April 5, 1918

L LIB
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

It is quite sufficient for my purpose to-night. The hon. gentleman can use any kind of figures he chooses, but we know that is the fact in this country, and we know that was part of the trouble in the province of Quebec. I was going to say that hon. gentlemen should look closer home to the leader they have. I made the statement that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had been more provincial than Imperialist. Why did I say that? All his history shows that he backed away from any great movement of Empire. At the time of the Boer war, his attitude was: Not a man, not a dollar. Public opinion became so strong that he was forced to allow men to go, but he let the English Government pay them. At the time of the Riel Rebellion, he was going to shoulder his musket to fight in favour of insurrection and rebellion.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

And for the navy.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

There are lots of things to talk about. In his Boston speech, Canada was ultimately to fall from the Empire as the ripe fruit drops from the parent tree. He preferred the Yankee dollar to a British shilling. Any one would prefer a dollar to a shilling but the sting is in the placing of the Yankee against the British. These things have sunk into the minds of the people of Quebec. Ar-mand Lavergne gives twenty-two reasons why he is a Nationalist all taken from the speeches of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. He is the godfather of Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne. They have adopted his doctrines. Armand Lavergne has been quoted in the press as saying: "I am right; Sir Wilfrid has left me; he has gone back on the doctrine he taught me." There we have the situation, and it is to be deplored, and is most deplorable, and yet logical, that when a serious outbreak did come it came in the constituency of the right hon. gentleman.

Who better than his constituents knew what he would like? Disruption against authorized law and constitutional authority. Did he appeal to them after the outbreak? No-. And you ask me what is 'the cause of the riots in Quebec. The trouble was brewing there; did the leader of the Opposition go to Quebec and say to his people:, take counsel with me? No, he contents himself in the House with saying that before anything happened he had told the House that bis people would obey the law. The point is that the has failed to intervene and to make any attempt to pour oil on the troubled waters and prevent riot and insurrection. It is quite logical, I say, that an outbreak of that kind should, under t'he circumstances, occur in his constituency. How deplorable tit is that innocent wayfarers, passers-by, should be the mark for the guns of the militiamen. The blood of these innpcent people has been -shed .because of an insurrection in the constitnency of the leader of the Opposition, while men higher up have escaped. There are men in this House who will .some day have to take the responsibility for the wanton attacks made in this House to-day against established law -and order. In my constituency dozens of men have been improperly apprehended; is that a cause for rebellion or riot? No., thank God; there are no agitators amongst them to set them on, and to encourage them. When I heard a member to-day say that he saw the mob going upstairs to destroy the .records of the Government and virtually admit that he stood there and let them pursue their nefarious work without taking sufficient interest in it to find out their names or to call a policeman and intercept them, I thought what a travesty it was on public life that members of Parliament could stand by and see a crime of that kind committed without taking any action. It is a hollow sham, Mr. Speaker; clever men of that kind would know who did it, and it does not do to pretend to an intelligent House that they do not know, because they could easily have found out.

A while ago we had in this neighbourhood an agitation about language. The "Orange-istes " of Ontario, the "Bosches" of Ontario, were depriving the people of French origin in Ontario of certain Tights which they claimed to possess. This Parliament building was surrounded by hundreds of school children, a resolution was introduced in the House, which admittedly had no jurisdiction over matters affecting education in the provinces. The member for Karnouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) in one of the ablest speeches I ever heard him or any

