March 6, 1919


John Wesley Edwards



(Fron tenac): Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to add my congratulations to those which have already so fittingly been bestowed on the mover and the seconder of the Address. Seldom, if ever, in this House has that duly been so generally approved; seldom if ever has the approval been more merited. 1 note, however, that the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Redman) did not commend themselves entirely to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low) who had a somewhat serious complaint to make. His complaint was that the hon. member for Calgary East knew more than he had put on the pages of Hansard. As to that, what a striking contrast was presented by the hon. member for South Renfrew, who not only placed on Hansard all he knew but very much that he only thought he knew. In this connection, I might observe that the comic effects of many of the observations of the hon. member for South Renfrew are heightened by the self-sufficiency and conceit of the artist.

I also wish to add my congratulations to those which have been bestowed upon the hon. leader of the Opposition in winning the great Liberal Free-for-All and the $7,000 attached thereto. It is remarkable what speed and endurance an old race horse will develop if he is headed towards home and a good feed of oats. I need not remind you, Sir, that Scotchmen are partial to oats, and the hon. leader of the Opposition is Scotch-plain Scotch sometimes, for he is very blunt and direct in his remarks, and at other times, when his

remarks are interspersed with humour, Scotch and soda, sometimes more Scotch than soda, and sometimes more soda than Scotch. The hon. leader of the Opposition, however, is a very worthy type of a very gallant race, and the best wish I have for him is that he may continue to fill the position of leader of the Opposition for the rest of his natural life and that his years may be very, very long. I think in expressing that wish I am also expressing what is in the best interests of Canada.

The hon. leader of the Opposition assisted by a small choir composed of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) held a sort of revival meeting on the other side of the House a few days ago. After a few words of prayer or rather a few quotations from Scripture, which fall very frequently from the lips of the leader of the Opposition, the choir sang that old hymn: Where is my wandering boy to-night? The leader of the Opposition then proceeded to notify hon. gentlemen on this side that there was a candle in the window and that the latch string was outside. He did not state what window the candle was in, but the omission was supplied by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who said that it was in the kitchen window. When extending an invitation to members on this side of the House to return, one would have thought that they would have illuminated the front of the house and put a service flag in the window, or at all events given some manifestations of joy to encourage the wanderers to return home. But no. They told Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that the only way they could get back home was around by the woodshed and through the back door. They had some veal there leaning against the back fence. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) would know at once that it was only a grade, and a mighty poor one at that. However, a very pathetic appeal was made by the leader of the Opposition, and a very urgent one by the hon. member for Brome. A still more urgent appeal was made by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who told the Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that if they did not hurry up they would not get any veal. I have as yet seen no indications on the part of Liberal-Unionists to accept the invitation and hurry to the other side.

As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) very properly and pointedly said: What is there to go back to? If you are looking for a similarity of ideals,

whether on trade matters or other matters,

I do not see that there is anything to cause hon. members on this side of the House to go back to the other side. Certainly so far as the war and affairs arising out of the war are concerned, I am quite confident that the Liberal-Unionists on this sid'e will find themselves in more congenial company than they would if they were to cross to the other side of the House.

It has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite that the War-time Elections Act was simply for the winning of the election, and that the Military Service Act was for the s6me purpose. Of course, hon. gentlemen on that side are actuated by pure motives at all times, and hon. members on this side have not been so actuated. I want to take a peep at history, and not very ancient history either. In August, 1917, there was a meeting of Liberals in the city of Toronto to talk over the political situation and discuss, the possibilities of coalition and that sort of thing. They spoke very candidly one to the other, and their proceedings were reported, though they did not intend that the public should be informed of what they said. One gentleman, speaking of the Liberals as a win-the-war party said:

Win-the-war party? This is not a win-the-war party. Every gentleman here says the whole aim is to win the election. That is the policy of the party.

Another gentleman, formerly a member of this House for Glengarry, said, that as he had in his constituency both Scotch and French, he had taken the course in this House of voting one time with the Government and another time against it, for the purpose of appealing to both these sections in his county. Hon. George P. Graham, in explanation of his position said that he voted and acted as he did in the House with the knowledge and approval of his leader. He stood on the floor of this House and said that he voted for conscription in July, 1917, and advocated it, on principle, and that he would advocate it again on principle. Fancy the position of the Liberal party as represented by that expression of opinion on the part of Hon. Mr. Graham. He was voting and acting in this House with the knowledge and consent of his leader, yet voting and acting in this House in a manner directly opposed to that taken by his leader at that time. We can only come to the conclusion that in Ontario Mr. Graham was acting with the knowledge and consent of his leader in supporting conscription, while

a different policy was being supported in Quebec. .

Another gentleman present at that meeting now occupies a seat in this House, the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy). He said:

Like other gentlemen who have spoken I regret the diversity of opinion that exists, and I am confused on account of it. In fact for a month or more past I have been like Eliza in Uncle Tom's Cabin, floating along jumping from one cake of ice to another, and now I want to strike shore somewhere, and I want to land soon.

Well, the hon. gentleman, judging from his remarks the other night, is still floating, and on thin ice, too, and on many questions still quite a way from shore. He found fault with the polling of the soldier vote in England. But there are only two gentlemen in this House who received a larger proportion of soldier votes in England than they received in Canada, and of whom it can be said, because of that larger proportion in England, that they gained an election which they would not otherwise have gained. That is: it is only fair to assume that the Union Government of Canada would have obtained as large a proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they obtained in Canada. If you give to them only the same proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they received of the soldiers' votes on this side, and hand the rest of the soldiers' votes over to their opponents, there are only two seats that could have been affected adversely to the hon. members now sitting in this House. So, I think Eliza will have to jump on another cake of ice so far as this point is concerned.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy) also referred to the franchise legislation. He said that franchise legislation should be fair and just. I presume we all agree to that as a statement of principle. The only question is what a man considers fair and just. Is it fair to give the franchise to the slacker, the defaulter, the alien enemy in this country? Is it fair to place these men in the same position as men who have done their duty throughout the four and a half years of war? Is it fair to recognize in the alien enemies of this country citizens on an equal plane with those who have loyally stood by the country in its hour of need? According to the hon. member for North Essex, and several others who have spoken on that side that would be a proper course to pursue. I take issue with them on that; I say that that sort of legislation would be simply putting a premium upon treason and cowardice, it would be unfair legislation-unfair to those in this country who

faced their responsibilities as citizens and were prepared to take all the chances that went with doing their duties as citizens.

The hon. member for North Essex and several other hon. members opposite,-the hon. member (Mr. McCoig) who has just taken his seat, I believe, is one-find fault with the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) because he is not in Canada at this time. They say that the Prime Minister should be in Canada now attending to tariff matters, attending to railway matters. The hon. member for North Essex said that Canada is not concerned with the settling of Balkan boundaries nor the policing of Constantinople. That seems a strange stand for a man to take in view; of what this country fought for through four and a half years of the most terrible war the world has ever known.

Canada is not concerned in the settlement of the boundaries of the Balkan States. Is it not true that that part of Europe was a seething bed of revolution and a serious trouble for years, and that that trouble arose very largely from the unsettled conditions of the people because the. boundaries were not properly arranged and certain races found themselves under the jurisdiction of other people and rebelled against that sort of thing? If Canada has any interest in world peace, it seems to me to require no argument that she is very much concerned in seeing that there shall be a rearrangement of the boundaries of these countries which will make it impossible, as far as we can do so, for such a war to take place again. Is Canada not concerned in policing Constantinople? Is it possible that any hon. gentleman will argue that we Canadians have no concern in the fact that the Turks have murdered in cold blood over a million Armenians whose only fault was that they had accepted the Christian faith? The hon. gentleman may argue that it is more important to us in Canada to settle at once our tariff differences than to endeavour to arrange matters over there and place Turkey in such a position that she cannot in the years to come murder and mutilate, as she has done, not only during this war but for years before this war?

