January 29, 1917

LIB

William Ashbury Buchanan

Liberal

Mr. BUCHANAN:

I ask the Government for a statement regarding the latest developments in connection with the coal strike in southern. Alberta and eastern British Columbia. Is it their intention to carry out the policy outlined in an official statement of the Government, made on Monday, January 15, that if the increase fixed by Commissioner Harrison was not granted by the operators, the Government would take over and operate the mines at the expense of the operators?

Topic:   WESTERN COAL MINING.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

The Minister of Labour left last night for the West with a view to getting into direct personal touch with the parties and of doing what he can to bring to an end the unfortunate condition which is now prevailing in the West.

Topic:   WESTERN COAL MINING.
Permalink

THE IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.


On the Orders of the Day:


LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

Will the Minister of Militia make a statement to the House as to whether the rumour is correct that the Irish-Canadian Rangers of Montreal are to go to the front as a unit?

Topic:   THE IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.
Permalink
CON

Albert Edward Kemp (Minister of Militia and Defence)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KEMP:

I shall be very glad to make inquiries from the Overseas Minister of Militia; then I shall be able to give my hon. friend an answer.

Topic:   THE IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.
Permalink

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.

ADDRESS IN REPLY.


Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Friday, January 26.


LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, I know you will aot deem me lacking in courtesy if I do not give expression to those sentiments of congratulation upon your accession to the Speakership that were so gracefully voiced by the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. I desire to adopt them to the fullest extent as expressing my own feelings in respect to the action of the Government in your selection, as well as in respect to the honour which has been conferred upon the province of Nova Scotia through you as one of its representatives.

We -are now in the seventh session of the twelfth parliament. Since the 21st of September last the Cabinet has been govern-

ing this country, not by virtue of the mandate of the people of this country, but by grace of the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament. It does seem to me that it would have been fitting for the Government in this debate to enter into some explanation of the manner in which it has carried out its trust, particularly since the 21st day of September last, when the period of the extension of the life of Parliament first began to run. Except for the intervention of the right hon. the Prime Minister in this debate, which according to parliamentary usage and custom he was bound to, we have had no statement or explanation from any member of the Government of the manner in which they have administered their responsibilities, not only since the extension began but before that time.

Before entering into the discussion of the more general questions that naturally arise in the course of this debate, I desire to refer to a matter having a more local interest in the province of Nova Scotia, and particularly in that part of the province from which I come. I refer to the recent appointment of senators for Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia, as you well know* is made up of two geographical units. Nova 'Scotia proper and the island of Cape Breton. At the time of Confederation it was agreed that Cape Breton should be accorded three senators in the distribution-of senatorships at that time. Since then the number has increased to four, and on no occasion, except in recent years, has the number been less than three. The island of Cape Breton has made tremendous advances in industrial life during the last twenty years. It has now a population well on to one hundred and fifty thousand, or nearly one-third of the total population of the province. Its coal, steel and iron industries are well known throughout the Dominion pf Canada, and it has on the whole as important and diversified interests as can be found anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. Some few weeks ago the Conservative party of the United counties of Cape Breton and Bichmond passed a resolution referring to the appointment of senators, which I shall now read:

"In view of the fact that the resignation and death of the late Senator William Macdonald has left a senatorial vacancy in this Island; and, whereas Cape Breton Island has never had since Confederation less than three representatives in the -Senate of Canada; and, whereas we are now represented by one senator only who lives a greater part of his time from the Island; and, whereas a persistent rumour declares that the Government's intention is to All the late Senator William Mac-

donald's seat by a resident of the City of Halifax; and, whereas, Cape Breton with its record of almost unswerving loyalty to the Liberal Conservative party ought not to be penalized for any other county of the province and least of all in the interests of Halifax whose record, from a party viewpoint, is quite well known to the Premier and whose present senatorial representation is already amazingly beyond its deserts.

"Therefore resolved that the Liberal Conservative Association of South tCape Breton and Bichmond earnestly request that the seat of the late -Senator Macdonald be filled by a bona fide resident of Cape Breton and by a man whose whole interest will be more or less identified with the moral and material advancement of our Island."

The reply to that resolution was the appointment of the Hon. Senator Tanner from the town of Pictou and of the Hon. A. B. Crosby from the city of Halifax. Regarding the appointment of the former gentleman, I have not a word to say. He filled a considerable place in the public life of the province of Nova Scotia for the last twenty years. During that period he was the leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Legislature and he did all in his power and within his capacity to bring the Conservative party back into office in that province. As I said, he deserves well of the Conservative party, and I congratulate both the Government and Senator Tanner upon the appointment. I should have nothing to say in regard to the appointment of the other gentleman from Nova Scotia, were it not for the fact that party organs in the province of Nova Scotia claim that Senator Crosby was appointed to represent the island of Cape Breton in the Senate. The Halifax Herald says:

Mr. A. B. Crosby has the high honour of being called to the Senate to represent eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.

