if the name of the civil servant responsible for the leak of the document became known he would take it upon himself to send the delinquent to the tower. After prorogation, my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) made several speeches throughout the country in one of which, speaking of the Ross rifle, he said: Of course we shall be taken to task for having equipped our soldiers with the Ross rifle. Defending the position of the Government in advance, he went on to say that they were bound by the contract entered into between Sir Charles Ross and the Laurier Government. Probably my hon. friend the Solicitor General knew at that time the contents of the report made by Sir Douglas Haig. What are the facts to-day? I do not state that Sir Charles Ross is right or that he is wrong; I say that if the Opposition had not fulfilled its true function of criticising the 'Government,
possibly our soldiers to-day would still be equipped with the old Ross Tide. It is due to our criticism that the hand of the Government was forced, and that we have the report of Sir Douglas Haig condemning the weapon with which our soldiers were equipped. It is all very well to speak of a union of hearts, of a national government; but no national government, no coalition government, would tolerate a defective rifle for our soldiers.
The Government are spending huge sums, of money, and in that respect their acts should be very seriously scrutinized. A speech was delivered not long ago by the Minister of Finance, in which he said:
If every citizen of Canada would save to the utmost of his power in these days of high world prices for our produce and enormous munitions expenditures at home, I believe that notwithstanding the huge increase in our national debt which the war will bring, the people of Canada would be stronger financially when the war is over than before it commenced.
Further on he said:-
I believe the people of Canada will rise to this as to all other occasions, and that the men at the front will not suffer for lack of shells so far as the industrial facilities of Canada are able to provide them. Let us economize. Let us save. Let us make our savings serve the purposes of the war. Let us make our dollars fight the Hun.
I agree with the Minister of Finance, but while he preaches economy I say that he does not practice it, and the example of economy should coime from the gentleman who holds the strings of the purse. I was shocked last year, Mr. Speaker, when, during the hours preceding prorogation, the Government brought forward a measure authorizing them to spend something like six million dollars on the purchase of the Quebec-Montmorency, Quebec-Saguenay and Lotbiniere-Megantie railways, and this at a time when two transcontinental railways were declared in so many words to be bankrupt, at a time when a railway commission of experts was being appointed to investigate the whole railway situation of Canada, at a time when every man, woman and child in this country was being urged to save and economize, not only on their own behalf, but to aid the Belgian Fund, the French Fund, the Serbian Fund, the Patriotic Fund and the Red Cross Fund. At that very moment, Sir, the Government were asking Parliament for authority to spend six million dollars in order to disentangle some promoters from mysterious railway difficulties below Quebec. That
policy was nothing less than scandalous, and I hope that the Government will think twice before they pay the amounts that are being asked for the purchase of those railways.
There are many problems apart from the war which are very important and require solution. From every part of Canada reforms are being urged.. I have here, for instance, a copy of the resolutions adopted the other day by the farmers of the West, a body representing sixty thousand affiliated farmers. In spite of the war, they think that some reforms are overdue. For instance, they ask for an amendment of the tariff laws by reducing the duty on goods imported from Great Britain to half the rates charged under the general tariff, and they urge further adjustments in the remaining tariff, such .as will insure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada within five years. They ask that the tariff he so amended as to give free agricultural implements, free farm machinery, free vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement and illuminating, fuel and lubricating oils. They urge all of these reforms, and it is not because w'e are at war that the Liberal party should not voice them. It is our duty to bring these questions to the attention of Parliament and the public.
This much having been said as to the duties of the Opposition during this war, let. me refer to the all-absorbing question -the question of the war-and the firm determination of the Canadian, people to win that war. First of all, let me tell you that I am a British subject and a Liberal. It is because I am a British subject and a Liberal in the British sense that I stand for the Allied cause in the present gigantic conflict. I resent any imputation to the contrary. I do not care-I may just as well say so frankly-to be labelled a loyalist. The. appellation "British" is good enough for me. As my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) stated the other evening, in the very excellent address which he delivered, loyalty is proven by deeds and not by word of mouth. Might I recall to this House the words of a famous woman who played a part during the French Revolution- Madame Roland. As she was brought to the guillotine at the Place Royale, she passed on her way the Statue of Liberty, and as she bowed reverently while passing before that statue, she exclaimed: "Oh liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!" I say to these ultra loyalists who are always parading their lip loyalty:
Oh loyalty, many crimes are committed in thy name! I ana a Liberal, and I say that since the beginning of the war the Liberal party has adhered to the pledge which was given by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier). Prior to August 4, 1914, that right hon. gentleman said:
I have often declared that if the Mother Country were ever in danger, or if danger even threatened, Canada would render assistance to the full extent of her power. In view of the critical nature of the situation, I have cancelled all my meetings. Pending such great questions there should be a truce to party strife.
