January 25, 1917 (12th Parliament, 7th Session)


Rodolphe Lemieux



No, from the Nation, It says:-
The immediate practical purpose of this Imperial Conference is a little harder to discern than its emotional significance. It may suggest in a subtle, non-committal way to hia new patrons that they need fear from him no inconvenient enthusiasm for any constructive idea of international peace, and it does this without wounding the feelings of the rest of the nation. But what is the immediate purpose? The immediate purpose is apparently to enlarge the war cabinet. We had been led to understand that the Empire would be imperilled, and victory jeopardized, if the War Council were to consist of more than three men -Mr. George and two others. We saw with alarm that it expanded to five. It will presently be swollen by the addition of another six or seven, who are to attend its sessions continuously' and rank with its members, apparently giving a majority to the representatives of the dominions. There will be some able figures among the colonial premiers. But with the exception of General Botha, we should doubt if any of them will bring an appreciable contribution to its military wisdom. It is doubtful whether the Borden Government stands for Canada in any other sense than as a stop-gap to the coming Liberal reaction. Mr. Hughes (if he is still Prime Minister of a Commonwealth which has rejected his policy by a mass vote) may have energy and a certain facile eloquence. But it is a strange Cabinet which admits him as an adviser on European strategy and statecraft and excludes Mr. Balfour.
I myself dare not make such comments. They are made by a good old English radical editor, and there seems to be much common sense in the lines I have just quoted.
Sir, participation in the wars of the Empire overseas must be settled by the Parliament and people of Canada as such wars arise, and not by a war council in Downing street. There are too many men anxious to rebuild the Empire. Lord Derby, possibly the best friend of the present Governor General of Canada, speaking at a farewell banquet given to the Duke of Devonshire in London, used the following language, which I commend to all the busybodies who wish to frame a new constitution for the British Empire:-
New relations may arise after the war between ourselves and the dominions, but none can be as strong as these which are binding us. now. People talk glibly of a new constitution. Well, I am a Conservative, and the old Constitution is good enough for me when it gives such results as during the present war. Anything that can bind us together more closely, let it be done, but do not let us think by making a cast iron Constitution for ourselves or the dominions we are going to increase the affection they have for us.
This is good reasoning, which I commend to the right hon. gentleman who will represent us at the next Imperial Conference.

One other word from a little book which I read a few years ago, which was published by the famous English journalist, Mr. J. A. Spender, under the very captious title, The Foundations of British Policy. He says this, which applies exactly to the present situation:-
The great thing for the moment is that the self-governing states are becoming thoroughly alive to the importance of this question, and our business is to make it easy for them to go forward. That we certainly shall not do, if we present them with the cut-and-dried logical dilemmas which are so much in favour with certain schools of strategists and Imperialists. Either, say these people, you must come under the control of the Admiralty or your navies "will be useless in time of war; either your support must be unconditional or the Imperial *Government must disregard it as a factor in its offensive scheme; either you must do more and come closer, or you may as well do nothing tor the real purposes of war. If these logical martinets had their way, there might be an Imperial fleet directed from Whitehall; but there would not long be a British Empire.
Again I commend those words of wisdom to the re-organizers of the British Empire.
In conclusion, Sir, let me say that I fully agree with the paragraph in the Address having reference to the fiftieth anniversary of our Confederation. Some years ago I moved a resolution in the old House of Commons in anticipation of that event, and I suggested that a fitting commemoration would be the holding of a universal exhibition in Canada. But war has upset, this plan, and to-day we are left with no programme for a fitting and proper commemoration of that great event. May I make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that no monument, no spectacular demonstration can make more for the welfare of the Dominion that the healthy movement which I am pleased to state has been inaugurated by the Fourth Estate in this country: I mean the "bonne entente" movement. Much credit is due to the British-Canadian journalist who has started the "bonne entente" movement; I refer to Mr. Arthur Hawkes, one of the editors of the Toronto Star. That movement, which has already budded into life, will, I believe, continue and will grow in proportion as the months and years roll on. There could be no better commemoration of the founding of our Confederation that this " bonne entente " movement. It should be promoted and firmly rooted in Canada. There should also be more intercourse between the east and the west. Mr. Speaker, we need no monument to celebrate this fiftieth anniversary [DOT]of the union of the Canadian provinces it we but live up to the ideals of the Fathers
of Confederation, which ideals have 'been revivified by the " bonne entente
Mr. Speaker, when the new Parliament Buildings shall have risen from the ashes of the old, I hope that on its portals there shall be inscribed the watchword of the Scotch Highlanders when they were fighting with the French in France against a common enemy-"bon accord." Let us fervently hope that the star of union, harmony and justice will soon rise over Canada's fair land.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Guysborougli): I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your promotion to the Chair. It is no small honour to be the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. If I remember rightly, you are the first Nova Scotian who has had the v,onour of occupying that position, and we on this side of the House who have come from that province feel that we have some share in the honour that has come to you. I feel sure, Sir, that you will prove yourself to be worthy of the long line of distinguished men who have occupied that position in the past. I trust that you will have no occasion, however, during the present session of Parliament to put any of us on this side of the House in the Tower, or to use that weapon of political warfare known as the guillotine which the Government has placed in your hands.
In the Speech from the Throne reference has been made to the celebration of the national jubilee of' this Dominion. We all agree that such an important event as the completion of the first fifty years of our history is one that should not go unnoticed. I trust, however, that no gaudy or expensive display will be thought of, for such a thing would be out of keeping at the present time. All good citizens are thinking these days of how they may best play their part in the great struggle in which the nation is engaged. Permit me to suggest, Sir, that the occasion be used to call for a very large contribution-I do not know how much but would suggest fifty millions of dollars-to equip and endow a home for battered and disabled soldiers, somewhat after the plan of the Chelsea Hospital in London, which is one of the great institutions of that great city. That hospital was built some 240 years ago, and it has been one of the glories of the British Empire that they have always taken good care of the veterans who have risked their lives in the Empire's cause. There is room in that hospital for about