Senator Crosby himself gave an interview in the Halifax Herald a few days after his appointment and said:

I will see more of Cape Breton in the future than in the recent past. It is my intention to spend much of my time in that part of the province, particularly in the summer season, and I look forward to this with unfeigned delight.

Let me repeat, it is a matter for justifiable pride to be appointed to the Senate of Canada, but what gives me added pleasure is that I will have the honour of representing Cape Breton in the upper chamber of Parliament.

This is an extraordinary declaration coming from a gentleman residing in the city of Halifax who has recently been called to the other Chamber of this Parliament. The gentleman I refer to was the colleague of the First Minister in the election of 1908, and he

was his colleague in 1911, in which election he suffered defeat. The time has now arrived when the Conservative party in the city of Halifax feel that they ought to be making some preparation for the next Dominion election; and inasmuch as Senator Crosby was very persistent in his claim to be the colleague of the Prime Minister in the next election, it was necessary that he be disposed of in some way in order that a stronger candidate might be selected. That is really, in my judgment, the reason for the appointment of Senator Crosby. I am sure it will afford great consolation to the people of the island of Cape Breton to know that in the future Senator Crosby will visit them occasionally to receive tributes of loyalty and fealty from his liege subjects. The Government of this country is absolutely haphazard and topsy turvy; its whole course appears to be subject to that peculiar dispensation of Providence .that Charles Dickens [DOT] said determined the distribution of clothing among the inmates of charitable institutions; by which all the tall boys got the short trousers and all the short boys got the long ones. Four senators represent and tread upon each other's heels in the city of Halifax, while Cape Breton, withl its enormous and varied interests, that give life and vigour to the whole commercial fabric not only of Nova Scotia but of the Maritime Provinces, is doomed to absentee representation. Shades of Bourinot, Archibald, Macdonald, MoKeen, Miller and Ross * Cape Breton that in days of yore, through her native sons, shed a lustre and radiance over the Senate Chamber, must hereafter be content to shine by the reflected glory of the junior senator for Halifax, while men prominent in its professional, business and public life are burned deeply with the brand of senatorial unfitness-in order that the Prime Minister may be rid of 'an unwelcome colleague.

The condition of affairs throughout the Dominion of Canada is not suehi -as should bring very much congratulation to the Government at the present time. We have had some evidence in the speech o-f the hon. member for South York (Mr, W. F- Maclean) as to the public sentiment that exists in the province of Ontario from which he comes. The whole burden of his speech was not congratulation for what the Government had done, but condemnation for what the Government had failed to do. The hon. -member for South York has always been known to be a thick-and-thin and loyal

supporter of the Conservative party. It is -true that on occasions he has propounded doctrines that are not altogether acceptable to the majority of the party he supports, but, taken on the whole, his support Of the party has been loyal and true. When such a prominent member of this House, such a prominent citizen of Canada as he is, makes the declarations he made a few days ago, there must be some reason for thinking that things are not well with the Government of this country or with the country itself. Other opinions in favour of a change in the form of Government in this country have been voiced by large representative bodies - throughout the Dominion. We have had resolutions passed by city councils, trades and labour congresses, and other representative bodies calling upon this Government to give way to a more patriotic and more energetic Government, one capable of dealing with the great obligations that arise from day to day in respect to the war. The cry from Ontario apparently is for a national Government, whereas the cry from the other provinces is for a Liberal Government.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

reasonable compensation for the money which they have invested in their enter- [DOT] prise. I scarcely think that our friends on the Government benches realize that there is a class of people whieh is not doing its duty in regard to carrying on the war. Talk about sacrifice, talk about doing our bit in the war! Where is the sacrifice of the shareholder of the Ogilvie Milling Company, who pays 25 per cent to the Government over and above the 7 per cent profit upon his total investment? What is that sacrifice compared with the sacrifice of the farmer, fisherman, or miner, whose only son has, perhaps, enlisted, has gone to the front, has been wounded, or, perhaps, killed in defence of the liberty and freedom of the British Empire? What is the sacrifice involved in a paltry tax of 25 per cent upon this profit compared with the sacrifice of the widowed mother who has allowed her only son to give up his life in order that the Empire might be preserved? In, every village, town, hamlet and city throughout Canada there are sacrifices going on among the humble and simple people, in the houses of the fishermen, the farmer, the miner and the artisan, that are far greater in proportion than any sacrifice that the wealthy have been called upon to make up to the present time.