There, the word "truce" was first uttered by my right hon. friend. The answer was a statement made at a ward meeting in the city of Toronto by the present hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp), who said:"Why speak of a truce? There was never any truce and will never be any truce." That was the loyal answer made by a gentleman who has now a seat in the Cabinet. It is true that we have had from an honoured member of the Tory party in Toronto, Mr. McNaught, a declaration to this effect: Oh, during this war some Liberals may be loyal, but their leaders have not been loyal. Mr. McNaught was a member for the city of Toronto of the Ontario Legislature. The Liberals of Eastern Ontario met at Ottawa during the month of November last, and they passed the following resolution in answer to the onslaughts made on the patriotism of the Liberal party by such Tory heelers as Mr. McNaught:
RESOLVED: That this convention of representative Liberals of Eastern Ontario, in session asembled at Ottawa this 16th day of November, takes this earliest opportunity of placing upon record its unswerving loyalty to the King and Empire and pledging ourselves to assist in the ultimate success, and at the same time to record our resentment at the reported remarks of certain Conservative politicians inpugning the loyalty of the Great Liberal party, which remarks we consider as entirely unjustifiable and an insult to the thousands of true Liberals who to-day mourn their sons and brothers who have given their lives at the front as proof of their loyalty and love of the British Empire;
And that this Convention express its condolence and heartfelt sympathy with all Canadians who have lost their sons and relatives at the front.
What has been the official attitude of the leader of the Liberal party since the war began? His attitude has been to educate public opinion in his province, and such education was needed because it had been shamefully poisoned by at least three of the members of the present Government. Mr.
Speaker, the sentiments of the leader of the Opposition are well known. They were expressed lately in a manifesto which was issued on the first of January, and from which I may read later on.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess I was explaining the attitude taken by the leader of the Liberal party during the wax, and was stating that his whole object, whilst to strictly observe the truce, was to educate public opinion, in his own province and in the Dominion generally. In his own province where it had been poisoned by three members of the present Government, not to speak of those who have been shelved. Perhaps the House will hear with me if, before giving the poison, I serve the antidote. Let me quote the language of the leader of the Liberal party in his speech in the city of Quebec at the last recruiting meeting ne addressed in that old historic city. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because it has been hinted in the course of this debate, and in the Tory press generally, and on public platforms, that he had not kept the promise which he made some years ago as leader of the Liberal party, that if ever the Empire was in danger, or even faced a time of trial, he would appeal to his fellow-citizens in the province of Quebec to answer the call of duty. Speaking at Quebec only a few weeks ago he said:
It is not for Britain that Britain is at war to-day. Was it Britain which was invaded in 1914? Was it on Britain that Germany declared war on August 3, 1914? No, it was Britain which on the next day declared war on Germany, because of the invasion of Belgium, and her atrocious attack through Belgium on the heart of France because she stood true to her ally. Our children are to-day shedding their blood on the fields not of Britain, hut of France, the land of our very own ancestors. Many have been wounded, many have died, but it was not for Britain that they fought. They gave their lives freely and loyally that France, as part of the comity of nations, might live and continue her role at the head of civilization. And it is for that ideal that I am here to ask young Canadians, and especially young French-Canadians, to take their part in a war which is one for civilization.
It is with such appeals as this that we have been able to muster in the province of Quebec the 35,000 young men who are today either at the front or ready to go there.