one else deliver, presented his case fairly. His address was of a very high standard. But the matter should not have been thrown into Parliament; the discussion tended to intensify and aggravate a situation then pressing very heavily on the Ontario Government, and had the effect of injuring the school population in many .parts of Ontario. But during all this agitation, which was the main source whence this troulble in Quebec sprang, the leader of the Opposition stood by and lent a hand to the member for Karnouraska; never once went out with an apjieal to his people to stop their agitation. Subsequently the language question which was the subject of the resolution at that time was considered by the Privy Council and a decision given absolutely against the claims of our French compatriots in Ontario. They did not themselves raise the agitation; it was raised by the people who came from the other side of the Ottawa river. To my mind, Sir, that was the proximate cause of the trouble in Quebec. It was the proximate cause that resulted in young and middle-aged men tearing down recruiting stands and signs on the streets of Montreal and assaulting men. who were endeavouring honestly, openly and publicly to interest the bright youth of French and other extraction in the cause of the Allies. The mob came down, so the paper reports say -I do not know the facts, because I was not there-many students of Laval University were among them, and when the police came they took refuge in the sanctity of a church. We are asked to consider the causes of these disturbances. Hon. gentle-[DOT] men opposite tell us that because an officer made a mistake, all this trouble ensued. Nobody in Canada will believe that. There was a deeper cause, and it is based on the same principle on which i'S based the attitude of the people of the south of Ireland-a cause that makes for disunion and for the weakening of bonds of empire, for the lessening of the power of the Allies. Let ns divide the forces, these people say, for paltry political effect, so that Laurier will carry a solid Quebec. This feeling is what helped to cause the riots in Quebec. Well, I thank iGod, Mr. Speaker, that as a Canadian-and 1 am proud to be a Canadian, within the Empire-I cannot be charged with being a party to any -cause that would tend to weaken the arm of the Empire at this time. When I look at the difference between the north and the south of Ireland; when I see the Ulster Presbyterians by the thousands going to the front -and many of them did go from the south

of Ireland-when I see these Ulster Presbyterians, ninety-five per cent of them Orangemen, walking into the trenches and giving their lives for their country .and for the Empire, it makes me feel that hon. gentlemen opposite should he chary indeed about reviling anybody because he happens to be of that particular faith, denomination or order. It is not worth while; you cannot get liberty and union in any such -way. Did our friends from Quebec feel that politics were more important than the cause of Empire? It is for them to say, in their hearts and liouls. It looks to me as if that was their main, object. Was it a worthy object? I submit not. The time was too critical; politics is one thing, and war another. Have hon. members opposite helped to create the right atmosphere? The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has, to his credit be it said. He has a son who loyally went forward; and he himself has done more in the way of recruiting than most people I know. Why can we not all do these things? What is the matter with us? Is this Parliament so narrow that we cannot- get down to a common basis? As the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) pleaded to-night, let us forget animosity. I am willing to forget the nasty things, said over there; you be willing to forget the nasty things said over here.

There is this difference that I see, and I have seen, it coming for many years, and have been sorry to see it. When we people of English extraction sing " God Save the King" we are answered by "0 Canada " from the other side1. There is the line of demarcation, the line of cleavage. Does any man on the other side of the House think he is a better Canadian than I am because I am of English extraction. Let French-Canadians remember that there are other Canadians, and that English-speaking Canadians, while we do not boast of our superiority, do not relish any attack upon us as being inferior beings'. That is another line that is worth while wiping out and putting a carpet over.

Another thing that differentiates us and ought to be considered is this: Up where 1 live and all over the West, everywhere in Canada, in fact, except Quebec, the country is ringing with loyal .and patriotic war songs. " We will never let the Old Flag Fall " has resounded from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Do they know the song in Quebec? Has- it been sung in their fields', has it been shouted from their house-tops? One gentleman has spoken of patriotism tonight. To my mind there is a great difference between loyalty and patriotism.

Loyalty is love of country, a sentiment purely. Patriotism is more than loyalty. It extends 'beyond it, enfolds it, brings it into itself, covers it over. Patriotism is much more and much greater than loyalty, because it means loyalty plus something else-action, something must be done. A man can sing " We will never let the Old Flag Fall " for a thousand years, but if he does not do something to keep the old flag flying, he may be loyal, but he is not patriotic. Action-something to 'be done, that is what is wanted. Quebec can do a great deal if its men with right instincts will stand up and take their place. I make this appeal at this early hour in the morning to the few who .are here, and I would urge in all candour, and with reasonable hope, that we get together and that soon we will coalesce, and there will be more cooperation and less party politics- and less bitterness.

May I digress for a moment to say that there has been more party politics, more bitterness in this debate, than during all the sessions since the war started. Why is it? Is that the spirit in which men have come from their constituencies? I hope not, but that is the situation.

