May 7, 1918

L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect when speaking on the Budget that I would have to discuss the Orange Sentinel's orthodoxy, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hoeken) has chosen to deliver a lecture on the ideals of the Orange party and of the Sentinel, which he edits. I shall, therefore, for a few moments, reply as best I may to the very specious arguments brought into this discussion by that hon. gentleman.

I wish at once to correct one of the views to which lie gave expression. The hon. gentleman has been very kind-indeed, over-generous-to the French Canadians. He has conceded that the French Canadian is " potentially " as good a British subject as any British-bom or any Anglo-Canadian. Let me add a little rider to my hon. friend's definition. The French Canadian, I am proud to say, is not potentially but actually ,as good and as loyal a citizen as any British-born or any Anglo-Canadian in this free Canada of ours. It is because some people of my hon. friend's ilk choose to consider their fellow men as inferior beings that the other fellow-to use my hon. friend's word-resents such assumption on the part of an alleged superior race. My hon. friend aptly defined himself this afternoon-and" I must congratulate him for his sincerity-when he said, "I am an extremist; I represent

the extremist views of Ontario." Mr. Speaker, the bane of this country is the extremist. My hon. friend said a moment ago: I will tell you what we the people of Ontario-and this reminds me of the "three tailors of Tooley street" and the editors of the Orange Sentinel-expect from the province of Quebec; .and he then gave his charitable advice without charge. Will he allow me to retort what we, the "potentially" good citizens of Quebec, expect from the true Britishers of Ontario? We expect that the President of the C uncil, who specially represents Ontario in the Cabinet, will forthwith appoint a. special censor with a lucrative salary and locate him at the Sentinel office so that he may delete from that paper the incendiary articles which are being published every week with a view to inflame racial and religous passions.

My hon. friend says: But you do not know what are the aims and objects of the Orange Order. I do not care to know them. This is a free country; the Orange Order has been legalized by Act of Parliament, and I do not object to its existence. What I object to is that the Orange Order, through some of its members, should claim the monopoly of loyalty and fidelity to the British institutions. There is no such monopoly in Canada. There is as much loyalty ini the St. Jean Baptiste Society, the St. George's Society, the St. Andrew's Society, the St. Patrick's Society, the St. David Society, as there is in the Orange Order. The St. Jean Baptiste Society, referred to by my hon. friend, is a French Canadian national organization. It was founded in 1834 at Montreal. Its first celebration was held in the gardens of a Mr. Macdonald, a *good old Scotchman-the Scotch and the French never had any quarrels. The first president of the society was Mr. Duvernay, editor of La Minerve, and the song of French Canada-"O Canada, mon pays, mes amours"-.was heard for the first time at that meeting. It was composed and sung by a young student who later became the great leader of the Conservative party. Sir George Etienne Cartier. The St. Jean Baptiste Society has on its crest the words " Rendre le peuple meilleur " to improve the people -that is to say, to educate the people, to preserve their national traditions, to preserve their language, too-the language which has been so mercilessly assailed in Ontario through Regulation 17-

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Mr. LE'MIEUX:

the language which

was denied privileges which were given to the German minority in Ontario.

Some hon. MEMBERS : No.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Yes.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

My hon. friend says

that he would circumscribe the French language to the province of Quebec. Half the words of the English language are French words. I can take the last issue of the Orange Sentinel and show him that fifty per cent of the words which appear in that paper are of purely French extraction. The English language is partly French and partly 'Saxon. By the way, I stand for British, not for Saxon ideals. His Majesty the King has adopted the expression " House of Windsor," instead of " House of Hanover "-and I, following the example of my King, will stand for British, not for Saxon ideals. The attitude of my hon. friend and his compeers of the Orange Order with regard to the French language is ungenerous and unBritish; they should at least during this war respect the language of Joffre and of Foch.