I was rather surprised the other evening to hear the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir Robert Borden) state that the leader of the Opposition had in one of those speeches mentioned the fact that in 1870 England had not gone to the rescue of France. The right hon. gentleman thought it was very bad form on the part of the leader of the Opposition to speak in that way of the Mother Country's attitude. The right hon. gentleman, if he will pardon my saying so, is rather over sensitive. The attitude of England during the war of 1870, and the consequences of that attitude are well known; it is a matter of history; and the statesmen of England to-day are the first [DOT]to admit England was wrong in 1870 for not interposing herself between Bismark and Thiers, who then pleaded for France. It is simply a matter of history, just as it is a matter of history that England in 1854 to use the language of Lord Salisbury "backed the wrong horse" in siding against the Russians in the Crimean War. Just as it is a matter of history that England through Lord Salisbury made a blunder when she ceded Heligoland to Germany. But if it is a crime for the right hon. gentleman to refer to such an historical fact as he cited what shall we say about the Montreal Gazette, the best informed Conservative paper in our province, and certainly one of the most moderate in the whole Dominion of Canada? Speaking of the defeat, or I should rather say, the retreat of the Asquith Cabinet, the Gazette said editorially:
The spectacle presented hy the Asquith Government in the first days of August, 1914, was unlike anything that could have been imagined. On August 3, Sir Edward Grey, who also has fallen short of what was ^expected, came into the House of Commons and announced that Parliament was free to decide what the British attitude in the conflict then beginning wou'd be. Great Britain, he said, had not committed herself to anything but diplomatic support; but the Government had warned the French and German Ambassadors that if war were forced on France public opinion in the British Isles would rally to France. The Government abdicated its leadership when leadership by men who knew or should have known what conditions were was most needed. Never in England's history was there another such spectacle. When France chose war the noise of the yelling London press was taken for the voice of public opinion, and as if there were no hand on the helm the Empire drifted into war. All know the subsequent story.
That is the language, not of the Globe, not of the leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, but that of the leading Tory paper as regards the attitude of England, not in regard to the war of 1870, but in
regard to the present war. England, according to the Montreal Gazette, did not yield to the voice of public opinion; England yielded to the voice of the yelling London press. That is the language of the loyal Tory press of Canada.
Let me once for all state, on behalf of my fellowmen in the province of Quebec, their real attitude in regard to this war. In their judgment there is but one question before us, and that is the paramount question of the great war which, is now raging beyond the seas. It is the question of the participation of Canada in that stupendous struggle. It is, above all, the determination which they share in common with the people of other provinces that the Mother Country and her gallant Allies shall ultimately triumph. That is the opinion of the province of Quebec. The British Empire is made up of various races- We happen to belong to a minority, and we are rather proud to belong to that minority; yes, we are proud of the blood that flows in our veins. Because of that very fact we may perhaps present in a more dispassionate spirit the British point of view, as it appeals to us wfio are members of the minority. Yes, in the midst of this great war, where freedom is assailed, where all laws are trampled upon, where one man, surrounded by a military caste, backed up by formidable hosts, and seized with the lust of domination, has challenged the world, it is the proud privilege of those who were born and have lived under free British institutions in Canada boldly to proclaim what Britain stands for in the present emergency.
In our judgment, Germany stands at the bar of history. She and she alone is responsible for this awful catastrophe. Why did she precipitate the conflict? The answer is obvious: The German Empire had become too small for its population, and for economic reasons it needed expansion. " Expansion " is not the proper word to use; what Germany had been planning and scheming for during the last half century was nothing less than world-domination, and that will be the verdict of history.
To gratify her insensate ambition she determined to dominate Europe by crushing the -small nations, by maiming our old mother country, France, for the second time, and by humbling the British Empire, which has given us and still maintains for us the liberties we enjoy. Her victory, in our judgment, would mean not only the
Garrisoning of Europe, but tbe garrisoning of Canada and possibly of the whole continent of North America. To attain that end she inaugurated a campaign of frightfulness, which, if unchecked, would bring humanity back to the dark ages. What kind of humanity and nationhood has she not violated? She has broken international faith for the sake of getting the first advantage of war-a heinous crime among nations. She has carried on through the war a campaign of frightfulness directed from headquarters, regardless of the virtue of women, the crying appeal of children and the sanctity of the home. She has thus poisoned the wells of her fair fame; she has not fought the fight in broad, square, manly fashion. She has sunken vessels in which thousands of neutrals and non-combatants have been sent to the bottom; she has murdered Captain Fryatt and Edith Caveil. Worst of all is that, by all classes of her people from the bishop of the cathedral to the artisan, every crime, every barbarity her men have committed in the name of the war has been saluted in Germany by the flying of flags and the giving of iron crosses. We know that it is to avenge such appalling crimes tjhat the sons of Britain from every clime, from every Domin-_ ion, like the knight errants of old, have been called upon to buckle on their armour. Their object we know is not to conquer new territory; the aim is to crush militarism . once for all, to restore small nations to their rights, to make civilization, justice and freedom secure forever. That is the vidw of the .situation held by the people of the province of Quebec.