Mr. Speaker, 1 think we in Canada should be proud of the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is recognized by the statesmen of Britain and France as a man of superior ability, as a man possessing talents which can be of the greatest assistance in bringing about a rearrangement to make impossible the state of things which has filled every honest and decent person with horror during the last four and a half

years. The Prime Minister is a man whose soul is sick with horror at what has taken place during the last four and a half years, a man whose vision is broader than the bounds of Canada, or of the British Empire, a man who feels himself to have an interest in the whole human race and what affects the whole human race, and who is playing his part and bringing honour to this country in trying to effect a settlement which will last for all time to come and which will place these countries where they properly belong. I think the expressions which have fallen from the lips of some hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the absence of the Prime Minister at this time do very little credit to them. The tariff can wait for a few months if need be. The Prime Minister's place at the present time, I submit, is over in Paris, giving them there the benefit of his ability in the effort to effect a settlement of this great war and bring matters to a proper conclusion.

I shall not undertake to add to what has been said already in the way of paying tribute to the achievements of our soldiers overseas. I could not hope to say anything as eloquently and as well as it has been said by many hon. gentlemen who have referred to what our soldiers have done. We are face to face now with the problem of reconstruction and the soldier enters very largely into that problem. I think I am logical in saying that, so far as the soldier is concerned, the problem of reconstruction and repatriation is greater in the constituency which has a thousand soldiers returning to it than in a constituency which has only half a dozen soldiers returning to it. There are certain constituencies in Quebec, for instance, where it will not be any problem at all. If you can judge from the number of soldiers who went from these constituencies by the soldier vote polled, then I submit the problem of repatriation, as far as they are concerned, is no problem whatever. There are several constituencies in Quebec, according to the soldier vote polled in Canada and overseas, that have only three soldiers to repatriate. Things cannot be very much disturbed in a constituency where they only have to repatriate three soldiers supposing that they have all lived through the war and returned. In the constituency of Kamouraska, for instance, there were only 15 soldier votes polled on this side of the water and overseas. Things cannot be so terribly out of tune in that part of Canada in so far as the soldier or repatriation is concerned.

I propose to place on Hansard some figures showing what various parts of Canada have done in regard to sending soldiers in this war. That is something that has not been touched on as yet and I propose to place these figures on record now. The Military Service Act came in for considerable criticism in this House although it parsed with the approval of all the provinces of Canada except one. The Government tried honestly under that Military Service Act to keep faith with the men overseas and to keep faith with them by disturbing conditions in this country as little as possible. In order not to disturb conditions more than was absolutely necessary in this country, in order to leave to farming and industrial pursuits those men that could least easily be spared, provision was made in the Military Service Act for certain exemptions and exemption tribunals were appointed. As time went on it became very apparent that the very machinery of the Act which had been provided for the purpose of retaining here those men that could least be spared was being made use of to defeat the purpose of the Act which was to get the necessary number of men to go overseas.

In that connection I may say that out of 403,135 registrations in the Dominion of Canada all but 25,508 asked for exemptions and that was pretty general in all the military districts. But I wish to point out this, and it is exceedingly significant, that those military districts that asked for the lowest number of exemptions in proportion to registrations were those military districts that had already contributed the greatest number of men, and those districts which asked for the greatest number of exemptions were the ones that had already done little or nothing. For instance, in the district of Quebec 39,351 registered, and 39,072 asked for exemptions, and if you look at the figures in connection with the enlistments up to the time of the enforcement of the Military Service Act, the enlistments from that district were the lowest of any district in the Dominion of Canada.

Well, Sir, every person knows that as time went on the Germans made their attempt to break through on the Western Front. The French line was bent back towards Paris, that part of the line held by the British was bent back towards the channel ports, and things looked very dark indeed. The Government of this country, and the Government of Great Britain and the people of France saw that every man that foul possibly be spared must go to

the Front if we wore to save the situation, and steps were taken here to cancel all exemptions; it was absolutely necessary if we were going to keep faith with the men overseas that men should be sent to support them in their efforts to maintain the position on the Western Front. Great Britain had already been drained of almost every available man, and was short of food, yet she went out and took over thirty thousand off the farm, and there was not any kick or row in the Mother Country about it.

On March 31, 1918, the number of recruits obtained from the several provinces were as follows-I will give the number of recruits in March, 1918, and also on August 15, 1918, in order to show what was done here by the Militia Department in trying to obtain the necessary help for the boys overseas. Up to March 31st, 1918, Ontario had contributed 193,689 recruits, and up to August 15th, 1918, 235,925 recruits, an increase of 42,236. Quebec had contributed on March 31st, 1918, 55,206,

and on August 15th, 71,891, an increase of 16,685, that is for the whole province. Maritime Provinces on March 31st, 1918, 45,662, and on August 15th, 1918, 56,937, an increase of 11,275. Manitoba on March 31st, MS, 64,624, and on August 15th, 1918, 72,593, an increase of 7,969. Saskatchewan on March 31st, 1918, 28,540, and on August 15th, 1918, 36,980, an increase of 8,440. Alberta, on March 31st, 1918, 38,188, and on August 15th, .1918, 44,238, an increase of 6,050. British Columbia on March 31st, 1918, 46,895, and on August 15th, 1918, 51,947, an increase of 5,062. That is to say, on the 31st of March

1918, we had 482,806 recruits, and on the 15th of August, 1918, we had 570,521, or we had added in that time 97,717. II submit to you, Sir, that these figures are creditable to the Militia Department and to the efforts of the Government of this country.

I want to carry those figures a little bit further. I want to be perfectly fair to every part of the Dominion in regard to this matter, showing what each did towards helping to win this war. I want to place these figures on record because I think they have a very direct bearing upon the question of reconstruction in this country, and they should be taken into consideration by the Government when it is formulating its plan for the expenditure of money throughout the different parts of this Dominion. If we deduct from the population of each province all Europeans, Asiatics and foreign born, except those from Belgium, France, Italy and Rumania-and I except those because I think it is only right to assume that any residents of those countries in Canada would be willing to do their part with us, and to enlist as our men were enlisting to carry on the war-if we deduct those Germans and Austrians, and so on, from the populations of the various provinces I find that it gives us this result: That out of every one thousand recruits each province should have furnished in proportion to its population as follows: Ontario 368, Quebec 275, Maritime Provinces 138, Manitoba 67, Saskatchewan 59, Alberta 47, and British Columbia 46. That, Sir, is the proportion which each province should have contributed in proportion to its population. Now I wall place on Hansard what each province did contribute as against what they should have contributed

- No. of Enlistments. No. that should have enlisted in proportion to population. No. above or below quota according to population that should have been furnished by each province. 241,258 80,097 217,330 23,928 (Excess).162,407 82,310 \Below)59,206 73,434 53,765 37,666 81,498 22,292 Manitoba 39,568 27,166 33,866 26,599 (Excess).34,843 2,823 it45,146 27,756 17,390 it

I might say that these figures take us right up to the 15th of November, 1918, and that in the case of British Columbia that province was pretty nearly one hundred per cent in excess of its fair quota or proportion of population.