My hon. friend read to the House the guiding principles of the Orange Order. These aims as he read them are not in question. Wh'at I object to is the wrong use made of these principles and aims., so lofty when they are read. What I object to is that the Orange Order should' import into this country the bickerings, the contentions, the miseries which have desolated old Ireland for so many centuries. Lessons of loyalty from the Orange Order? Do we not know contemporary history? When the King, Bords and Cbmmons of England had passed an Act of Parliament in the old British fashion, by the majority of the elect of the people, what did Sir Edward Carson, the leader of the Ulster party, do? Did he not promote a rebellion in Ulster, at a time when the Germans were planning the great war which broke out a few weeks afterwards? No lessons of loyalty from the Orange Order for me. My hon. friend has given us some advice; let him accept some from me.' Let me suggest to him not to make of the Pope of Rome the bogey that he is making of him every week in his paper.. He should remember that in 1914, for the first time since the Reformation, a British ambassador was sent to the Vatican, and if His Majesty George V is wise enough to have an ambassador at the . Vatican, to confer at times with the Pope of Rome, surely my hon.. friend, as a *superloyal British subject, will refrain from those innuendoes against the personality of the Pope of Rome. He should also remember that one of the leading Protestants of the Nineteenth Century, speaking of the Roman

Catholic Church, said that no one could deny that at least it was a great school of respect. My hon. friend, for reasons of his own, perhaps in order to avoid discussing the income tax, brought in the Jesuit Estates Act. II shall not relate the history of the Jesuits' on the continent of America. If I had to offer a prize to my hon. friend, my sweet revenge would 'be to send him Parkman's History of the Jesuits on the North American Continent. He would learn there that the' Jesuits were the pioneers, of America; that not a hill, not a mountain, not a lake; not a river, was discovered without the presence oi the (black rolbe. At Washington, in the Capitol, under the dome -the Tories being in office trucking and *trading with the Yankees, my hon. friend may now go there-would find that an overwhelming Protestant American majority have erected a monument to the memory of Father Marquette. In spite of my hon. friend-perhaps because of him, as some day there will be a reaction-1 do not despair of seeing, under the roof of the legislature at Toronto a monument to the memory of the Jesuit martyrs, Fathers Lallemand and Breboeuf, who evangelized the province of Ontario before going to their martyrdom in the state of New York. Perhaps such a monument would be an object lesson for the descendants of any hon. friend.

iMy hon, friend knows that, under the French domination,, the Jesuits' received from the King of France certain estates.-My hon. friend knows equally that the Order was dissolved by the Pope of Rome. Then the cession of Canada to Great Britain took place-because we were never conquered', we -were ceded.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

History disproves

that.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEIMIEUX:

That is why the treaty of Paris was so benevolent to us. After the cession of Canada to Great Britain, when the British Governors took over control of this country, the Jesuits' estates escheated to the Crown; but later on, when the Order was reorganized, and when we were granted free constitutional, responsible government, Queen Victoria, because this occurred during Her late Majesty's reign, decided to dispose as she pleased with the Jesuits' estates. In other words, the Government of the province of Quebec, under the late Mr. Mereier, undertook to divide the revenues .of those estates between the two sections of our population with a view to promote the. cause of education. One share went to the Catholics, and the other

TMr. Lemieux.]

share went to the Protestants. The minority in Quebec accepted it quite willingly and1 was very grateful to the late Hon. Mr. Mereier for his action in the matter. The agitation against the Act did not arise from the Protestants of Quebec; it arose from the Order of which my hon. friend is a noble representative; it came from the province of Ontario.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
UNION
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

When, later on, the question of disallowance came before Parliament, Sir John A. Macdonald, who was a great Canadian, said: "No, this is a provincial statute which the province of Quebec has constitutionally the right to enact and the Dominion Government will not interfere." The views of Sir John A. Macdonald were shared by the then highest authority on the constitution, the late Hon. Edward iBlake. That is the history of the Jesuits' estates. All the agitation came from the troublesome element, from the extremists, as represented to-day by my hon. friend in this House. I wonder why my hon. friend brought again into the debate all those contro-