This war has given rise to industries that have yielded enormous dividends to those who have engaged in them. The other day I saw where a company down in Montreal that has contracts for the manufacture of munitions had made profits amounting to over 300 per cent. That is not exceptional, but it is the case wherever munitions are manufactured. I think that under the circumstances, in order , that the sacrifices that the people are making should be equalized, in order that the sacrifice of the wealthy manufacturer should approach in some reasonable degree to the sacrifice of the classes I have mentioned, the manufacturer of munitions, and the manufacturer of every other commodity, ought to be obliged to give not only 25 per cent over the 7 per cent allowed, but every dollar over and above a reasonable compensation for the money which he has invested.

It was a great disappointment to find that shortly after the appointment of Sir Thomas Tait ias head of the National Service Commission this distinguished nonpartisan felt obliged to resign, and we got back to where we were a year ago. Sir Thomas, in his letter of resignation as head of the National Service Commission, ad-

dressed to the Prime Minister on the 12th of October last, said:

In view of what has occurred in the case of Mr. G. M. Murray, who had been offered by me and who had accepted the position of Secretary of National Service, and of that incident as indicative of what may be anticipated in connection with the future organization and work of National Service, I feel compelled after serious consideration to relinquish the position of Director-General of National Service, and I therefore do now resign from! that position.

That was the result of the first real effort of the Government to conduct affairs pertaining to the war on non-partisan lines. What was behind the enforced resignation of Mr. G. M. Murray? Mr. Murray has been secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for many years. I do not know which particular political party he supported, if, indeed, he supported either party. We have been told time and time again that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is a non-partisan organization, and I presume that is true. Therefore, I assume that if Mr. Murray was not a non-partisan, he was at all events not sufficient of a partisan to merit the rebuke he received at the hands of the Government upon his being suggested as secretary of the National Service Commission. It is true that Mr. Murray had something to do with certain correspondence that passed between the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Prime Minister in the fall of 1914, a few months after the war broke out, wherein protests were made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association against the intervention of middlemen in the letting of contracts for war supplies. It was alleged in that correspondence that the interference of middlemen was resulting in increasing to a very large extent the prices of munitions and other war supplies to the War Office, in order to provide commissions for the middlemen; and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, through Mr. Murray, protested that if this matter was not stopped the high prices in Canada would result in the British War Office withdrawing orders for war supplies in Canada and placing them elsewhere. But whatever the cause may have been, Mr. Murray was evidently not persona grata with the Government, and his appointment as Secretary of the National Service Commission was not confirmed. As a result, Sir Thomas Tait resigned, and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R.' B. Bennett) was appointed in his stead.

I have in my mind another illustration of how the question of National Service has been taken out of politics, and for the condition which I shall describe I do not hold the two hon. gentlemen responsible in the slightest degree who went down to the city of Halifax to address a meeting there on the subject of National Service. The hon. member for Calgary, as chairman of the commission, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) went down to the city of Halifax to address the citizens on the aims and purposes of the National Service Commission. It was announced in the Liberal newspapers of Halifax that in addition to these two gentlemen the Premier of Nova Scotia would also address the meeting. But, strange to say, in the announcement of the meeting that appeared in the columns of the Halifax Herald, there was no reference whatever to the fact that Premier Murray would speak. The only speakers mentioned were the hon. member for Calgary and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If the National Service Commission does not intend' to do business on such lines ot narrow partisanship, I would suggest that the chairman of the commission, or some other functionary interested in its success, give instructions to the party press throughout Canada to give something like a fair deal to members of the Liberal party, who are as anxious for National Service as any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.

There is another matter in which the people of Canada have been very much concerned since the last sitting of Parliament, and that is the resignation of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. Very pointed references have been made to that correspondence since this debate opened, but up to the present we have had no explanation with regard to it either from the Prime Minister or from any other hon. gentlemen sitting on the Government benches. I am sometimes inclined to suspect that a discussion of the correspondence that passed between the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence and the Prime Minister is not what hon. gentlemen opposite are most anxious for. It appears to me that the ex-Minister of Militia has hon. gentlemen opposite scared into a blue funk, so that they dare not venture into a controversy which would bring to the discussion to-morrow afternoon some observations from the ex-Minister of Militia that perhaps they would prefer him not to make. The charges and allegations made by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence stand uncontradicted at the present time. The ex-Minister of Militia placed the Prime Minister in a position where his words were challenged and his motives in certain respects questioned. Allegations of a serious character were made against the colleagues of the Prime Minister, and I do think this debate ought not to close until we have an explanation from some member of the Government or from gentlemen supporting the Government, as to whether the allegations made by the exMinister of Militia are true or not.