I want to impress on the members of the House the fact, which cannot, I think, be controverted, that had each province enlisted men in proportion to its population, Quebec would have contributed 82,310 more men than it did, the Maritime Provinces

history of the party does not show that. What was the position taken in regard to agricultural implements in 1907, for instance? The member for Kent was supporting the Liberal party at that time, cheering and hurrahing for the Liberal platform. In 1907 the question of the duty on agricultural implements came up in this House. The member for Kent was not a member of the House at that time. He came into Parliament the next year, but he came in as a strong supporter of a party which had refused in 1907 the appeal of the 'Conservatives in this House for the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements from 17i to 10 per cent. When the Fielding tariff was brought in, in 1907, the proposal was to bring the duty down to 17J per cent, and Dr. Schaffner, now Senator Schaffner, then the member for Souris in this House, moved that the duty on agricultural implements be reduced to 10 per cent. Every Conservative member in the House at that time voted for Dr. Schaffner's resolution, and every Liberal voted against it. Therefore, in so far as the tariff on agricultural implements is concerned, I think I am quite reasonable when I say that past history would encourage the hon. member for Red Deer ((Mr. Michael Clark), or any other free trader, if there is any other out-and-out free trader in this House, to hope for more from the Conservative party or Unionist party than he could expect to get from the old Liberal party.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer for a few minutes. I am sorry to have to refer to it, but I do not think that I should take my seat without making some reference to Civil Service reform. The hon. member for West. Toronto (Mr. Hocken) a few days ago brought up in this House the matter of the Civil Service and offered some criticism. I was in the House during the whole time that the hon. member made his speech, and not only did I follow him very carefully in the House, but to make certain of what he said I very carefully read his speech as reported on Hansard. I could not, however, find in the hon. member's speech a single sentence, line or word which would justify any person of accusing him of religious bigotry. He presented the matter in a moderate and fair manner. Not once in the whole course of his speech did he mention the word " religion." And yet, because his criticism of the Civil Service affected the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Foran, that gentleman is reported in the press the next day as saying that the remarks of the

hon. member for West Toronto against him were actuated by religious bigotry; that the hon. member for West Toronto assailed -him, Mr. Foran, because Mr. Foran was a Roman Catholic. I repeat that from begi i-ning to end of his speech, you cannot find one word to justify that accusation by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Have we come, Sir, to a state in this country that an hon, member of this House cannot, from his seat, without being characterized in the press as a bigot, criticise a civil servant who happens to be a member of the Roman Catholic church? Is that the situation with which we are face to face in Canada to-day? It looks very much like it. Not only do I resent that accusation by Mr. Foran, the Secretary of the Commission, but I resent the editorial which appeared yesterday or this morning-I forget which-in the Ottawa Journal.

I am going to refer to a case which will throw some little light on this question. I understand from the press that one of the ministers is going to refer to the Civil Service, and I am very glad to speak before he does, because this is a matter which he can add to his list, and he can give us some explanation on this as well as on the matters on which the hon. member for West Toronto touched. There appeared in the Canada Gazette on December 28 this advertisement:-

A Publicity Agent to take charge of the publicity work of the Department of Immigration and Colonization at a salary of $4,000 per annum. Candidates should possess the following qualifications:-Ability to prepare and direct newspaper, magazine and farm journal advertising campaigns, both in Canada and elsewhere, in setting forth the settlement opportunities in Canada; knowledge and experience with (a) follow-up systems, (b) the production and circulation of motion pictures, and (c) the natural resources of Canada; ability to direct lecture campaigns; a personal acquaintance with writers, publicists and organizations now dealing with the opportunities and land settlement problems of Canada.

Application forms, properly filled in, must be filed in the office of the Civil Service Commission not later than the 24th day of January.

In answer to that advertisement, I desire to place on Hansard an application made by a gentleman who seems to me to possess the qualifications called for in the advertisement. He writes as follows:-

William Foran, Esq., Secretary,

Civil Service Commission,


January 24, 1918.

Sir,-I have the honour to attach herewith formal application for the position of Publicity Agent of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.

I am at present in charge of the Publicity of the Vocational Branch of this department, which involves considerable research work, and feel that I have qualifications and experience which would fit me eminently for the vacant position.

In my late appointment (prior to the war) as manager of the Copy and Art Department of the Norris-Patterson Advertising Agency, I was brought in touch with many of the leading Canadian advertisers, the preparation of whose copy was ih my hands, and the continued success of these advertising campaigns is evidence of the quality of this copy. In many cases it has been my duty to advise on and instal follow-up systems, and especially in the preparation of catalogues and booklets, my experience has been very varied, embodying, as it does, a knowledge of the technicalities of the printing and engraving industries.

As regards the Farm Press, it has been my privilege to handle a number of advertising accounts of manufacturers, appealing particularly to the farmers of Canada, and this has involved a study of farm conditions which was essential before contact with this section of the community could be made.

For the International Varnishing Company, I prepared a lecture with over 200 slides describing the winning of the raw materials in different parts of the world that composed the varnish of commerce and of the processes and manufacture of this commodity-this lecture being part of an educational campaign, directed to the retail merchants of Canada. This is directly along the lines of Cinema Publicity.

I am considered a forceful public speaker, and have had not a little experience along this line, and could adequately plan and direct such campaigns as would be desirable.

In conclusion, I would direct your attention to the fact that I have a most intimate acquaintance with Publicity in all its forms, my work in my late position calling for the origination and design of advertising publicity of every kind. This work brought me in the closest touch with the newspapers and periodicals throughout Canada, and in a large degree with the Farm Press, and my position as Editor of "Economic Advertising" gave me extended acquaintance with leading Canadian, English and American writers and publicists.

I shall be happy to wait on you at your convenience,

I have the honour to he, Sir,.

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) Donald Tuck.

I might add to that the following partial list of campaigns handled wholly or in part by Mr. Tuck:-

The Campaign (1913) for advertising the benefits of Advertising; the Convention Campaign (1914), of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the world, E. W. Gillett Co., Limited, Ames, Holden & McCready, Pedlar People, Limited, International Varnish Company, Cudahy Packing Company, B. Greening Wire Company, American Chiclet Company, H. R. Williams Machinery Company, Canadian Shredded Wheat Company, Gidley Boat Company, Monarch Knitting Company, Steele Briggs & Company, and many others.

Mr. Tuck was notified by the secretary of the commission on February 6 that the

position had been given to Mr. R. J. E. Stead of Calgary, as the best qualified candidate. He wrote asking for further particulars and for the names of the hoard of experts or examiners to whom the secretary of the commission had alluded. That information was given. The personnel of the board of examiners is as follows:

Sir John Willison, formerly editor of the Toronto Globe and Toronto News, now Canadian representative of the London Times; P. D. Ross, editor of the Ottawa Journal; Dr. George H. Locke, Librarian of the Toronto Public Library and Associate Director of Public Information. Dr. Locke, was, unfortunately, ill and was unable to attend the meeting and his place was taken by Dr. A. D. DeCelles, Librarian of Parliament. The .Department was represented by the Acting Deputy Minister, Mr W. W. Cory.