I am sorry I have talked so long, but I feel very, very keenly about this matter, not for Britain alone, but for Canada as well. We have sent 400,000 boys over there, and when they pledged themselves not to let the old flag fa'll, we pledged ourselves to "keep the home fires burning." That is a song that has swept over Canada, but do they sing it in Quebec? Answer me, somebody. Apparently not. Instead of keeping the home fires burning, we have had a small incipient blaze of the red fire of revolution and anarchy-'a shame and disgrace to any civilized people in the world who pretend to enjoy the liberties the Empire gives us. But what, oh what, of noble France, whose chivalry shines brighter today than ever in the past? French Canadians may say, "I want the language of France," then I say "Do you love France, and will you fight for her? If you do not fight for France you cannot love her, and you are not worthy to enjoy her language." France lies bleeding to-day, the wonder and the admiration of the world, and as an English-speaking Canadian, I express my pride in the most glorious country on the battlefield to-day, for the honours she has won and the shining armour she has put on, of truth and nobility that is the envy and pride of the civilized world. Let us English-speaking people plead with our fellow-members from Quebec to enjoy the privilege

of going to their counties and getting the men to help France; put new blood into her veins and help her win this fight. This is a fight in which your liberty and mine is in jeopardy, and the man or the province or the colony or the Dominion that does not take its place to-day in this the greatest Armageddon of the world will hang his head in shame for all time to come. I hope and pray that this Parliament may through mutual co-operation, careful judgment, and unity of thought so propel the measures before it that all individual likes and dislikes and political bickerings may be forgotten, that we may join together in one common purpose, that this country as a part of the Empire and as a part of the Allies, with France, may as the poet said:

Strike till the last armed foe expires,

Strike for our altars and our fires,

Strike for the green graves of our sires, God and our native land!

And may Canada as a result be prosperous and happy, ready-for the period of reconstruction after the war, where all shall be one, and that one for the Empire and the Allies.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Joseph Read

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.):

I have the honour to-night to represent a whole province. There has been a good deal of talk about Quebec, and it would appear, listening to hon. gentlemen opposite, that Quebec was the only delinquent in this matter of supporting the so-called Union Government ; I will give it 'its proper name and call it a mongrel Government. I see two hon. gentlemen over there from my province, and they are here by reason of the soldiers' vote. I happen to be in the fortunate position of representing a whole province on this side of the House, because the only other Liberal member who has been declared elected has not arrived yet. I want particularly to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen >on the other slide, and especially of the gentlemen who belong to the same cult as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Morphy) to the fact that our province has already learnt the lesson that will unite Canada eventually, and which if it had been learnt by the great province of Ontario would have prevented all this trouble and all this debate. I would advise the people of Ontario to learn the lesson as soon as possible, and I say this with all earnestness and sincerity of purpose. I am an old man, and have no politics to bother about. I do not ever expect to run in an election again, and if I should I do not care if I am elected or defeated, anyway.

.

I tell the people of Ontario to get nonsectarian schools, and I would advise the people of Quebec to do the same as soon as they can. They would then be in the same position as Prince Edward Island, which is the provincial leader in all the political advantages and all the political advancement which has been made in the last century. We have led the Dominion of Canada in temperance legislation. We were the only British community, up to a few weeks ago, that had adopted prohibition, in the whole of the British Empire. Away back in 1852 we were the first British people, I think perhaps the very first people, to adopt the free school system-that is to say, to pay for the schools out of the public treasury, and not impose upon the people taxes for school purposes. We made the schools absolutely free, and later on we made them non-sectarian. The result is that we have done away with bigotry and intolerance, that accursed viper that is gnawing at the vitals of Canada to-day. Bigotry and intolerance are the cause of the riots in Quebec. My hon. friend talks about Orange lodges. We have Orange lodges in our province. The best and most manly supporters I had were sound educated Orangemen, not those narrow people who subscribe to the Orange Sentinel. It is true they sent a lot of Sentinels down there to try to debauch our people, hut. they said: " This is only a Tory organ, and a reactionary organ at that." The biggest joke of the whole campaign in my county occurred when they sent a big bundle of them up to be distributed in a certain Orange constituency, and by some mistake, which perhaps was not a mistake, the driver, instead of taking them over to the Orange constituency, took them to the Roman Catholic constituency, and they did some good down there. What do we find in Prince Edward Island? With a majority of Protestants, they have a good Roman Catholic premier, and a Tory at that. That is how broad they are. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that if the people of Canada are going to get together, they must eliminate this foolish division and this foolish irritation between these two big provinces. My province has been sacrificed for 40 years, and for what? To help these two big provinces to get together, keep together and abstain from fighting one another. Prince Edward Island is the cradle of Confederation. Are hon. gentlemen aware that the first conference that was held to confederate the provinces of Canada was held in the city of Charlottetown in 1864?