The tide has now turned and the silver lining of the cloud can be detected. For many long weary months the outlook was far from being bright; there were black days, black moods and a swaying indecision; but under the immense crisis Britain and overseas Britain, France and her Allies, have lifted to a clear determination. It has been stated in our province by the friends of the present Government that England had not done her full duty during the present war. That has been stated over and over -again by the Nationalist allies of the hon, gentleman opposite. We know that England has not been deficient. No one I am sure, will say that the British fleet is not -a decisive factor in the present war; and thanks to that fleet, a whole gigantic phase of the enemy's life has been suddenly blotted out. It is not only doing all that was expected of it; it has met with an amazing energy and ingenuity new obstacles. Un-
der its protection, the best merchant service of England proceeds as usual. Her ships, those of her Allies and of all neutral countries sail the seven seas. The sleepless vigilance of the grand fleet and its silent victories during this war speak volumes for British efficiency.
On land England, at the beginning of the war was not expected to muster more than 200,000 soldiers, and of all the European countries she alone would not accept the principle of compulsory service: but, after Mons and Le Cateau, where the flower of the British aristocracy so gallantly perished, after the splendid example given so spontaneously by the overseas dominions, the British Parliament enacted a law of compulsory service. England, which, as T said, was not expected to give more than 200,000 men, and possibly less, started to raise an army which has reached the five million mark, and this vast army is rapidly being equipped with arms, guns, ammunition, clothing and food, as no army in the world has been in the past. But that is not all. On England, aided chiefly by America, has fallen the task of supplying, in a large measure, the manufactured necessities of war of her Allies and of some of her dominions, and while thus financing her Allies and her overseas dominions England has been exporting goods at the rate of $2,000,000,000 a year, and conducting a larger than ever increasing proportion of the carrying trade of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that in this battle for freedom, the effort of Great Britain constitutes the most staggering exercise of human energy of which history has any record.-
And what of France, the great ally of Britain, in this gigantic struggle? We, in Canada, may speak with pride of the idealism of old France as evidenced by the pioneer days of this continent; but may we not also state that it is the same idealism and the same old spirit which to-day inspires the Frenchmen of the third Republic? The battles of the Marne and of Verdun will ever remain tne most flamboyant names in history. Only once or twice in history has the .world witnessed such a spectacle of greatness at tension. Everything spiritual in a nation touched with genius has been mobilized. Fineness of feeling, the graces of the intellectual life, clarity of thought, all the playful tender elements of worthy living are burning with a steady light. It is the
fashionable cant of the day to say that a new France has arisen out of the ashes and ruins of the old; that warfare and deadliest peril have created in the breasts of Frenchmen another and nobler spirit of steady valour and stubborn endurance. And to us, this cant of admiration seems even more strange than the malignant misrepresentation which during the last half century pictured the men and women of France as a fickle, emotional race, voluble in peace, but weak in the stress of doubtful, stubborn battle. No, the French nation has not changed in these two years of war. The French nation to-day is exactly what the French nation has been for centuries. The French soldiers have had no new creation of valour and hardihood. The voice of Fiance at VeTdun is the voice of France of centuries ago.
Peace proposals, Mr. Speaker, have been mooted. Who believes that peace would be durable if not based upon the success.of the Allied cause? To me, the situation is precisely that which the great Pitt, described in one of his greatest speeches, delivered one hundred and sixteen years ago; and the world echoes his words to-day. He said:
I see no possibility at this moment of concluding such a peace as would Justify that liberal intercourse which is the essence of real amity; no chance of terminating the expense or the anxieties of war, or of restoring to us any of the advantages of established tranquility. . . . As a lover of peace, I will not
sacrifice it by grasping at the shadow, when the reality is not substantially within my reach. Why, then, do I refuse peace? Because it is deceptive, because it is perilous, because it cannot exist.
Mr. Speaker, the British Empire simply re-echoes the sentiments expressed by this great statesman. It contains the only answer which can be made to appeals coming from Washington or from elsewhere in favour of peace.
I stated a moment ago that the three Nationalist ministers in the present Government had consistently poisoned public opinion in the province of Quebec during the years which preceded the coming of the present party into office, and I referred to the antidote which was contained in the admirable speeches delivered in that province by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. Is that or is it not a true statement of the case? Let me marshal here a few facts, dates and names, and then the House will judge whether or not the statement be true. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) stated this afternoon and yesterday in the admirable speech which he delivered, we know that the Nationalist League was organized in Quebec in March, 1903, under the leadership of Mr. Bourassa. Among the articles of the programme launched by that League can be found the following-it is important to note them, because they give us the background of the agitation which followed:
1st. No participation of Canada in Imperial wars outside her territory.
2nd. To spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops.
3rd. To oppose the establishment in Canada of a naval school with the help and for the benefit of Imperial authority.