I have nothing to say with regard to the ability of the gentlemen who composed the board of examiners who no doubt are very able men but I would direct attention to the fact that they are writers and not men whom you would naturally regard as competent to select a publicity agent. Mr. Foran in one of his letters tells this gentleman that fifteen returned soldiers were among the applicants for the position. The gentleman whose application I have just read is also a returned soldier who had been in the service three and a half years and certainly possesses to my mind the qualifications which would entitle him at least to a personal interview by the Commission. Now, Sir. I make these points: Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19,1918 and drew the salary of the position from that date. Yet the vacancy was not advertised until December 28, 1918. Now get those dates right. I say that Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19, 1918 and the advertisement appeared in the Canada Gazette- on December 28, 1918. I say further that no opportunity was given to the candidates to appear in person before the Commissioners. I say also that despite the fact that fifteen returned soldiers had put in their applications, and that one in my judgment had every qualification for the position, the Civil Service Commission disregarded the stated policy of the Government and appointed a man who was not a returned soldier. I submit further that the Board of Examiners in this case did not possess the necessary qualifications to judge of a candidate's fitness for this position. The men composing the board were literary men with little or no publicity experience. I am told that Mr. Stead has not the very wide qualifications for a publicity man called for in the advertisement, that he is a story-writer and a poet. I

complain that no opportunity was given to candidates to submit to any written or oral test, and that competition was eliminated by the absence of such a test. Now, Sir, is not a member of this House justified in criticising such a state of affairs? Mr. Stead was selected by whom? By the Civil Service Commission? Not at all. They delegated their powers to the committee I have already named. Once more I call your attention to the fact that one of the members of that committee was Mr. P. D. Boss, editor of the Ottawa Journal, the gentleman, I suppose, who wrote the editorial criticising severely and unjustly the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). It is all right for Mr. P.'D. Ross through the columns of his paper to criticise a member of this House for daring to offer any criticism of the Civil Service Commission, because he was one of the subcommittee appointed to select one of his friends for a Government position. You can see the Ethiopian in the wood-pile there, Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to put your glasses on to see him.

I 'have not one word of adverse criticism or disrespect to offer with regard to the members of the Civil Service Commission. Two of these gentlemen I know, and have known for a number of years, and I have the highest respect for them. The other member of the Commission I do not know, but I have no reason to consider him anything else but well qualified for his position, and a gentleman. It is not the Civil Service Commission that is to. blame for the conditions that exist to-day. Who is to blame? The members of this House are to blame because we placed upon the shoulders of the Civil Service Commission an amount of work which no Civil Service Commission under the canopy of heaven could possibly do. For proof of my statement I have only to go to the commissioners themselves, who have furnished the proof over and over again by delegating to subcommittees the work which they are supposed to do. For one position I am told there were 1,300 or 1,400 applications and that a thousand or more of the applications were thrown into the waste-paper basket without ever being looked at. A subcommittee pawed over the other three hundred and made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, who notified the appointee that he was the lucky man. There were 62 applications for the position of superintendent of penitentiaries, and another subcommittee was appointed to look over those applications and report to

the Commission. A subcommittee was appointed to look over the applications for publicity agent, to which I have already referred. Yet Mr. P. D. Ross, the editor of the Ottawa Journal, says that me members of this House are angry because patronage has been taken away from them, that all that the members of this House exist for is the distribution of patronage, and that now that has been taken away from them they have nothing to do. So far as I am concerned, and I believe the majority of hon. members are in the same position, I have not recommended more than half a dozen men during the whole time I have been in this House. I say that it is as ridiculous a thing as can be imagined to place in the hands of three men at Ottawa the making of all appointments to the Outside Service throughout this country.

What in the name of Heaven does the Civil Service Commission here in Ottawa know of the qualifications of a man for a fifty-dollar post office in the county of Fron-tenac? There is only one person in the county who must not even express an opinion as to those qualifications, and that is the man who represents the people of the county and is responsible to them. To talk about responsible government and then have a condition of this kind seems to me absolutely silly, absolutely ridiculous.

The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) called attention to the fact that there is a school here in Ottawa run by a gentleman who prepares candidates for the Civil Service. I am informed that he is an intimate friend of the Secretary of the Commission. He was formerly in the public employ under the Laurier Government, and, I believe, was dismissed from his position because he was carrying on this business of preparing candidates. Later he was reinstated, and now holds his position in the Civil Service and makes use of that position to canvass around the departments to get persons to attend his school where they are fitted for the Civil Service, and they never fail. I trust the gentleman will appreciate the ad. I am giving him here to-night. I submit that this is a state of affairs which justifies the hon. member for West Toronto in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. And once more I protest as a member of this House against the attitude of the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission in speaking as he did of the hon. member for West Toronto without any warrant for doing so. I want to express my disapproval of and resentment at the attitude of the Ottawa Journal in its editorial

columns, condemning every member of this House in regard to patronage, and particularly the hon. member for West Toronto, especially in view of the fact that the editor of the Journal was one of the men acting as a sub-committee in making these appointments of which we have just right to complain.

We have been told that old conditions have passed and that we enter now upon a new political era in the Dominion of Canada. I believe that to be true, and I believe that it is a good thing for Canada that it is true. Our politics, from Cbnfedera-tion down to the present time, have been largely a matter of man-worship. Canada had in its public life two of the most remarkable characters that ever graced the life of any country, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These men by their personality added to their superior talents drew men to them; their word was law. I am free to confess that, as a lifelong Tory, I used to think that when Sir John Macdonald expressed an opinion on any subject, that settled it-it was no use to debate it further. And I venture to say that there are men in this House to-day whose regard for the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was so great that they paid equal deference to his judgment. This had the effect of suppressing individuality. One of the things that will come out of this war for Canada is that men who sit in this House, from now on, are going to express more their individual opinion than they ever did before. And it is a good thing for the Dominion of Canada that it should be so. I hope to goodness we shall never again have in this Dominion men who are possessed of the wonderful magnetism possessed by the two great leaders who occupied the political stage in this Dominion for so many years. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite believe me or not, I think they will find that men not only in this House but throughout this country are supporting Union Government not only because Union Government has justified its existence, and justified it amply, but because they recognize in this Union Government and this Union party a breaking away from those hard and fast political lines with which, in their soul, they did not agree.

Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the tariff. I doubt very much if this is an opportune time for a thorough revision of the tariff. I stated in this House last session that I did not believe there was in Canada at that time a man who could state what the fiscal policy of this Dominion should be after the war; that after the war

we should have to arrange our fiscal policy to meet changed conditions. It seems to me that in the course of the next two or three months, or perhaps in less time than that, there will be such radical changes in transportation rates and in the prices of commodities that we shall be in a better position to form an opinion on tariff questions than we are now, when prices, transportation rates, and other elements in the problem are in a state of flux. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to speak as if the one only thing upon which parties can be based in this House is the fiscal policy. I venture to suggest that there are problems facing this Dominion of far greater importance than the immediate arrangement of our fiscal policy. I have always been a strong protectionist. I have no apologies to make for that; whether I am right or whether I am wrong, I have been sincere and conscientious in my belief. But, speaking as an Ontario man and one who has been a strong protectionist, I am prepared to go a long wqy in revising my views on tariff matters if by so doing we can keep together the people of this country, who, it seems to me, have got to keep together if we are to solve the problems with which our country's future is bound up. If we can get together by a compromise on tariff matters, there are other matters, such as putting the foreigners of this country where they properly belong, which are more important, in my opinion, than the immediate fixing of the tariff and the settlement of the question whether the duty on a given article shall be fifteen per cent or seventeen and a half per cent.