540 pensioners, each one of whom has his own room, which is his home. He has in that room his own furniture, books and pictures. He is at liberty to go and come when he pleases. Attendants bring him his meals, if he would rather have them in his own room than in the general dining-room. He can go away for two or three months, if he wishes, and visit his friends. This room is his home, he is entitled to occupy it for life, and he is among his old comrades. In connection with the Chelsea Hospital is a chapel in which are hung the flags that have been captured by the veterans in the various battles in which they have figured on behalf of the Empire, and trophies of war are hung around the hall. Many of these men are unfit to do any kind of work. This hospital is open only to men who have distinguished themselves in battle and who have lost their sight or limbs in defence of the Empire. One of the most interesting sights that I saw at the Coronation ceremony in 1911 was a group of old soldiers who were standing at the end of the street called Shoe Lane, waiting for the King's procession to go by. These old fellows were battered and broken; some of them had lost arms or legs and some of them were blind. Some fifteen of them were grouped at this point, ready to salute the King as he passed, and the King stopped his carriage to speak to them. I afterwards learned that they were inmates of Chelsea Hospital and that they were the sole survivors of the Light Brigade. I do not suggest that this hospital which I am advocating should be available for all wounded soldiers or that it should in any sense take the place of the pension system. The pension system would suffice for the majority of eases. Among the four hundred thousand men who have enlisted, many of whom will be wounded, there will be broken and battered men, and lonely men, who will not have any families of their own, and they will be more contented amoilg their own comrades at a place like this. Then, too, it seems to me that this would be a fitting memorial for the Canadian people to erect in memory of the war. The greatest achievement that Canada has yet won has been the part that she has taken in this war. It is more important, to my mind, to commemorate this than to commemorate the Jubilee. The very fact that in this country of free institutions we have been able to recruit between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand men without any compulsion, is to my mind one of the triumphs of democracy; and this would be a fitting way to commemorate it. It would also be an opportunity for some of the older men among us, who are too old to fight, to contribute towards the comfort of those men who have sacrificed so much for us.
Mr. Speaker, this debate would be much more interesting to me if hon. gentlemen opposite would take a more active part in it. What is the reason that there is no response from the other side of the House? Hon. gentlemen on this side have raised some very important questions. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has attacked the military record of this Government; he has raised such important questions as military promotions, whether they are made on merit or by favour. He has also raised the question of the treatment of the sick and wounded as dealt with in Dr. Bruce's report. These vital questions call for some answer from the leaders of the Government, but we have not had that response from them which we are entitled to expect. It looks to me as if when my hon. friend from Pictou spoke, all the big batteries on the other side were silenced. We have1 had some bombardment from the smaller mortars and machine guns, but we should like to hear from the big batteries, we should like to have some answer to these accusations, if there is any answer possible. It is awkward for us on this side of the House, as no man wants to be caught thrashing a dead donkey.
However, in this debate, the one overshadowing question is the war. The Empire is at war, and it is at war with the greatest military power in the world. When the Empire is at war, Canada is at war. This war has already lasted two and a half years, and the end is not yet in sight. We have three thousand miles between ourselves and the seat of the contest; the enemy has not yet knocked at our gates, but why? Because the strong arm of Great Britain and the strong arm of France are keeping him back, and because the British Navy still rules the seas. This war is not Great Britain's war any more than it is our war. This battle line, extending over these vast plains and along the river banks and the foot-hills of the/mountains for thousands of miles on the eastern and western fronts is our battle line; and the result of this conflict is just as important for Canada as it is for Great Britain, or for France, or for Belgium. It is not a question of doing our share. I have seen that suggested in cer-