Please mark the words, Mr. Speaker: " To spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops." How did this article of the Nationalist programme come to life? You will remember, Mr. Speaker-I think you were a member of the House then-the introduction of a resolution during the session of 1909 for the building of a Canadian navy. A resolution was introduced by my friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Sir George Foster), accepted by the then leader of the Government, the present leader of His Majesty's Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and adopted unanimously. During the session of 1910 a Naval Bill based on that resolution, was introduced by the then Prime Minister. Strange to say, it was bitterly opposed by the very man who had introduced the original resolution and who had declared himself in favour of a Canadian navy, manned by Canadian officers and sailors, and flying the Canadian ensign with the British flag. Why was it opposed? Because at that time a tacit alliance had been sealed between the present ministers and their friends who claimed to be the Conservative traditionalists in Canada, and the Nationalist League. The first fruit of that alliance was the victory in Drummond and Arthabaska. It is well that we should remember who were the organizers of that famous election campaign, in which a candidate nominated by the Nationalist party, M. Gilbert, ran against a straight Liberal -candidate, M. J. E. Perrault,' barrister, from Arthabaska, who declared himself in favour of Canada's helping, the Mother Country. Who organized that election for the Nationalists? The late Mr. Monk, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, exPostmaster General, who has been promoted to the Court of the King's Bench in the province of Quebec; Hon. Mr. Nantel, ex-Minister of Inland Revenue, also pro-
moted to the Railway Commission, and Hon. Mr. Coderre, later on Secretary of State, also promoted to a judgeship in the city of Montreal. Who else took part in that famous election.? Who delivered fiery speeches?- The three present Nationalist ministers in this Government, the Postmaster General (Mr- Blondin), the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude), and the probaible-it is not very sure-
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
-the improbable future Minister of Inland Revenue. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the appeals they made were justifiable? Would any one .say today that those appeals were such as should earn the .consideration of true and loyal subjects in this country? Let me quote one of the speeches delivered by the present Postmaster General. Speaking at a political meeting at St. Louis de Rlandford, Quebec, on October 25, 1910, the Hon. Postmaster General used the following language :
You are intimidating- the people in waving the British flag and adding that we must contribute always and everywhere to the defence of that protector of our constitutional liberties ; but we will not be made to forget that in 1S37 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
The English have never done anything for the French-Canadians. We do not owe them anything. The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has sown the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had enough of England and the English.
I shall be reminded perhaps that the Postmaster General, when he was appointed Deputy Speaker of this House, suddenly denied ever having used that language. I shall observe that when he was receiving the loaves and fishes it was an easy matter for him to deny. What was the language of the present Imperialist candidate in the county of Dorchester, the present defender of the British Constitution and British liberties as against that infamous Lucien Cannon? Speaking on October 21, 1910, M. Sevigny said:
The Laurier Cabinet is a Cabinet of Imperialists who want to sacrifice Canada's interest and plunge us into wars with which we have nothing to do. What has England done tor you? She has no need of your help. You must protest against helping England in her wars.
I wonder if the Ottawa Journal or the Journal-Press will publish that to-morrow morning. Later on he said at Arthabaska, on November 1-All Saints Day-1910, when commenting on that provision of the Naval
Act by which it is enacted that the control of the navy is vested in the King. He said:
The navy belongs to His Majesty. Is that a Canadian navy? Who is His Majesty? Have we any Majesty here?
You are surprised that there are people in the province of Quebec who are not very anxious to enlist to fight the wars of Great Britain and the wars of the Empire when they see the men who preached that doctrine promoted from year to year to what is best in the Government of the day. Mr. Speaker, public opinion was aroused. But that is not all. Mr. Sevigny did not speak in Arthabaska only. Speaking on the 26th of July, 1911, at Ste. Flavie, in the county of Rimouski, he used the following language:
When they talk of war with Germany, Russia, and probably France they would like to force Canada, which has always been happy and peaceful, to give cannon and a navy inj order to make war against such great countries. Well, we do not want our money to be spent, because it belongs to our people and to our country. It is to you electors to obtain from us that this iniquitous naval law be repealed by sending 'to the House of Commons true patriots and not men deprived of honour like Brodeur, Lemieux and others.