Before taking my seat I want to say just a word in regard to defaulters and slackers, and the way they have been treated in this country. I have no sympathy to waste on the man who is behind prison bars to-day for being a deserter or defaulter under the Military Service Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I protest very strongly against an Ontario man who is charged with desertion, or being a defaulter under the Military Service Act, being condemned to imprisonment for one, two, three, four or five years, when a defaulter in Quebec gets off with a fine of $5, $25 or $50. In my judgment, the placing of these defaulters in the penitentiaries and jails of the country is a mistake. They should be punished, but it seems to me they should be placed in internment camps, and the form of punishment I would impose on them would be to take from them the franchise. If they have refused, as they have, to do their duty in the nation's crisis, they should not expect to exercise the

privilege of the franchise. I will tell you why I object to placing these men behind prison bars. They have been guilty of a breach of the Military Service Act. You take a man and place him in prison or in the penitentiary. Apart from the fact that he has not responded, as he should have responded, to the service of his country, he has shown no criminal instincts whatever. Is it a wise thing to take a man who has given no evidence of criminal instincts and put him in prison along with men steeped in crime? Is that wise from the national standpoint? What chance has that man to come out after two, or five years' incarceration alongside of the worst criminals the country may have produced and play the part of a man? For that reason, and not because I think they should be exempt from punishment, I believe it is a mistake to place these men behind prison bars in our penitentiaries and jails.

In conclusion, let me say that the men on this side of the House, whether Liberal or Conservative, in supporting Union Government, had to decide whether party or national interests should be paramount. There are plenty of big problems in this country to be solved. The motives that actuated the men on this side of the House in the last election should actuate them in the future, and their principal idea should he not the good of the party, whether Liberal, Unionist or whatever it may be, but the good of Canada. There should be sufficient independence and patriotism in every one of us to express his. honest convictions on the various matters that come before us and do his utmost to solve them in the best interests of the country. That should be the aim of each and all of us, and I am sure that it is the aim of most of the members, at least, of this House.


Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):

Mr. Speaker, nothing, I believe, can be added to the completeness, the nobleness or the unanimity of the tribute that has been rendered by the state, by the church, and by the people of this country to our revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. May I be permitted, nevertheless, to add a few words of loving admiration. It was my good fortune to know this great statesman in my boyhood days at Arthabaska. It was my good fortune to be brought up within the magnetic spell of his great personality. I have experienced the kindness of his heart, I have appreciated the loftiness of his mind, I have enjoyed the benefit of his paternal solicitude.

His life, Mr. Speaker, has been a striking example of disinterested patriotism. His career has been a continuous struggle towards national unity. His death is a great national loss and his memory will be, I am sure, a guidance and a comfort to all Canadians. May the people of this country never forget the ideals and the principles to which our great chieftain devoted the unceasing labour of his lifetime-liberty and freedom; respect for duly constituted authority; religious and racial tolerance among fellow-men ; generous co-operation of effort towards the welfare of our common country. May the sons of Canada reap the bountiful crop whicli the gifted, the great Canadian has sown among difficulties, among troubles and, very often, among bitter fights. There is an inspired legend of the Middle Ages which tells us that when great men pass away God makes their souls stars in the heavens. If that be true, very soon a new constellation will arise in our noithern sky shedding forth rays of golden hope on those whom the great Canadian that we loved so much has left behind to continue his noble work.

The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has made a speech which contains many good things and I wish particularly to congratulate him on the moderation of his feelings and sentiments to-night. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the Civil Service Commission. He has attacked the Government, he has attacked the commission, and he has complained of the secretary of the commission. I hold no brief to defend the Government or the commission, or the secretary.

I hope that some member of the Government will do that for me. The hon. member for Frontenac has spoken of defaulters, and according to him defaulters should not be sent to jail. I agree with this statement, and I think that any member in this House who wants to promote the welfare of this country, and to protect our young men, will also agree with the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter, the member for Frontenac went back to his old habits for a while, and complained that in the province of Quebec the defaulters were not dealt with as severely as they should be. Now, there occurred in the city of Quebec an incident in connection with trials of defaulters, and a long correspondence has appeared in the papers between Mr. Justice Langelier and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe. I wish to remind the House that in con-

nection with this incident and this correspondence it has been proven beyond a doubt that Judge Langelier acted according to the instructions he received from this Government. First, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Justice attacked Mr. Justice Langelier and said that he had acted contrary to law, and, after an exchange of various telegrams and several letters, the former had to apologize to Judge Langelier. Therefore I wish to say to the hon. member for Frontenac that I do not wish to discuss whether a man should be fined $50, or $100, or $200. T wish to tell the hon. gentleman, who has more influence with the Government than I have: If you want to have justice given, as justice should be given, to the defaulters, do not have your Deputy Minister of Justice send down instructions, which afterwards have to be denied and annulled by Order in Council.

The hon. member for Frontenac made a comparison that he should not have made, if he is really animated by the sentiments that he expressed at the end of his speech, between the province of Quebec and the other provinces as to their contribution in men during the great war which has just ended. 'I do not know from where the hon. gentleman has taken his figures, I do not know if the figures which he quoted were given by the Bureau of Public Information, but if those .figures are as reliable as the other information given by that bureau they certainly do not show exactly what the different provinces of this Dominion have done. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not time for the men of this country, when they consider the problems awaiting to be dealt with, to lay aside their provincial outlook, to lay aside their provincial prejudice and to look at these questions from a national viewpoint. We in our province have never asked if the province of Ontario has done its duty, we have never asked if the province of Prince Edward Island has supplied a hundred or a thousand men, we have never asked if the province of British Columbia has done more than the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but we do know that Canada has done nobly and we are proud of it. And moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are certain other things we do know in our province. We know that many homes are mourning for the loss of dear sons; we know that many women have become widows, and we know that many girls are mourning for boys to whom they were engaged. We know that many of our boys are maimed and crippled, and we know that our boys of the

22nd Battalion have done, if not better, at least as well as any other battalion in Canada. Mr. Speaker, in concluding these few remarks with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac, I wish to add this: Last year I expressed my opinion of discussions of that kind. I do not wish to reiterate what I then said, but may I ask that we once for all avoid these discussions that are of a nature calculated to lower the level of parliamentary debate and to shorten the radius of our political insight and perception. Let us be Canadians, let us according to the constitutional spirit of our institutions, represent not merely one county, not merely one province, but represent Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Then on both sides of this House people will have understood their duty toward their common country. Ontario and Quebec will no more be separated, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will no more be western and eastern provinces, but all the provinces will be component parts of a great whole, and Canada will have reached the stage which Sir Wilfrid Laurier worked to achieve and become a nation of free institutions and a nation proud of its Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the Throne mentions different matters, and I think I can classify them under three heads: First, International; second, Imperial, and third, National. As regards International matters, my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) to-day laid down principles of international policy that ought to be carried out by any government that wishes the improvement of our international relations. I will not repeat what the hon. member said; but may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not time to-night for the members of this House to request the Government to state what our delegates and representatives at the Paris Conference are doing? What information have * we got, what reliable information have we received, since the Peace Conference was opened? We see by the papers one day that Sir Robert Borden has claimed for Canada the status of full nationhood. We see another day that Sir Robert Borden, from his seat at the Peace Conference has suggested that the Allies should enter into negotiations with' the various factions in Russia. We see again that Sir Robert Borden has been meeting the different trade commissions representing neutral and allied countries; but, Mr. Speaker, all the information we get is gathered from the newspapers, and I say that if this Par-

liament is a representative parliament, as it should be considered to be, we are entitled to be informed officially of what is transpiring, and not have to rely upon hearsay information taken from the press. The Acting Premier has mentioned that Canada should receive an indemnity. Well, that hon. gentleman is in a much better position than I am to deal with a question of such gravity and seriousness. But in view of what we hear and what we read, the Acting Prime Minister can hardly ask the people of this country to believe that an indemnity will be paid to Canada, for it seems to be settled that we are to receive no indemnity. Indemnity for what? Indemnity for the damage caused to our country by the war? That damage is very slight. Fortunately for us, the war has hut slightly affected our country so far as material damage is concerned. Shall we he paid back every cent that we spent on this war? We do not know. The Government has not said anything in connection with it; our Prime Minister has made no official declaration; we are in utter darkness in this matter as we are in all other matters connected with these conferences. Is this the way to treat Parliament in regard to problems of that character? I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect the Government is not treating the representatives of the people as they should be treated.