The intention was simply to unify the three maritime provinces into a maritime union. Quebec and Ontario at that time, as at present,.were at one another's throats, like the Kilkenny cats. Hon. gentlemen know that they tied together the tails of the Kilkenny cats, and threw them over a clothesline, and they fought until they killed one another. That was the condition of affairs in Ontario and Quebec. When they found we were going to form a maritime union, the big men of the two big provinces, men like Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the one side and Sir Sam Hughes on the other, got together, and asked if they could be represented; at (the convention. Our people said, "Come along boys, and if we can do anything to help you out we will be pleased." So they came down there and formed the conference, and while our people did not go into Confederation at that time, for a very good reason, 'because of our smallness, and because the people felt that in place of being-

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

I rise to a point of order.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Joseph Read

Laurier Liberal

Mr. READ:

I am speaking to the point. I want to show the cause of the Quebec riots. There is no use diagnosing a case unless you can indicate the medicine. I will not go into the story of Confederation; it would take too long. I desire to say a word about annexation. Some hon. gentlemen expressed the fear that Canada might be annexed to the United States. Let me assure hon. members of the House that Canada will never be annexed to the United States. No politician or no party could ever annex Canada to the United States. I am a believer in natural law, and natural law itself would prevent unification of Canada with the United States. Drive out nature with a fork she comes running back. Canada runs along east and west lines, and there has never been a country on the face of the earth that ran along north and south lines involving climatic changes. .Every nation must be homogeneous in order to be a stable nation, and you could not make Canada part of the United States if all the Lauriers and Bordens and the rest of them were to try for centuries. The United States would not take Canada to-morrow. The betterthinking people of the United States know very well that if Canada were added to the States it would break up the balance of power. The very thing that produced the Civil War in the United States in 1860 was the fact that they were adding Kansas, as a slave state, or a free state, to one or other

of the two halves, which would break up the influence of the other half. Why does the United States not take Mexico? Simply because it would break up the balance of power. They do not want Mexico, so put that foolish idea out of your heads. The Military Service Act has been placed on the statute-book, and must be obeyed, as long as it is the law, and I am satisfied it will be obeyed in Quebec as in the other provinces. At the same time, while it is the law on the statute-books it was the enactment of that law primarily that caused the riots in Quebec. When I started my campaign down in the little province one of the open statements I made over my own signature was that, in my judgment, the Conscription Bill in its conception

not conscription itself, but the conception of the Conscription Bill- at that time was a paramount crime and, secondly, a political crime- in every way. Why do I say that? Not because I am not in favour of conscription. One hon. gentleman whom I interrupted indicated that conscription was an autocratic institution. Conscription is a democratic institution. We have on the statute books of Canada already a conscription bill-the Militia Act. That is perfectly and absolutely democratic. What is the principle of true democracy? It is that we work together for the common good of all hands. The state undertakes to guarantee the safety, liberty and protection of her citizens and as a quid pro quo the citizen is in duty bound to render national service to the state. Consequently, universal military service for every man and universal national service for every woman are absolutely democratic institutions.' But, the Conscription Bill in its conception was a political bill intended not to win the war but to win an election. Many perhaps did not know enough to see the dragon's tail. They might have seen a mermaid's head but they could not see the dragon's tail. The right hon. leader of the Government to-day when- he brought that Order in Council down, stated that voluntary enlistments in July and August amounted to some 3,000. The wonder is that there were any at all. How was it in May when they came down to this House and announced that -they were going to inaugurate the principle of conscription? For that month and ten months previous the average was 6,500 per month. That was the average rate of recruiting by voluntary effort alone. Volunteers were coming in at this rate against the wish of some of the members of the Government, if we are to believe the evidence of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes).