4 p.m. versial issues. He is, of course, an extremist. He admits that. He must therefore create trouble. The circulation of his paper would be nil if it did not contain those rabid articles against the Pope of Rome and against that French minority which diabolically intends to. dominate the majority in Canada. What a great compliment to the English people of this Dominion of Canada, that Quebec might dominate the majority! Let me repeat to my fellow-men of British blood and of British ideals what that sturdy old sailor, when the Titanic was foundering, said in the midst of the Atlantic ocean: "Be British!" he said to his sailors and to the passengers on board. I say to my fellowmen: Be British ! do not be Prussians, as you are asked to be by such articles as are weekly published in the Orange Sentinel. After all, the British should not be afraid of the French.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
UNION
L LIB
UNION
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I hear the voice of the statesman from Sh-arbot Lake. The 'House of Commons is a big pond, but it is nothing when compared with Sharbot Lake, in Frontenac county. My hon. friend admits that the right hon. leader of the Opposition and French Canadian leaders generally did their duty well at the beginning of the war. The famous 22nd Battalion was the result of my right hon. leader's campaign in the first months of the war. I myself was chairman of a committee in Montreal which recruited the Asselin Regiment. We had no difficulties in raising the two regiments as the people responded magnificently. But when the Orange Sentinel and other papers kept systematically insulting French Canadians, labelling them .as sharkers,' slackers, and as disloyal people, they resented those attacks bitterly, and lost their enthusiasm. My hon. friend forgot that they were a rural population and had not the same opportunities for enlisting in as large numbers as the men in the industrial centres of Ontario. He also forgot that they had been separated from Europe since three hundred years, and had therefore not the same links with the old land as the British bom and Anglo-Canadians. When, moreover, the French Canadians saw the privileges granted to the minority by Sir Oliver Mowat, a man of broad vision and noble ideals., being disregarded by the provincial legislature of Ontario,

they paused. Be that as it may, conscription, against the best judgment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and against the sober judgment of the country, was forced through this House by closure. The referendum was voted down by Parliament. To-day, after the campaign of hysteria which ended in the victory of Union Government on the 17th of December last, the French Canadians and all those who were opposed to conscription are at last being vindicated-by whom?

By the Ontario fanners, by the members who represent farming constituencies in this House and who form part of the Committee on Agriculture, as I shall show in a few moments. Yes, Sir, the Quebec habitant is toeing vindicated by the Ontario farmer. I have said, not once but ten times, and I repeat it here, Mr. Speaker, that there is no great difference between Jack Canuck and Jean Baptiste. There is this difference that Jean Baptiste thinks aloud-the French blood is responsible for that-and Jack Canuck thinks silently, but in the long run they both think alike. Jean Baptiste was against conscription and he shouted his opposition to conscription. Jack Canuck was against conscription but he was quietly told by the ministers of the Government to "produce, produce; conscription is not aimed at you; it is for the other fellow in Quebec; you will never be conscripted; therefore, vote for the Tory Government." Sir, the handclasp given to the Ontario fanner was nothing less than the handcuff. The Ontario farmer realizes it to-day and he came here the other day to protest-five hundred strong. A friend of mine from the Senate who is somewhat of a cynic and a fellow Tory senator were on their way to the committee room where the sturdy, horny-handed, tan-complexioned- Ontario farmers were sitting silently staring at the Hon. the President of the Council (Mr. Bowell). This Tory senator said to the cynical Grit senator,-if there are any Grits left, Mr. Speaker: "Where are you going?" The latter replied: "I am going to the circus; there is a delegation of French Canadian habitants that have come to ask Majoi-General Mewburn to repeal the last Order in Council. They say they were promised that there would be no conscription of the habitants." The Tory senator said: "No, you are mistaken; it is not the French Canadian habitant; surely it is the Ontario farmer." " No, no," replied the cynic, " it is a delegation of habi-

tanits; were they not the only ones to oppose conscription?" They reached the committee room ajnd the cynic disappeared. But, to his awe and.

consternation, the Tory senator saw. the chickens coming home to roost. He was heard stating after the interview: "Old Abe Lincoln was right. You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." If my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will now permit me to repeat the language of a Unionist Grit, he said, after he had left that .meeting, "After all, the old chief was right." I repeated the story to my leader, and his only comment was: "It is my revenge; I am glad of it." But, as I said a moment ago, I did not rise to discuss the Orange orthodoxy nor the -Military Act. I never dreamt I would be called upon to fight the battle of the Boyne in the precincts of the House of Commons.