I saw the other day in one of the newspapers that it was intended to destroy the German fleet which had surrendered. In this connection I would offer a suggestion. If we are not to have a money indemnity; if we are not to be paid back any of the money which has been disbursed by Canada in connection with the war, why should Canada not receive a number of those ships? It is proposed that those ships shall be sunk in mid-ocean. I do not see why such action should be taken. Are the shipbuilding interests behind this move and behind the articles which have appeared in the press in this connection? I do not know, but I do think that it would be most unreasonable to sink all those ships and thus render them absolutely worthless. Is the Government going to take a stand on this question? If they do not, what will the Liberals say who fought for the Canadian navy advocated by the Liberal party in 1911? What will the present ministers who supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his naval policy say when the question comes up before Council? Will the Prime Minister approve the sinking of the ships so that we shall not have a Canadian navy for the de-

fence of our coasts? Because Sir Robert Borden was always opposed to such a navy; he thought it nobler for Canada to pay money than to build ships to defend her own coasts.

The member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) mentioned the proposed League of Nations. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing that matter, but if Canada is to be a party to the League of Nations, Canada should enter that league as a nation. Can we be a party to the League of Nations; can we assume the obligations; can we bind ourselves to such a league, and yet not be absolutely free to decide our own policy in regard to international questions? Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, and I have no doubt that this Government has given to it the same consideration that it has given to all the matters connected with the Peace Conference at Paris.

As regards imperial matters, Sir Robert Borden left us last November. Last summer he went over to England, and the year previous he also went over. Since then we have been told that our status in the British Empire has undergone a considerable change. What that change is, what its nature or extent, we do not know. Again I say that this House is entitled to an explanation and to full information, and I hope thafr the Government will furnish it within .a very short time. But I think that both sides of the House will agree on one point in connection with imperial relations, and it is this: the old colonial days are gone. We are no more a colony. We can now say that we are a nation and as such have a right to conduct our affairs on an equal footing with the Mother Country, England. Of course, what I am saying now may be qualified as disloyal. I will remind the members of this House of what happened in 1867 at the meetings of the Canadian representatives in London before the drafting of the British North America Act. At that meeting Sir John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Tory party in Canada at that time, whose memory is rightly dear to every true Conservative in the country, suggested that Canada be described not as the Dominion of Canada, but. as the Kingdom of Canada. Mr. Speaker, if such was the opinion in 1867 of the man who was shortly to become Prime Minister of Canada, I think that all members of the House, especially the present Prime Minister, should hold the same opinion and see that we be no longer treated as an ordinary small colony and that we be given all the

rights and privileges of a nation. The British Empire, according to a happy expression that has been used of late, should be not only the Mother Country and her colonies, but a League of Nations in itself.

As regards our relation to England, I feel, representing a constituency in the province of Quebec, that it is good for the province of Quebec that Canada remain as it is to-day, a part of the British Empire, because the great protection that we have as a minority in this country is the protection of the British flag. If we cease to be a part of the British Empire, where shall we be? Shall we become independent? Independence is the dream of every young nation; but are we ready for independence? Could we carry the burdens of independence? Would our financial condition enable us to become an altogether free nation? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not yet ripe for independence.

But another and much greater .danger than any other that has been mentioned in the press or in this House, is the danger of annexation to the United States. I am against, annexation to the United States, because I believe Canada should maintain her British institutions and also that the Canadian nation should remain a nation of itself. I call the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) to what I am now going to say. His press agents, his censors, have been very busy reporting what the President of the Council has done in Great Britain or elsewhere. The Bureau of Public Information has also been very busy in telling us of different things that have been done by the Government or of different other things that might have been done or will be done by the Government. But instead of having a subsidized press for self-glorification, the Gov-enrment of this country ought to have a stricter and closer control of the moving pictures shown in this Country. If we go into moving picture theatres, we see nothing but American pictures, nothing but the glorification of the American flag. And if there is an ximerican feeling in this country, if there is a sentiment favourable to annexation, the Government of this country is partly responsible for it, because proper control and supervision are not exercised by the Government. I remember, during the war, the censors had cut from the newspapers insignificant bits of news; but if we go into a theatre in Ottawa, or Montreal, or Quebec, we shall see there pictures of such a nature as to make the young men of this country believe that the United States is by far superior to Canada

and a far greater country than England herself. The President of the Privy Council should be more loyal and patriotic and should attend to this.

I do not wish to detain the House very long; but, as a Liberal of old standing, I would like to say a few words in regard to the actual situation of affairs in Canada. When I arrived at the House of Commons last year, I was told by members sitting on the other side that we were not to discuss sucb and such a matter because the war was on. The boy's -were in the trenches, the country was in danger, and we had to keep silent and united. This year the war is over. This 'Government was made for the" sole purpose of winning the war, and I remember declarations of Liberal-Unionist members of the Cabinet to the effect that the very moment peace was declared, they would walk out of the Cabinet presided over by a leader in whom they said they had no confidence. To-day the war is over; the armistice is signed; hostilities have ceased; but I see with great amazement and surprise, my good friend, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) still sitting in this House as a Cabinet minister. What is the reason? " Win the war " was the slogan last year. This year it is " Reconstruct Canada."


Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal


There is plenty of reconstruction to be done in Canada, because I must admit that this Government has done plenty of destruction. But in my own modest and limited experience, the man who has done the damage is' not as a rule the man to repair it. The argument brought forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) would be good if the situation existing in the world to-day was new; but, there have been wars before, there have been reconstruction periods before, and history is there to show us what was done. The hon. ministers will be surprised to know that there was living in England a gentleman who was Prime Minister while England was fighting Napoleon. There was in those days no cry of win-the-war in order to form a Union Government and stifle freedom. Government was carried on according to the old constitution of England, according to the usual lines. The war was won; the reconstruction period ensued; party government was continued, and what happened? Was England ruined? No, England saw an era of development without any precedent. Not only that, but after those exhausting wars carried on by

Englancf* through a period of twenty-five years, party strife was kept up and political liberty flourished in England as never before. We saw, for instance, carried through the Houses of Parliament that great Bill of liberty and justice, the Bill of Catholic Emancipation. Later on-and this reminds me of what my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said a few minutes ago, namely, that the tariff should be left alone-after those wars, wars that had been fought by England with the energy which always belongs to England, tariff questions were brought to the front. We saw the Manchester school preaching free trade. The Corn Laws were repealed Free trade was established in England. Moreover, the whole basis of representation in Parliament was changed. The Reform Bill was passed. It was in the periods immediately following great wars that England went through that political development to which Englishmen owe to-day their prosperity, their liberty and the stability of their institutions.

But a more recent example may be quoted. I draw the attention of hon. members of tins House to the situation which existed in the United States after the Civil war. During the reconstruction period was there a cessation of political strife? No, government was carried on after the war as it had been carried on before and during the war. Party government was considered the best. In those days the man who had guided the neighbouring republic through the terrible war, was stricken down. Abraham Lincoln died [DOT] when his talents were most needed, but his party remained, his party carried on the Government of the United States, and the trouble that was experienced in the United States at that time was trouble caused by politicians who went into the Southern States and tried to do what this Government did last year, namely, to take away the franchise from citizens who were entitled to it. It was only when that exceptional condition of things was removed and the normal state of affairs was re-established in the Southern States that the real peace existed and has existed in the United States ever since. If England after the great war against France and the United States after the great Civil War were able to carry on party government, and carry it on successfully, history disproves the argument brought forward by my hon. friends opposite to the effect that reconstruction necessarily means a period when political hostilities should cease; their argument is not sound at all.