We have also had a report from Dr. Bruce, who was appointed to inquire into conditions prevailing with respect to the medical service in England. A summary of Dr. Bruce's report contains twenty-three charges, which reflect very seriously upon the conduct of the Medical Staff in respect to the way in which they have treated our soldiers. The answer to the Bruce report was made a few days ago by an hon. gentleman for the Government, and that answer was that another commission had been appointed, at the head of which was Dr. Baptie, and had completely disproved the charges that were made by Dr. Bruce. -It so happens that the report of the Baptie Commission was published a few days ago, and those who are familiar with the particulars of Dr. Baptie's report will not be surprised to learn that of the twenty-three charges made by Dr. Bruce, eighteen are confirmed by the Baptie Commission. I will read the summary of the report of the Baptie Commission. It gives the twenty-three charges made by Dr. Bruce, with its own comments on each charge.

1. Soldiers arriving in England medically unfit. Criticism largely justified.

2 and 3. Segregation of Canadian wounded and centralization of Canadian hospitals. Board admits this to be a fair question for argument, but thinks Dr. Bruce's suggestions Impracticable and inadvisable,

4. Unnecessary detention in hospitals, Board professes to disagree with Dr. Bruce, but admits the justice of much of his criticism.

5. V. A. D.'s inefficient, Board thinks criticism unjustified and regrettable.

6. Shorncliffe V. A. D. hospitals. Board1 admits justice of some of the criticism.

7. Relations with Red Cross. Board admits

justice of some of the criticism. "Glaring departures from service methods passed unnoticed." *

8. Detailing of C. A. M. C. personnel for Imperial service. Board's opinion disagrees with that of Col. Bruce.

9. Colonel ftennie in dual role at Shorn-,cliffe. Board thinks it's all right.

10. Surgical operations not tending to increase military efficiency, Criticism partially concurred in.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Hampden Burnham

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BURNHAM:

What authentication has the hon. member (Mr. Kyte) for this newspaper statement? Let him establish the facts, and then he can make a charge, instead of asking the attention of the House to what may be a mere supposition.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

I am making the allegation; it is up to Sergeant-Major Creighton to say whether or not the allegation is true. He says that he did not tell the returned soldier to join the Conservative association; he told him to see the Conservative pat-Tonage committee. What I desire to impress upon the House is that according to Sergeant-Major Creighton's own statement the matter of the employment of returned soldiers in the city of Toronto is in the hands of the Conservative patronage committee. I do not see why a man who goes to the front, is wounded in battle and returns, should be sent to any patronage committee to get that which every person in Canada knows he is entitled to. Every incentive to patriotic action ,on the part of at least one-half of our population is blasted and withered by this accursed blight of political patronage. If a recruiting meeting is held in Nova Scotia, the recruiting officer is a Conservative who has been recommended by the Conservative patronage committee. If he' addresses a meeting every man upon the platform is a Conservative. If a young Liberal comes forward to enlist he is sent for examination to a Conservative medical officer; and the more offensive a man is in politics the m,ore likely he is to get an appointment of that kind. Why should there be any restriction in this respect upon the young men who enlist? It would be only fair if this 'Government should take steps completely to remove that part of the Militia Department out of politics. If the young man passes the medical examination and goes into training, he finds that everything he is supplied with and every service that is rendered to him is done by virtue of the system of party patronage. If he goes across to the other side in company with one of his young Conservative friends, he finds that his Conservative friend is very spon promoted and transferred to officers' quarters, while he is left to do battle in the trenches. If he goes to the front, he knows that his mother is not likely to get her allowances out of the Patriotic Fund unless she is able to enlist the sympathy and support of Conservatives who handle that fund. He knows also that she will not get the separation allowance unless she is strong enough with the Conservative members of the Patriotic Fund Committee to get them to recommend her for a separation allowance. The mother of- the young Liberal recruit will have grave difficulty in getting her separation allowance, whereas the mother of the young Conservative recruit, notwithstanding the fact that her husband is living and is supporting her, will get a separation allowance without any difficulty. If the young Liberal recruit is wounded and comes back from the front, thie chances are he will be told, as Private Solomon was told, that he cannot get employment unless he is recommended by the Conservative patronage committee- If he comes back incapacitated, I believe that under present conditions he will get a pension, because the Pensions Board is administered absolutely apart from, political patronage. But if our Conservative friends do not make the Pen-

sions Board a part of their patronage system, it is evidence that thiey are losing their instinct for getting everything they can out of this war.

The people of Canada are seriously concerned in this war. Many of them axe anxious t0' do more than they have done if they way were only made clear to them. Thie National Service Commission, notwithstanding the. resignation of Sir Thomas Tait and the substitution of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. It. B. Bennett) is, I believe, designed to do well. There are people and interests in Canada who are anxious to co-operate to a greater extent than before in the winning of this wax, and the only thing that is 'holding them back is political patronage- Whatever excuse there may be for hon. gentlemen opposite for keeping their hands on political patronage in respect to other departments of government, there is certainly no excuse whatever for their administering the Department of Militia and Defence along those linesi, particularly since September 21, 1916, when the mandate of this Government expired, and when they were continued in office' only by the vote of both political parties in this House.