I shall now proceed with my remarks on the Budget speech. Let me say to my hon. friend the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who is now in his seat, that I cannot congratulate him on the speech which he delivered the other day. I do not deny his ability. You know, Sir, that every Nova Scotian is able. No province has given to this Dominion Parliament such a galaxy of statesmen as the little province by the sea. But I cannot congratulate my hon. friend on his speech, because it is not his own; he only read the speech of the real Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). As was said in days of old, "The voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau." In my judgment there has been no change of Government, but I am sorry to say that on the part of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance, there has been a change of heart. Yesterday he sat on this side of the House and he was the much vaunted financial critic, to-day he is Minister of Finance in a Tory Cabinet. I cannot congratulate -him, Mr. Speaker, but I hasten to say that he has all my sympathy. It is hard anyway to quarrel with such a genial friend. The most that any one can -say against him is that if his convictions are weak his intentions are honest. My hon. friend knows that I have always had in store for him much true friendship. Will he allow me to speak to him as a candid friend? Since he has taken the plunge, and crossed to the other side of the House for the time

being I hope, may I warn him against that wily financial ring which defeated the reciprocity pact of his then leader the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) under circumstances much similar to those which existed in the election of 1917? It is extraordinary, and here I quote from memory from an English historian, how dull the English people sometimes are. The French are a vivacious race; the English race is dull. I would like to inject some of that French vivacity into my fellow-members of English origin.

The member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Eielding) knows full well that the people of Canada were stampeded in 1911 with the same flag-flapping that stampeded the people in the month of December last. But yet there were Grits-political heirs of George Brown, of Alexander Mackenzie, of Blake, of Cartwright and of Edgar

who were carried away also. They are so honest that they believed what some other wily, crafty people whispered to them. I want to warn my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean), because I look for the ultimate salvation of his soul politically, I wish to warn him against that financial clique that defeated reciprocity under false pretenses.

I want to warn him against the buccaneers who are already shadowing him1 in the lobbies of this House in the hope, or rather in the quest, of further subsidies for the Canadian Northern. He knows what happened as the outcome of many conferences which took place last year-strange coincidence-at the Chateau Laurier, between Sir Clifford Sifton and Sir William Mackenzie. Oh, what would I not give, Mr. Speaker, to get the book of- the recording angel, as Mr. Dooley said, and know what passed between those two knights. Yes, I am honest and sincere in warning my hon. friend that if he wishes to live up to his reputation of sterling integrity he mast take great care not to be seen with the buccaneers, whom he knows just as well as I do, because he fought them when he sat on this side of the House; he itoust not only not be seen with them, but must not be influenced by them in these days of (stress and storm. If he should succumb during the present session to their wily arts, it may be his -lot to receive what the right hon. the Prime Minister received the other day -a visit from the sturdy farmers of Ontario, and there are farmers in that province, especially among the Scotch, who know their arithmetic. Would my hon. friend allow me to say why I cannot congratulate him upon his Budget speech? It is because he has not lived up to our

expectations. When he sat last year on this side of the Chamber he criticised very bitterly-I should not say bitterly, because my hon. friend is not bitter but he criticised very severely the Minister of Finance. He claimed that there was an opportunity of administrative retrenchment which would amount to $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, and he said: Be bold and strong in the crisis ! Let me ask what retrenchment has my hon. friend accomplished?

I give him credit for having reduced the main estimates this year by some two, or, let us say, three million dollars in round figures, but this is very far from thirty or forty million. It is true that I have no ministerial responsibility here, but I have my responsibility as a public man and, I hope, as a patriot, and I say to the Acting Minister of Finance that it is possible at the present time, when (the people are being bled white in order to reinforce the boys at the front, to repeat a homely phrase, to reduce the expenditure of this country by at (least $50,000,000. My hon. friend last year spoke of a possible reduction of (thirty or forty million. I say that this year, in view of the impending crisis, a reduction of $50,000,000 would be hailed by the people, Grits and Tories alike. But alas! the Acting Minister of Finance has not carried out any such policy. He said further last year that the time to secure or impose a tax on business profits is when the maximum profits are being earned. Has my hon, friend lived up to our expectations? Has he increased the revenue from the tax which he was entitled to receive from the profiteering companies? Why, Sir, I have a list which would fill a Doomsday book, of industries in Canada which before the war yielded something like seven or eight per cent on their investment, and which today realize as much as the capital which they had originally invested in their business. I say that my hon. friend should take heed of the present hour, and should not permit those companies that are piling up millions out of the agony of the nation to escape without further taxation. I do not object to the tax on tea or coffee, I do not object to the tax on automobiles, I do not object to the tax on tobacco; but my hon. friend knows that by taxing tea, coffee and tobacco' he is hitting the poor man. Why should he let escape the Canada Cement Company, the steel companies, the canners, and various other enterprises that I could name? Last year the hon. gentleman advocated the removal of the surtax of seven and a. half per cent on the general tariff. He