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Georges Henri Boivin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. I have been trying to be very tolerant to the hon. member, and 'a great deal of latitude has been given during the debate to-day, but I really must rule that the remarks which are now being made have no bearing at all upon the cause or the cure of the Quebec riots.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Joseph Read

Laurier Liberal

Mr. READ:

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, but I want to make this statement, and I make it without fear of successful contradiction, and because 1 know that the people of Canada can. get together: this country to-day is in a state almost of disruption, and it is because of that disruption that we have had these riots in the province of Quebec. I know that the conflicting elements of the population can get together because I know what other countries have done in that regard. I know that people can live together in harmony, each worshipping under his own vine and fig-tree. I know that people can be educated so that they will not take any more notice of a man's religious opinion than they do of the colour of his hair, because he is just as much responsible for the one as he is for the other.

I entirely agree with the mover of this resolution in one statement which he made, and that is that we should have to-day in khaki, not forty thousand, but two hundred thousand men. The hon. member for

Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) also was right when he stood up in his place in this House over a year ago and advised the Prime Minister to put the Militia Act into force. That Act could have (been enforced in such a way that we could have raised two hum dred thousand men- without injuring the industries of the country, and without interfering with the farmers of this country. The men could have been called out in classes and sub-classes, and they need not necessarily have been sent across to fight in the fields of Flanders; they could be ready tor any emergency. The time when we will want men most is

when the terms of peace is being negotiated. We shall want a persuader then. How did Disraeli and Salisbury do in 1878 when they were going to negotiate a treaty with the Germans and the Russians at Berlin? They sent to India for twenty thousand 'Sepoys, Sikhs and Ghur-kas, and placed them on t.he Island of Malta. Great Britain was not at war with anybody, but her statesmen mobilized the fleet and placed a military force as stated. Then they went over and negotiated the celebrated Berlin Treaty, that Billy the Bold called a scrap of paper and tore up the other day. Why did they put the troops there? In order to have a persuader. The British ministers at that time * negotiated a remarkable set of treaties, and on returning from Berlin the first thing that Disraeli said as he stepped from his ship, was, " I have brought back peace with honour ". One of the things which this Government ought to do is to get as many men as possible into khaki, not necessarily to send to the front, but to be available in case, we want them. - We never know what is going to happen. We do not want to lose the fruits of victory if we win, and we do not want to make a humiliating peace as poor Russia did if we lose.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
UNION

John Allister Currie

Unionist

Mr. CURRIE:

My object, which was to secure a full and open discussion, having been obtained, I now beg to withdraw the motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink

WAR GRANT $500,000,000.


On motion of the Hon. J. D. Reid the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution: Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council, during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for:- (a) The defence and security of Canada; (b) The conduct of naval or military operations in and beyond Canada; (c) Promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise; (d) The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state of war; and (e) Payments made for the said purposes during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eighteen, in excess of the amounts authorized by The Appropriation Act, 1917. 2. That the Governor in Council 'be empowered to raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sums of money as are required for the purpose of making any payment authorized by any Act founded on these Resolutions. 3. That the principal raised by way of loan under this Act and the interest thereon shall be chargeable on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.-Sir Robert Borden.


UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Hon. J. D. REID:

I may say that an understanding was arrived at between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition to the effect that the statement which is necessary to be made in connection with this resolution should be made on the second reading of the Bill. It was decided between them that this resolution should be allowed to go through and a Bill founded upon it introduced.

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink
L LIB
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

May I ask if on the

second reading we shall get all the information that we could have obtained had we been able to put questions in Committee?

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Hon. J. D. REID:

That is the understanding.

Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): There was an unfortunate misunderstanding a few days ago in Tegard to a certain Bill which was apparently put through under a somewhat similar arrangement as that just announced, and which arrangement debarred members from exercising the same freedom which they would otherwise have enjoyed. I hope the understanding in this case is quite clear, and that no question will arise on the second reading as to our freedom to question the Ministry and obtain all the information that we deem neoessary.

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Hon. J. D. REID:

The Prime Minister wrote a note to the leader of the Opposition, and the understanding between them has been reduced to writing.

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink
L LIB

Frank S. Cahill

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CAHILL:

I would like to know what the understanding is.

Hon. J. I). REID: The understanding is that on second reading, or in Committee, all necessary information will be given.

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. REID:

Yes

Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.

Hon. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 38, for granting to His Majesty aid for Military and Naval Defence.

Topic:   WAR GRANT $500,000,000.
Permalink

April 5, 1918