I am very glad to se ; that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) has returned from his travels and is once more amongst us as an ornament to the House and a great figure in de(bate. We all remember the magnificent speech which was delivered by the hon. minister in this House a year ago on the subject of political patronage, during the course of which he said:

On the contrary it almost always causes dry rot and disintegration that break up Government after Government and party after party; and I wish now in the white heat and light of the great contest and struggle and the selfsacrifice that we are called upon to make that we might speak from the heart and make an agreement in this country between both parties that hereafter patronage shall not be applied by political parties in the administration of our public services. ... If there is any canker of public corruption in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you can trace it to the baleful effect of political party patronage.

Political patronage generally called forth this vigorous condemnation from the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce; what shall we say of the political patronage which is being employed in respect of services rendered and money voted for the purposes of the war? Every assertion made by the Minister in that speech applies five hundred-fold more strongly to the ques-

tion that is now under discussion. But what evidence have we that these pious exhortations of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce received even a respectful hearing from his colleagues? I regret to say that up to the present time there is no evidence of their eliminating party patronage in connection either with the other departments of government or with the money which is voted for the purpose of carrying on the war. Now that we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce back with us again, I do hope that before this debate closes he will refer once more to the text upon which he preached so admirably a year ago and make one more effort to convert his recalcitrant colleagues to the truth and virtue of the observations that he made respecting political patronage.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontemac):

I

desire, to express my concurrence in the regret so eloquently voiced by the itwo leaders in this House 'at the departure from Canada of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke 'and Duchess of Commaught and the Princess Patricia. I also desire, in the name of Frontenao, my constituency, to bid a cordial welcome to Their Excellencies the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire and to express the hope that their stay in Canada will be as pleasant for them as I am sure it will be profitable to us.

There is one very important point upon which we are all agreed1 in regard to this war, and that is the justice and righteousness of our cause. There is no stain upon Britain or upon any of her Allies in regard to causing the terrible conflict which is raging. Russia stands clear dm that regard, and history will so write it. Russia, with her vast territory of eight 'millions square miles, possesses perhaps the most inadequate and poorly-equipped railway system of all the countries of Europe. Her fleet is . small and scarcely sufficient, with the assistance of land fortifications, to protect her capital. Her army, large in numbers, as .the war has demonstrated was very poorly equipped when the war started, and that fact alone seems to me to show that Russia had no intention of aggression. But Russia went into this war, not because she wished to do so, but because to remain out of it would have forced her forever after to hide her head in shame and dishonour. France stands acquitted of any desire for war. With an army very much smaller in numbers and lower inefficiency of general equipment than that of Germany, with a fleet much inferior to the battle fleet of Germany, no person who gives the subject

a moment's consideration could think that France had any thought of aggression. History will clear the name of France in that regard, as the world will ring for generations and ages with the valour of her sons and the splendid courage of her women and children. England, as. we know, from the very outsat had done all that a nation could possibly do to prevent this struggle. She pleaded ajnd begged for peace and pleaded and begged in vain. On one arm of the service England could rely; she poes-sessed the moist powerful and best equipped navy in the world. But she had practically no army, so far as numbers are concerned; simply a force of about one hundred and fifty thousand British regulars.

The one country above all others on the continent of Europe that was absolutely safe from invasion, was absolutely safe from the danger of war being waged on her soil by any other country, was Germany. She had a population of nearly seventy millions. She had a railway system under Government control and built for strategical as well as commercial purposes. She had the best organized, the most thoroughly equipped and best trained army in the world, and she had a navy second only to the navy of Great Britain. But the time had come, in Germany's estimation, to attempt world conquest, and she therefore declared war; and as we all know, in the month of August, 1914, this terrible conflict started. Not one of us in this House would have believed that any country calling itself civilized would have perpetrated the crimes, the atrocities, which Germany has committed since the beginning of this war. Not one of us would have thought possible, two and a half years ago, the wanton destruction of Louvain with its priceless treasures of art, the bombardment of Rheims cathedral, the sinking of the Lusitania, the murdering and butchering of women and children, or the driving into slavery of the remnants of the crushed and broken Belgian people. So far as our side of this struggle is concerned, such was and is impossible. We may be thankful that the teachings of centuries have become so imbedded in the hearts and minds of the people of England and France that since the outbreak of this struggle there has been not one single act of barbarism to mar the glory of their achievements or to stain the pages of their future history.