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

knowledge, not only of British politics, but of English literature and British parliamentary history. The right hon. leader of the Opposition knew there had been a coalition under George III between Newcastle and Pitt, and being a great student, he had read Macaulay's description of that coalition, when "the vilest arts' of corruption were wedded to stainless integrity." Macaulay says:

Newcastle brought to the coalition .a vast mass of power . . . The public offices, the church, the courts of law, the army, the navy, the diplomatic service, swarmed with his creatures .... Pitt, on the other hand, had what Newcastle wanted, an eloquence which stirred the passions and charmed the imagination, a high reputation for purity and the confidence and ardent love of millions.

Newcastle took the treasury, the civil and ecclesiastical patronage, and the disposal of that part of the secret service money which was then employed in bribing members of Parliament. Pitt was Secretary of State, with the direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Thus the filth of all the noisome and pestilential sewers of government was poured into one' channel. Through the other passed only what was bright and stainless.

I repeat that the venerable leader of the Liberal party, when the Prime Minister made his offer of a coalition Government, remembered what happened to Pitt. He knew that Pitt's alliance with Newcastle led to Pitt's downfall, and he refused the offer of the Prime Minister. There is, however, a coalition to-day, or a Union Government based on self-interest, and formed on a fifty-fifty basis. But that coalition will not last. It won the election on the shallow pretext of winning the war. I am told by my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) that in this Government there are no Grits and no Tories. My hon. friend is labouring under a delusion. There is a Tory party to-day, and the Government is a Tory Government. Otherwise we should not have the junta we have in Canada governing by Orders in Council under the War. Measures Act, governing with the aid of the profiteers and the flag-flappers. But the most serious thing of all is that the Tory Government has shattered national unity in Canada, because the country has been deceived. Pledges and promises have been made to the French Canadians on the one hand, and-to the Ontario farmers on the other. The Government has been riding the old pair of fiorses, the Catholic and the Protestant. But we know what will happen when that delegation of farmers, two thousand strong, arrives in Ottawa on the 14th of May next.

I say the farmers were deceived. The

Government had recourse to all the expedients of a good old Tory campaign. They first of all showed their best cards, one of them was a four-flusher in the person of Lord Northcliffe. He came to Canada and said:

It is known to economists that the world's supply of food is not sufficient to feed the world's armies and the civilian population, too.

Eight here in Ottawa he said:

Owing to the shortage of labour'caused >by the war, labour has been taken away from the farm, which has produced varying harvests with the result that there is a world shortage of food.

The food controller, Mr. Hanna said:

labour must 'be supplied to the farms by the cities in time of war when labour is scarce. Canada is the base of supplies. Canada must not fall. Canada must produce.

Naturally, the farmers of Ontario said: we [DOT]will vote for this Government which urges us to produce for the hoys at the front. The then Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Burrell) repeated the same thing in the leaflets which he issued. With all these appeals, pledges and promises, the Unionist Government carried the election. But, to-day they have changed their minds. To-day it is man-power, not food production, that is needed. Sir, it is a long lane that has no turning. Because the French Canadian habitant would not be bullied in the ranks he was said to 'be shirking. Because the province of Quebec is a rural province, affording no such basis for recruiting as the industrial province of Ontario, Quebec was labelled as disloyal. Because the French Canadians have been for 300 years on this continent, have no link with Europe and may not have the same reason to cross the Atlantic and join their fellow-men on the battlefields as have British-born or Anglo-Canadians, they are called slackers. It is now found after the tornado of last December, after all the flag waving, after all the money spent in insulting placards, that the Quebec habitant and the Ontario farmer think exactly alike.