The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Galder), and other former Liberals now sitting on the other side of the House have told us they are still Liberals and we cannot put them out of the party. I would say to our friends opposite that I have not the authority or any intention of doing any such thing. Two years ago a great issue arose in this country. Many Liberals in all honesty left their old leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and supported the present Government. Some of them now sitting in the House often said last year: "We cannot vote against this Government. We have to support it because we want to win the war." That object has now been attained, and any Liberal on the other side of the House who wishes to remain a Liberal must now show that he is honestly supporting a Liberal policy and believes the policies he is supporting to be so.

I now come to the question, Is the present Government a Liberal Government? I answer without any hesitation whatsoever that not only is it not a Liberal Government, it is not even a Tory Government; it is worse than that; it is a mixture of both without being anything of either. The ministers call themselves members of a union or coalition Government. Coalition Government can only be had by compromise; it can only live by compromise, and it can only work through compromise. And what is compromise? Compromise is too often but the sickly offspring of ill-mated principles. That is the kind of government we have to-day, and I say to our Liberal friends on the other side: You may honestly and sincerely have supported that Government in order to win the war, but to-day, if you are Liberals, you cannot support it any longer.

This Government by its formation showed that it was a Tory Government, and a Tory of the worst kind. It was born of the union of three elements: first, materialism in its lowest form-Sir Joseph Flavelle, the bacon king; second, perverted spiritualism, professionalized religion, subsidized self-glorification, and, last, but believe me, Sir, not least, Sir Clifford Sifton, that brazen timeserver, whose political ancestors can be retraced only to the darkest recesses of the history of England when jobbery was an art and treason a career. The present Union Government is the union of these three elements, and I appeal to any honest Liberal in this country: Can you look upon the

product of such a union without disgust and repulsion?

What kind of administration has this Government given? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who formerly led the Liberal party in the province of Ontario,-successor to Sir Oliver Mowat and that line of great Liberals in the province of Ontario who thought that in Canada the ideals of Liberalism should be followed and fought for,-this man now sits on the treasury benches, and what administration does he support? How can he claim to be a Liberal when he supports a Government that has taken away the freedom of the Press? I speak to-night in this House, and representatives of the newspapers are in the Press gallery listening to me, but to-morrow I am sure that no part of my speech will appear in the newspapers they represent. Why? Because most of those men are paid not to inform their readers, hut to misinform them, and they have been doing that for the last two years. They say that the President of the Privy Council looks after that, but I don't believe it. They have gone further, and taken away the freedom of the Bench. If there is one thing that the Liberal party have always fought for, it is honest justice, but this Government has tried to prostitute justice in this country. Courts have been given orders that if cases of such and such a nature come before them for decision, judgments are to be given in such and such a way, or else the judge was liable to fine or imprisonment. Are we living in Russia or in Prussia? The President of the Privy Council, a former leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, has travelled in Europe, so perhaps he will let me know. This Government have taken away the freedom of the Press, they have taken away the freedom of the Bench, but more than that, they have taken away the freedom of Parliament. The war is over now, and yet while this House is in session the Government is still taking advantage of the War Measures Act to pass Orders in Council against every principle of British justice.

I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) listening to my argument. He used to be a Liberal, an(d I hope he still is one. I am sure he was not present at the Council table when that Order in Council was passed, with retroactive effect, providing for the punishment of those who have already appeared before tribunals and been convicted or acquitted.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how far back we must go in the history of England to find an example of such behaviour? You have

to go away back to the time of Charles I, when the Earl of Strafford was beheaded by virtue of a law having retroactive effect as regards criminal offences. This Government has gone back three hundred years for its precedent. But there are " Liberals " in that Government who have declared that we cannot put them out of the party. It is not very hard to put out of the Liberal party men who have acted as these people have acted for the last year and a half.

I submit to the Liberals on the other side of the House that legislation by Order in Council, freedom taken from the press and the bench, the oppressive acts of labour- these are not acts of Liberalism. When the labouring people of this country are told by the Minister of Public Works that they cannot claim their just rights, but must choose between jail and a military uniform, where are we living? Is it Canada?

If the Liberals on the other side, including those in the Cabinet, claim that this Government should be-supported on its administration, what about the programme set forth in the speech from the Throne? All the great men who have been leaders of the Liberal party-Blake, Laurier and all the rest-have always fought for provincial rights. Liberalism has always respected the privileges and liberties of the provinces and insisted that they should be protected. But this Government, which has the support of some Liberals, is taking a position the very opposite to that supported by Liberals in the past. Education is a subject that is left to be managed by the provinces, but this Government announces Bills on the subject of technical education. As the ex-leader of the Liberals in the province of Ontario did not leave the Cabinet, I am not surprised that the speech from the Throne runs to war. Prohibition is another question on which the present Government is aiming at the destruction of provincial autonomy. My stand on this question is very simple. I say that this question should be settled by the provinces. But if the Federal Government wishes to pass legislation in connection with prohibition, let us have no hyprocrisy about it. In this country, in the province of Ontario, people now are not rated according to the money they have in the bank, but they say of a man, " He has so many cases of Scotch in his cellar." I tell the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) that this situation has to cease. If we are to have prohibition let us have a law of such a nature that every man must, within six months of the passing of the law, declare on oath what quantity of liquors he

may have in his house, so that we may know.

The speech from the Throne foreshadows another measure. Possibly we may find out once for all whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) is a Liberal or not, and whether the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) is a Liberal or not. The Speech announces a Franchise Bill. Two years ago the elections of this country were stolen by means of a Franchise Bill put through this Parliament by the Borden Government. Are we going to have another steal? Will the Liberals who sit on that side of the House protest against such a measure, or will they accept it? The hon. Minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who represents the city of Halifax, a few years ago said that the Franchise Bill was a "nameless monster." That "nameless monster" brought him into this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) said that it was " iniquitous legislation without precedent in any parliament." He was elected by acclamation. In this House what we want is justice. Let us have justice from the so-called Liberals if they are Liberals. If we are to have an election fight, let it be a real fight, and let not the Government steal the election as the last one was stolen. Speaking even more seripusly let me say this: The

Minister of Public Works grew very indignant about Bolshevism. As Macaulay put it the only cure for the evils of newly-acquired freedom is freedom. I go further and say that what creates revolution is the love of liberty in the hearts of people who want to live freely and are denied that right. We of the Liberal party on this side of the House represent the men who built up Canada. If in this country we had had only Tories, Canada, politically speaking, would have been in the same state in which it was when the Family Compact ruled. Our forefathers fought and died for our constitutional liberties, and they secured those liberties for the people. Will their children to-day, through want of Liberalism, through want of courage, through want of national pride, cast off our common heritage?

Our boys fought at the front. They have written in the history of Canada the proudest pages that we can read. The name of Canada is known all over Europe, and when a battle had to be fought and the b'est soldiers were to be brought forward, the British command always thought that the honour of the Empire was in safe hands when entrusted to our soldiers. Will these soldiers who have fought on the other side, soldiers who have shed their blood, soldiers [Mr. Cannon.)

who have sacrificed everything that was dearest to them, come back to this country to find that Canada is deprived of the freedom that they have given to Europe? Let Canadians be true to the great leaders of the past, William Lyon Mackenzie, Papineau, Macdonald, Mowat, Laurier; let their spirit prevail in our council and then the living will be worthy of the illustrious dead.