But we may ask: how is it that we find on the continent of Europe at this time two such different ideals? Cromwell purged

England, and the French Revolution purged France of the false ideals which Germany has systematically encouraged for generations. We, in the British * Empire, we, throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, have passed through centuries of cruelty and oppression to the final triumph of democracy. Throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, yes, and also in France, the individual has been encouraged to develop his individuality; he has been made to feel, no matter whether he is rich or poor, that he possesses within himself a value and a status in the national life which the nation regards as worth while. Democratic principles have been given expression to in such measures as Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights. But what are the conditions in Germany? In Germany for generations they have taken an opposite course. There the individual has been taught that he must blot himself out as an individual, that he must become or should become a mere military number, and that he has no right to be anything else; that he must become and should become a mere cog in the national machine. The gospel of hate has been preached in that country, in their schools, in their colleges and in their universities, yes-and from their pulpits; and men throughout the German Empire have been taught to regard the war teachings of Bern-hardi and the writings and theories of Treitschke as something more worthy of their admiration and adoration than the gospel of Christ. These are the two different ideals which we have in Europe, and which are largely responsible for the outbreak of this conflict. The world is too small' for these two ideals to exist side by side; one or other must triumph; either democracy as represented by Great Britain and France and Russia will triumph or militarism will triumph. I repeat the world is too small for both of these two ideals to exist any longer in it, and the time has come when the Allies must not only crush and defeat Germany's army but crush for all time Germany's ideals.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by different hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate to matters of patronage in connection with Canada's participation in this war. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), when speaking a few days ago, said there were very 'few places where, supplies for the troops were provided by anybody but followers of the Government. The hon. gentleman who has

just taken his seat (Mr. Kyte) has spoken along somewhat the same lines, only, as one would naturally expect, in somewhat more extravagant language. Allow me to call your attention to the statements made by the hon. member for North Oxford and to make one or two comments on them. If I have any fault to find with the Government it is that they have been rather too generous in the matter of distributing their patronage along certain lines.

Allow me to be explicit. I for one do not endorse the action of the Government, for instance, in giving advertisements to any newspaper which will print the most scurrilous and scandalous articles, which can only have the effect of retarding recruiting. I do not endorse the action of the Government in giving patronage to papers of that kind. There is one man who has a seat in the press gallery of this House-and I am glad to say there is only one-who has been capitalizing his scurrility and selling his lies at so much a word throughout this country. The lines of Byron apply very well to that gentleman and to men of his class:

A would be satirist, a hired buffoon,

A monthly scribbler of some low lampoon, Condemned to drudge the meanest of the mean

And furbish falsehoods for a magazine. Devotes to scandal his congenial mind Himself a living libel on mankind.

Mr. Speaker, I say that any newspaper which in this time of stress of war, when every effort is being put forth to get recruits, and when the Government should receive every possible encouragement along that line, a newspaper which will print on one page of its issue the most scandalous and shameful lies in regard to the action and conduct of the Government, and will accept an advertisement from that Government and insert it on another page" of its issue, is playing the part of a hypocrite.

In regard to the question of patronage, the War Purchasing Commission was appointed on, I think, the 8th of May, 1915. This commission has had supervision of the purchases of supplies for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, the Naval Service, the Military Internment Camps, and so on. It receives its authority for making expenditures from the Privy Council, and before seeking authority to make purchases or to authorize contracts, it prepares a report for the Prime Minister based upon the requisition of the department concerned. It seems to me on the face of it that that is fair and reasonable. Purchases by this commission

are made on tender, on the competitive basis, and upon the files of the commission, and in the departments are to be found the documents relating to each transaction. Tenders are opened in the presence of a member of the commission and a representative of the department concerned. These tenders are called for by poster advertisements and by tender forms mailed to known dealers and to those who ask for tender forms. Surely that is fair, as fair as it possibly could be.

I have spent some little time in getting figures from the report of the commission which was brought down just a few days ago. Let us see how the system works out at the various camps. Tender forms for provisions and supplies to Barriefield Camp were sent out to 116 firms; for Borden Camp, to 172 firms; for Camp Hughes, to 100 firms; for Niagara Camp, to 186 firms, for Pettawa-wa Camp, to 96 firms; for the Sarcee Camp, Calgary, to 142 firms; for Valcartier Camp, to 196 firms; Tor Vernon Camp, to 148 firms. Will any person say that these various firms or individuals were all Conservatives? Tender forms were sent out not only to known dealers, but to any person who requested a form to be sent to him. In the matter of teas and cofiees, some ninety-eight different firms tendered, or had tender forms sent to them, and for the supply of fish for overseas, 130 firms. I am not going to mention all the different, articles, but let us take general supplies. For ambulance stretchers, 44 firms tendered or were asked to tender; for hospital clothing, 78; for boots and shoes, 130; for bedding and blankets, 138; for housewives, 60; for boxes, chests, and cases, 223; for canvas goods, such as bags, haversacks, tents, kit bags, 156; clothing for uniforms as jackets, trousers, etc., 226, and for white and grey flannel khaki, 31, harness and leather goods, 108; knitted goods, socks, sweaters, etc., 130; medical supplies, 242; service and flannel shirts, 92; wagons, carts and carriages, 88.