Let me say one more word as to the spirit of Quebec on the question of service in this war. The people of Quebec are a God-fearing, law-abiding, liberty-loving people. They protested against the passing of- this conscription measure through closure. There were a few riots, not engineered by the people of Quebec but engineered by agents provocateurs, some of whom were paid by the Department of Justice. The sober minded people of Quebec never .thought of rioting or revolting. There is only one instance, in recent years not of

a riot, but of a revolt against one of His Majesty's statutes passed by this Parliament. In the eighties when the Parliament of this Dominion sanctioned the Canadian Pacific contract, there was a clause known as the monopoly clause. The people, and legislature of Manitoba protested against that monopoly clause, and when they had exhausted all their protests in a constitutional way, the people of Manitoba-the Britishers of Manitoba,-armed themselves with rifles and guns, met the sheriffs despatched at Winnipeg by the Government at Ottawa and thus resisted His Majesty. That is the only instance of revolt against a statute of His Majesty's Government. The people of Quebec never revolted. They protested, as it was their right to protest, but now that the. law has been embalmed on the statute book, out of respect to the majesty of the law, the people of Quebec will obey it. They will do their duty, a'l their duty, and they will do it with credit to themselves and to their native land.

The arguments which were advanced by the Quebec people against the passing of conscription were the same arguments as those which are being advanced to-day by the Ontario farmers, which are being advanced sub rosa by representatives of farming constituencies in this House, and which are being advanced by the committee on-agriculture. Let 'me read a resolution which was unanimously passed the other day by the Unionist members of that committee:

That in the opinion of the committee on agriculture the Minister of Militia should he requested to order:

(a) That actual farmers who have been called up shall be given leave of absence and

(b) That no actual farmers be required to report until all others in the class affected by the Order in Council of April 2'0th, 1918, have been put in service; such leave of absence and delay in reporting to be 'conditioned upon their actual employment in farming.

So that, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is being vin-. dicated.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PEDLOW:

Is that a resolution which was actually passed by men who voted down the amendment in this House in favour of exempting farmers?

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I say " yes " to my hon. friend, and what is most tragic is that the committee had put themselves into communication with the various Ministers of Agriculture, not only in Quebec-the Quebec minister was asked his opinion only at the last moment

but

in all the provinces. This resolution was endorsed by the Minister of Agriculture

in the province of Ontario, who said: " Yes, we want all our farmers on the farm." It was also endorsed by the Ministers of Agriculture of the other provinces which had elected Unionist members at the last election. iSo there is reflected in that resolution the unbiased, the unshackled opinion of the honest people of this country. Not only are we vindicated by the members of this House, by the committee on agriculture, but we are also vindicated by one of the ministers, the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne). The minister has lived in Quebec all his life, he was born there, and I am proud to say that his brother is one of my electors. That hon. gentleman, speaking in Montreal on Friday last," said:

Mr. Ballantyne praised Quebec's way of answering to the call, stating that while its attitude towards the Military Service Act was not the same as that of many in the country, there was no more loyal province in the Dominion. He also paid his respects to the fighting qualities of the French Canadian, and thanked Archbishop Bruch esi-

Is my hon. friend from Toronto. (Mr. Hocken) here?

-for the great assistance he had given throughout the war.

I would like to sprinkle my hon. friend of the Orange Sentinel with holy water.

In conclusion, let me say that we must all heilp win the war and we on this side of the House are ready to accept our share of the financial burden which Canada must face. We forgive the discreditable arguments used by most of the press of the Unionist party during the last campaign. Indeed, after the battle was over, surveying the debris on the battlefield, we found here and there, many glittering stil-lettoes still dripping in blood, daggers, Rogers knives1, etc., etc., constituting a collection which many a rogues' gallery might well envy. Those were the weapons that had been aimed at the breast of the right hon. and venerable leader of the Opposition. But thank Heaven, he is still living, and the banner of true Liberalism is still floating over this Dominion. We can

well afford to exclaim: " All is lost but honour." I wish that every leader of a Canadian political party could say the same. Sir, in one of his great Midlothian campaign speeches Mr. Gladstone used the following words: .

We oanraot reckon on the wealth of the country, nor upon the rank of the country, nor upon the influence which rank and wealth usually bring. In the main these powers are against

us, for wherever there is1 a close corporation, wherever there is a spirit of organized monopoly, wherever there is a narrow and sectional interest apart from that of the country, and desiring to he set up above the interest of the public, there, gentlemen, we, the Liberal! party, have no friendship and no tolerance to expect.