Mr. Speaker, the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska aroused the feelings of the country, and one of the leading English organs of Montreal wired, the day before the election, to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) quoting the speeches delivered by the Blondins, the Sevignys, the Pelletiers, the Patenaudes and the others, asking his opinion about that campaign. What was the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? "The first duty of Drummond and Arthabaska is to defeat Laurier." That was the typical answer, the loyal answer, of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. And on the night of the election the whip of the Tory party, Mr. George Taylor, now Senator Taylor, wired his congratulations to Mr. Gilbert who carried the election-and I might remind you that when Mr. Gilbert was introduced in the House of Commons by the late Mr. Monk and perhaps by the present Prime Minister, he took his seat- at your left to-night? No, Mr. Speaker. He went and sat with the faithful at the then left, he sat with the good Tory members of the House of Commons, and he voted with the Tory party as long as that Parliament lasted. He has since been appointed by the Minister of Inland Revenue as revenue collector in the town of Victoriaville.
That election came in 1911, and as was stated this evening by the member for
Bonaventure, it was arranged that a doublebarrelled policy should be preached by the Tory party. In the English-speaking provinces reciprocity was the bugaboo, but in the province of Quebec, it was the Naval Bill. Two committees were formed in Montreal, one presided over by my good friend from S't. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), and the other presided over by the late Mr. Monk, one Tory committee and one Nationalist committee. And, as my hon. friend stated this afternoon, Le Devoir was circulated in the English-speaking portions of the country when there was a sprinkling of French votes. Help was given to Be Devoir with genuine Tory funds by my friend the present member for St. Antoine. I remember my colleague the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) coming to me one day iand say-in, in his mild language: How is it that in and around. Edmonton, where there are many Freneh-Canadian electors, Le Devoir is circulated by the carload? Who pays for this distribution of Le Devoir? I did not know then that Le Devoir was circulated through the good offices of the present knight who represents St. Antoine in this House. Well, Sir, the elections were won by the alliance, a cabinet was formed, and it is well known that Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne were offered portfolios, which they refused because they were sincere, whilst others, as I said a moment ago, accepted the loaves and fishes. Certainly Mr. Bourassa was not satisfied with pounding his views in Quebec; he was invited to go on the border land. He went into northern Ontario, at the instigation of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, and on the request of the hon, member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth). Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting to read some of the telegrams that were exchanged during that election, Mr. Bourassa, as I said a moment ago, was sincere; he meant what he said. But he was not sure that those who were so keen to invite him to speak were as sincere, and, therefore, he exacted pledges from them. So Mr. Charles McCrea, of Sudbury, Ont., was addressed as follows on the 8th of September, 1911, by Mr. George Gordon, now Senator Gordon:-
I certainly am opposed to reciprocity and will support request tor appeal of Naval Policy and a referendum to tlie people, no matter who is Premier.
You remember that Mr. Bourassa and the Nationalists were opposed to the Laurier Naval policy and to the equally nefarious policy of. the then Mr. Borden,' now Sir Robert Borden. Mr. Smyth, the member
for Algoma,- wae forced also to give a pledge. He wired to Mr. McCrea-evidently Mr. McCrea had the confidence of Mr. Bourassa. Mr. Smyth's telegram was dated Providence Bay-quite an ominous name-on September 28, 1911. " I am opposed to the reciprocity pact "-that was for the English-speaking electors of the constituency.
I am opposed to Reciprocity, pact. I am opposed to Naval Policy of Liberal Government. X will support request for repeal of same, and referendum to the people on Naval question, no matter who is Premier.
There were some doubting Thomases in the constituency. There were some good old Tories who were rather nervous at the sight of Mr. Bourassa in the constituency; and they began to howl, and to howl very vehemently. Mr. Gordon had to come to the rescue, and he wired: "The Liberals are blaming us"-of course he had to put it on the Liberals as usual; one would think we were reading the Journal Press-
The Liberals are blaming us for bringing the Nationalist leader here. I am willing to take full responsibility and to express my full admiration for Bourassa. I have no use for the navy and I think Reciprocity is a baneful policy. I give Monsieur Bourassa the keys of the district.
What did Mr. Bpurassa say? In a statement published a year or so ago he said:
Mr. Cochrane, usually very shy of his compliments, has since done me the honour of telling me that my arguments had made a deep impression, deeper still among English-speaking than French-speaking people.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Yes, he resigned, and was promoted to the Senate, if it is promotion-and one would think it was, judging from the anxiety displayed by so many members of the Tory party. Five gentlemen only have been appointed, Mr. Speaker, and I have met in the lobbies of this House some members grinding their teeth and willing to give but one chance to the master of the Administration. If they are not appointed before the adjournment to fill some of the vacancies, I verily think the Government will be defeated.
Topic: THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.