One could go through the whole list and show similar results. As I have stated, I spent some time in satisfying myself that, so far as the purchase of supplies by the Government for overseas is concerned, there has been nothing of a partisan nature about it. The door was thrown wide open, and every person in the business has been given an opportunity to put in his bid for the supplies that were wanted. In the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt), some 81 firms were afforded an opportunity to submit.

"tenders, and in looking over the list I find that pnly eight of them happened to be outside of the city of Woodstock. I submit that these facts and figures demonstrate clearly that the statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was not a correct statement, and was not any more accurate than the statement which has been made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte).

The hon. member who has just taken his seat referred to the distribution of the Patriotic Fund separation allowance, and that sort of thing, in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman went so far as to say that if a boy from that province went overseas to the trenches he must realize that his mother could not get her share of the Patriotic Fund allowance without going to some Tory official and asking for it. He made other statements along that line, but what are the facts? Who is the secretary of the Patriotic Fund in the province of Nova Scotia? The secretary, I am informed, is A. S. Barnstead, who is also secretary for immigration in that province, a strong Liberal, who was appointed to his present position by Premier Murray of Nova Scotia. In regard to the distribution of the Patriotic Fund, Liberals and Conservatives alike must gp to that gentleman, who is not a Conservative, but a Liberal oi the Liberals. I am also informed that his actions have shown him to be fair to every person regardless of the party to which he or she belongs. That is only as it should be.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte), referring to the question of military appointments, stated that if two boys left Nova Scotia, one a Conservative and the other a Liberal, the Conservative would get a commission, while the Liberal would have to fight in the trenches. That statement is not in accordance with the facts, and the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that it was not. Why do I say that? Allow me to Tefer to the fact that Mr. W. F. Carroll, a Liberal member of thi3 House who went overseas, holds the rank of lieutenant. I might also call attention to the fact that the son .of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is a lieutenant, and I do not think that any person will charge the hon. member for Pictou with being a Tory, whatever else they may think of him. Mr. Ralston, a Liberal member of the Provincial Legislature, holds the rank of captain, and so we might go on and name dozens and dozens of such. As far as I have been able to see, speaking for my own locality, I have never observed any distinction whatever made in regard to politics in so far as military positions are concerned. I speak honestly and sincerely in making that statement. I have not seen the slightest indication of any favouritism along that line. I do not think that the hon. gentleman (Mr- Kyte) will make very much out of talk of that kind. The boys who enlisted from Nova Scotia and from every part of Canada, enlisted to serve their country, and I think the boys who have enlisted have a higher sense of their duty to their country than has the 'hon. member for Richmond, If they can best serve their country by fighting in the trenches, I give them credit for being willing to do so, and the fact that they have enlisted proves that they are willing.

The hon. gentleman blames the Government very strongly for the war tax on excess profits over seven per cent, and he says that it is a great burden to the people. My recollection is that that measure went through the House unanimously, that there was no division upon it, and that being so, the hon. gentleman is as much responsible as any person else for the seven per cent additional war tax. However that may be, whether the Government are or are not, taking as much from the manufacturers and others as they Should, the truth of the statement cannot be denied that this is the first Government that ever did impose a special tax of that kind upon the manufacturers of the country.

The hon- gentleman from Richmond bewailed the fact t'hiat there was no representative from Cape Breton in the Senate. He said that Cape Breton was very unfortunate in that regard. I may say that there are a great many of us on this side of the House who think that Cape Breton is also very unfortunate with regard to its representation in this House, and especially so with regard to that portion of it which includes the county of Richmond. Last year there was a provincial election in Nova Scotia. That election resulted in the return of the Liberal Government by a very largely increased majority. But there was a very significant occurrence in connection with that election. The county of Richmond, which is represented in this House by my hon. friend, was for years and years represented in the local legislature by two Liberals. When the election came on the hon. member for Richmond appealed to the people there to return his two friends, the Liberal candidates, but, although the tide was running very strongly in favour of the Liberals in

Nova Scotia, the people of Richmond county would have nothing to do with the two Liberal candidates who were backed by the hon. member for Richmond. That, I say, is a significant fact. The two Conservative candidates were elected in that county and it is currently reported that the reason they were elected was that the hon. member for Richmond had opposed their cause. They had been reading the papers and they remembered something of the spectacle which the hon. member for Richmond had made of himself in Ottawa last session, and they showed their disapproval by casting their votes for the gentlemen who were opposed to the candidates endorsed by the hon. member for Richmond.