Above all these, and behind all these, there is something greater than these-there is the nation itself:-The nation is a power hard to rouse, but when roused, harder still and more hopeless to resist. [DOT]

These eloquent words admirably reflect the attitude of the Liberal party, and, we believe, the ultimate unbiased and undaunted spirit of the Canadian people.

My last words must be essentially Canadian. I gather from the newspapers that some ministers are at the present time scheming-yes, if my information is right, scheming-an ex parte trip to London. But. the Prime Minister is not going, and I am glad that he is not going, to London. At the present time he can well afford to follow the example of General Botha; his presence is urgently required in Canada as the leader of the nation. I am told that the Minister of the Interior and the President of the Council are going together to the Englisii metropolis. Why that association? I would be suspicious if I were one of the other ministers. Is Beaufort going to>

London? Is the famous secretarial organization going to London? Perhaps my hon. friend from Russell may have something to communicate to the House in that regard. I have read somewhere that Caesar was always suspicious of the pale man. I also am suspicious of that pale pair travelling together, and if I were a member of the Cabinet I would ask my hon. friends, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works, to accompany them. Why give the two ministers to whom I have referred, a monopoly of the loyalty of Canada in London? Why not the Minister of Labour, for instance? Why mot my good friend the Secretary of State, who doubtless would (be glad to. see his native land, because I know that he is Brit-ish-toom. I spoke with him once at a St, George's Society dinner in Montreal, when I tried to explain to him that St. George when he killed the dragon did not kill the Tory party. Sir, the duty of a minister of the Crown at the present time does not lie in joy-riding in London. We have a minister there in the person of Sir Edward Kemp, we have a High Commissioner there in the person of Sir George Perley. Lord Milner does not care to see those gentlemen, nor Lloyd George either; let them stay

at their post. My hon. friend the President of the Council should rather go into the county of Durham this summer and spend his vacations there among the farmers, cajoling them to allow their sons to be conscripted. Moreover the Imperialistic dreams of the Round Table clubs ana jingo associations, of which we have counterparts in Canada have 'had their day in England. The rising and predominating influence over there is the Labour party, and (the Canadian jingoes will get very little comfort from that source. Let them read, learn and inwardly digest the following words from the leader of that great party. Speaking about the persistent jingo conspiracy against the autonomy of the Dominions', Mr. Henderson said:

With regard to that great Commonwealth ot all races, all colours, all religions, and all degrees of civilization, that we call the British Empire, the Labour Party stands for its maintenance and its progressive development on the lines of Local Autonomy and "Home Rule All Round" ; the fullest respect for the rights of each people, whatever Its colour, to all the Democratic Self-Government of which it is capable, and to the proceeds of its own toil upon the resources of its own territorial home; and the closest possible co-operation among all the various members of what has became essentially not an Empire in the old sense, but a Britannic Alliance. We desire to maintain the most intimate relations with the Labour Parties overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the projects of "Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the subjection to a common Imperial Legislature wielding coercive power, (including dangerous facilities for coercive Imperial taxation and for enforced military service), either of the existing Self-Governing Dominions, whose autonomy would' be thereby invaded; or of the United' Kingdom, whose freedom of Democratic self-development would be thereby hampered; or of India and the Colonial Dependencies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a "White Empire." We do not intend!, by any such "Imperial Senate" either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite, in controlling the growing Popular Democracies overseas. The absolute autonomy of each self-governing part of the Empire must be maintained intact.

I 'regret, Mr. Speaker, to have spoken at such length, tout I thought that this was the proper time to utter the words which I have spoken, in order, in company with my fellow-members, to place the sentiments of my race rightly before the people of this country. As was said so eloquently the other day by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) no press has been debauched to present only one side of the case for .us; no press has been bought to defend

the French Canadians. This Parliament is our only forum.

In conclusion, let. me say on behalf of my compatriots that their national creed can be summed up in one sentence; Credo in imam patriam.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
UNI L

Michael Clark

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, we have just had a confession on the part of the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) who has resumed his iseat that he is sorry he spoke so long. I think I should like to give him the assurance that he is not nearly so sorry as the House is.

Mr. (McKENZIE: We are not sorry if you are.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
UNI L

Michael Clark

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

My hon. friend from Cape Breton gives at the same moment a beautiful example of his want of selfrestraint and of his egotism. He mistakes himself for the House.

Topic:   GREATER POOD PRODUCTION.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

May 7, 1918