On the motion of Hon. Mr. Maclean, the debate was adjourned.

On the motion of Hon. Mr. Maclean, the House adjourned at -10.55.

Friday, March 7, 1919.


The House met at Three o'clock.


Report of the work of the Department ol Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment (Invalided Soldiers Commission) to March 31, 1918, with appendix to June 22, 1918.-Mr. Hugh Clark. Orders in Council with reference to the work of the Department of Agriculture since the last session of Parliament.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.


On the Orders of the Day:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Laurier Liberal

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):

I served notice upon the Acting Minister of Justice (Hon. Arthur Meighen) that I wished to bring a matter to his notice to-day. I shall read the following letter dated at Winnipeg on March 4th, 1919, a copy of which, I understand, has been sent to the Acting Prime Minister:

To Organized Labour, Greetings:

At the regular meeting of the party in session February 26th, the question of forbidden literature and the case of J. H. Lewis, in particular, under sentence at Prince Albert, was taken up and dealt with and the executive instructed to take immediate action and use every effort to bring about the release of all citizens sentenced, and prevent any further prosecutions under this Order in Council.

The following resolution has been wired to acting Premier Sir Thomas White:

Be it resolved that the Winnipeg and District Branch of the Dominion Labour Party unreservedly condemns the savage sentence imposed at Prince Albert on J. H. Lewis for having forbidden literature, and demands immediate abolition of laws and Orders in Council which make possible such outrages on personal freedom ; demands release of all citizens sentenced thereunder, and warns the Government that the persistence of such violations of democratic principles in face of repeated protests is provocative of violence. A prompt and specific statement of Government's intention in the matter is requested.

Be it resolved that a copy of this resolution, he sent to all branches of the party, also to the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council with a request for co-operative action. That copies also be sent to the Minister of Justice and the Hon. 1). r>. McKenzie, leader of the Opposition; to the Saskatoon Trades and Labour Council, and to the three local daily newspapers and the Western Labour News.

That failing a satisfactory reply within seven days from the above date, the executive committee be called at once to take such steps as may appear necessary to carry out the instructions of the party as contained in the resolution passed at the last general meeting of the party.

Trusting this will meet with your immediate attention, on behalf of the party.

From Tours fraternally,

G. Barlow, Secretary.

A telegram to the same effect was also received to-day. This appears to be a serious matter, and I should like to know whether there is to be any immediate relief of the situation.


Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):

About a week ago J. H. Lewis,-of Saskatoon, I think, not Prince Albert,-was found guilty before Magistrates Smith and Elliot, of that city, of having in his possession banned literature, to wit, " War-What For," and " The Melting Pot," both of which publications are, under censorship regulations, prohibited. Lewis was, I am informed,-of this I am not sure, but I am tolerably certain,-at the time an employee of the Post Office Department. He pleaded guilty before those magistrates and, upon his own admission of guilt, was sentenced to a fine of $2,000, I think, and to three years' imprisonment, so the reports that reach us say. Application by telegram was sent on behalf of Lewis for clemency and new trial. Many telegrams have been received, some simply demanding a new trial, and only two, I think, asking for clemency. The powers of the Crown in this regard are, of course, ample so far as clemency is concerned, but as to a new trial, which is the chief demand, our powers are confined to the provisions of section 1022 of the Criminal Code, and may only under that section be exercised-when on a perusal of the case the Minister of Justice believes that the person should not have been convicted. In view of the fact that he pleaded guilty there would seem to be little prospect that that power could be exercised at law in this case. In so far as it is an application for clemency, it is at present under the consideration of the Solicitor General, who has charge of such matters. I believe at the moment that further particulars have been requested

from the solicitors acting for Lewis, and also fuller reports from the magistrates.



On the Orders of the Day:


Auguste Théophile Léger

Laurier Liberal

Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):

I desire to direct the attention of the Government to a matter of importance as set forth in a letter written by a Canadian soldier in England and published in L'Acadien, a French paper published in Moncton, N.B. I have translated the letter into English in order that it may be better understood, and I will read the translation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)



Do I understand that the hon. member desires information from the Government on a matter of importance?


Auguste Théophile Léger

Laurier Liberal


I desire to put a question to the Government on a matter of importance. The letter is as follows:

Knotz, Ash., Eng., February 15th, 1919.

*Ml-, the Editor of L'Acadien:-I do not believe I am a grumbler, but when it comes to injustice committed1 towards the French Canadian soldier, I cannot do otherwise than indicate the facts to L'Acadien which is ever ready to defend our rights. Perhaps I will be able to call the attention of some members of Parliament to the injustices which are done to us in the Canadian Army, and have them claim from the authorities the justice and British fair play for their fellow-countrymen.

I understand, by the English papers, that the Canadian troops in France have crossed to England where they will have a leave of eight days to visit their relatives and friends, before coming to Canada. But the French Canadian soldier who asks for transportation to see the land of his ancestors In France, to spend a few days with some friends he has known in his mother country, or even the Canadian soldier who has chosen a lifetime companion amongst the good girls of France, sees himself refused the privilege of going once more into the country for the defence of which he has sacrificed everything. It is said that the transportation is difficult.

Is that fair tpliay, especially when a great number offer to pay their expenses? There is an order according to the Canadian soldiers who have relatives in England, wives, mothers, daughters, the privilege of bringing to Canada the said relatives at the expense of the Canadian Government, the soldier having only to notify the military authorities of the fact. That is also very well. But why is it that the same privileges are being refused to the French Canadian soldiers who have relatives in France?

I know that my assertions are true, such privilege having been refused to a soldier.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)



Order. I am unable to follow the reading of the letter as carefully as I would wish, but I have followed it suf-

ficiently to be able to say that if any meaning is to be taken from it, it involves an attack on the Government for its policy in respect to the treatment of soldiers. In no case would that be permissible on the Orders of the Day. There is some question as to how far an hon. member should go in laying the ground for a question, but certainly the hon. member is not in order in reading a letter of that character which involves practically an attack upon the policy of the Government. If he wishes to direct a question to the Government, it seems to me he ought to be able to summarize the complaint or to put it in the form of a question.


Auguste Théophile Léger

Laurier Liberal


My question is whether the Canadian soldier, before returning to Canada from England, has the privilege to go back to France on a visit.

Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia): I think I can answer the question of the hon. gentleman, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter he has just read, which I got only a few moments ago. It appears to be a complaint from a young French-Canadian soldier who was in England, and I may say that I have every sympathy with this young man when he says in his letter that he desires to revisit France for the purpose of visiting the girl who is his choice amongst the good girls of France as his life-time companion.


Samuel Hughes



Send him back at once.

Major-General MEWBURN: In that letter he says that he understands the Canadian troops have returned to England. That is not quite correct. The Third Division has returned to England * and part of it is on the ocean now homeward bound. In the first instance, it was expected that the Canadian Corps would embark from a French port direct to Canada. That was found impossible for various reasons which I shall be glad to explain to the House later on. Since the armistice, I understand that as regards the troops in England, before embarkation, the men on application have been given a short furlough or leave. I know that the difficulties of transportation across the channel are very acute owing to demobilization and every discouragement is given to men wishing to return to France. This man does not say which unit he is with. If he was with the celebrated 22nd in France, as I presume he was, I understand certain leave was given to that unit in France, and I understand the 22nd Bat-

talion is still in France. I have no personal knowledge of men who have made application being refused permission to return to France on furlough; but if the hon. member so desires, I shall be very glad, if he will give us fuller particulars in regard to this young man and the unit he is with, to pass the information to the Overseas Minister.



March 6, 1919