There was also a by-election last year in the county of Carleton, New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman who represents Carle-ton in this House (Mr. Carvell) declared to thle press that he made this fight his own, and he went out and worked assiduously and energetically for the Liberal candidate, with thle result that the Conservative candidate was elected by a very large majority. Why was this? What is the significance of it? The significance of it is that the people in Carleton had become aware of the manner in which the hon, member for Carleton had forced them to take only $8 a ton for their hay in times past; they had also heard of his doings in this House last session, and they would have nothing to do with a man who was backed 'by the hon. member. As the election in Carleton progressed the hon. member for that constituency in this House sent an S.O.S. call out to the prairie, which was responded to by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). I am told that the hon. member for Assiniboia never had been in that part of the country before, and he has not been there since. I do not know whether that is correct or not but he responded to the call and immediately he landed in the county he went to see the -hon. member for Carleton. He did not stay very long. In two or three hours he was on his way back to the West, but it is said that he left the house of the hon. member for Carleton with his satchel somewhat lighter and his conscience somewhat heavier. Be that as it may, the people of Carleton showed that they were not for sale in that election, they repudiated the candidate who was endorsed by the hon. member for Carleton, and in repudiating that gentleman they repudiated the hon. member for Carleton himself. So that we have in these two

facts in regard to the hon. member for Richmond and the hon. member for Carleton, an explanation of the somewhat changed demeanour which has been shown by these two hon. gentlemen since' this session opened. Every person must have noticed the sad and gloomy appearance which these gentlemen have had since the opening of this session. The hon. member for Richmond's sadness and sorrows are not caused so much by the absence of any representation of Cape Breton in the Senate as by his dread of what is to come, and will come, as far as he is concerned when the next general election takes place. I fancy the gloomy countenance of the hon. member for Carleton is due to somewhat similar reasons. Last session two new political Zeppelins ventured forth emitting thunderous sounds and poisonous gases. These two Zeppelins came down to earth with a crash and all that was left of them -was a mass of twisted and distorted political wires and a bad odour. The electors of Carleton and Richmond, when the next election comes round, will clear away the wreckage and disperse the bad odour which has been caused by these hon. gentlemen.

But now we have another election, one of a more recent date, one which took place in the county of Dorchester in the province of Quebec. On January 18 of this year, the following letter was sent to Mr. Lucien Cannon, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester:

My dear Lucien:-You have done a good act in renouncing your provincial mandate to revindicate and affirm in Dorchester thes rights of outraged conscience. I trust the electors will respond to your noble appeal. I wish you all success.

, Your devoted friend,

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink

WILFRID LATJRIER.


There seemed to be some little doubt in Dorchester whether Mr. Cannon was really endorsed by the Tight hon. gentleman who leads the Liberal party in this House and country, and the matter came up at a meeting at Site. Rose on January 21, wlhem Mr. Lucien Cannon, the Liberal candidate, emphasized even morS clearly than before that he was a candidate because of the approbation of -the Leader of the Liberal party, -and of his supporters in the counity. He said at that meeting: When Mr. Sfivigny was made minister of the Borden Cabinet I asked my friends to meet at Ste. H'enedine in convention, not, as Mr. Sfrvigny says, on my own initiative, hut at the demand and following the desire of the venerable head of the Liberal party, hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was after he asked me to have the electors of my county meet that I sent notices of a convention in the county. This convention was, I believe, presided over by Mr. Lapointe, the hon. member for Kamouraskia in this House. The Liberal organizer for the province of Quebec also took a very active part in the election. I do not think there is any doubt in any person's mind at the present time that Mr. Cannon was a candidate in Dorchester with the endorsation and approval of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. At St. Prosper on January 18, the same day that the letter of Sir Wilfrid Lauriar was -sent to Mr. Cannon, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester used this language at one of his meetings: National Service is preliminary to conscription, and with the chief of my party, I am against conscription. Do not forget one thing. There are men in the Borden cabinet who want to cut the head off the French-Canadian race. Are we to ruin our country from the point of view of men and wealth and everything else for England? I say no, without hesitation. If you elect SCvigny, there will be no limits to the sacrifices Canada will have to make. I would ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition whether he endorses those sentiments expressed by Mr. Cannon in Dorchester county?


LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I might

answer my hon. friend that Mr. Cannon has repudiated that language.

Topic:   WILFRID LATJRIER.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

My right hon. friend will realize that he has not answered my question. I asked whether he endorsed the sentiments alleged to have been expressed by Mr. Cannon in Dorchester. His statement that Mr. Cannon has repudiated those sentiments is not telling this House whether the right hon. gentleman endorses those sentiments or not.

Topic:   WILFRID LATJRIER.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

My hon.

friends knows my sentiments. I have expressed them in this House, not once, but hundreds of times.

Topic:   WILFRID LATJRIER.
Permalink

January 29, 1917