so far as the large expenditures of the country were concerned.
Take the question of the Ross rifle, and you will find there a glaring case of incompetence and indecision. The * best judges were surely the men on the firing line who were using that rifle. As early as June,
1915,, Sir John French condemned the Ross rifle for the following reasons:
(1) That the Ross rifle could not be relied
upon to work smoothly with the ammunition then available, and '
(2) The want of confidence in the Ross rifle which a large number of the Canadian infantry felt was evidenced by the fact that 3,000 of them had re-armed themselves with Lee-Enfields taken from casualties.
You see, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian soldier on the battlefield had to hunt round for a dead German, or a dead Englishman, to get a rifle fit to fight with. That is how matters stood when Sir John French wrote that letter in June, 1915, You would suppose that this condition of affairs would have been corrected, that, on receiving that letter from Sir John French, some effort would have been made by the Government to see that a proper rifle was placed in the hands of the Canadian soldiers. That was not done and we have the proof that it was not done. Nearly a year after that, in May, 1916, nothing definite had been done and [DOT]Canadian soldiers were still armed with the Ross rifle. Then we have a report from Sir Douglas Haig to the War Office, in which he says:-
I have satisfied myself, after extensive inquiries carried out throughout the Canadian, corps, that as a service rifle, the Ross is less .trustworthy than the Lee-Enfield, and that the majority of the men armed with the Ross rifle have not the confidence in it that It is so essential they should possess. The inquiry upon which these conclusions are based was the outcome of an urgent application from a battalion of the 3rd Canadian Division for re-armament with the short Lee-Enfield rifle in consequence of a high percentage of jams experienced with their Ross rifles during a hostile attack on the 1st of May, 1916.
You see that nearly a year after Sir John French had laid his complaint before the Canadian Government, the soldiers were still using the Ross rifle, and that, in a hostile attack, in which they were sent into battle in May, 1916, there had been a very large percentage of jams, as reported by Sir Douglas Haig. This is a matter in connection with which delay and indecision was nothing short of a crime. It is plain from the two paragraphs I have read, the one written by Sir John French, and dated June, 1915, and the second by Sir Douglas Haig, dated May, 1916, that nothing definite was

done for nearly a year. In other words, a year after Sir John French had reported that the rifle could not be relied upon, 20,000 Canadian soldiers were sent into action armed with this unreliable rifle, and the soldiers themselves had to petition Sir Douglas Haig to make some change so that they would have a proper arm to go into battle with. This letter of Sir Douglas Haig bears date the 1st of May, 1916, and, if it was a cable message, and no doubt it was, it must have been in the hands of the Government on the 17th May, 1916, when the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) threatened to confine the editor of the Ottawa ..Citizen in the tower because he had published the Alderson letter relating to the same matter.
There is another question in regard to which indecision has been shown and that is the question of patronage which has been referred to in this debate. We do not forget that the leader of this Government pledged the party to the abolition of patronage. If, Mr. Speaker, you read the Halifax platform, as I have no doubt you often do, you will find that what I am stating is true, that we were to have no more patronage after the Conservative party attained power. There are men who occupy seats on the other side of the House who used to make stormy speeches in regard to this question. I am thinking of one especially at this moment, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid). I recollect how flushed his face was as he denounced the crime of patronage from the Opposition benches. In those days he set his face against it like flint, but since he has got into power he sets his face not like a flint but like a pudding. Nobody will deny that patronage is rampant so far as this Government is concerned. Officers of the Department of Militia and Defence were examined under oath before the Public Accounts Committee. The purchasing agent of the Depart- * ment of Militia and Defence admitted that he had 8,000 names on his patronage list. We a3ked him to bring the list to the committee room. He told us that it was a card system and that he would have to bring it in a wheelbarrow. It will not be denied by hon. gentlemen opposite that if there was such a large list as that in the War department alone, it must be still more formidable when you take into consideration all the other departments of Government. Our whole war system has developed into a huge system of outdoor

relief for the Conservative party. We have to-day a minister of t'he Crown Tunning an election in the' county of Dorchester, in the province of Quebec, and he appealed to the people there the other day on this question. He said: if you elect
10 p.m. me you will have a friend on the Government benches; if you elect Mr. Cannon, you will have a man sitting in the cold shades of opposition who cannot do anything for you; meaning that the patronage system was the avowed policy of the present administration. Vote for me and we will get something for you; we will get jobs for you; we will get military expenditure for you; whether you fight or not, you will get the money of the Canadian people because we will give it to you, if you elect me. That is the doctrine. Then, the Prime Minister responds by sending this gentleman a telegram congratulating him on the campaign he is conducting. He made no reference to his speech on patronage, but his speech on patronage was a very material part of his campaign and the Prime Minister ought to have made reference to it and condemned it. There is not much leadership about that. You must admit after all is said and done, that this country belongs to the people and not to the Conservative party.
But, this lack of decision on the part of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Government is not confined to military operations. You can go over the whole history of the present Administration and you will see signs of inaction and half measures. Take the high cost of living; instead of doing something definite about the high cost of living which is oppressing the workingman all over this Dominion the Government adopted the usual subterfuge of appointing a royal commission. This royal commission sat for about a year and then produced a report that did not contain one practical suggestion. There has been nothing done' with it. The evidence upon which the report is based is so voluminous that no man has ever had time to rea,d it, and the commission having got through with it the Government seems to have lost interest in the whole matter. It reminds one of Dickens' story about the celebrated Micawber who, when he was pressed for a debt that he could not pay, and when it came to the point at last that he was about to be sued, gave a promissory note and said: Thank God that is paid:
Take another instance. When the railway situation became acute about four years ago, instead of outlining a vigorous railway policy for Canada, the Government as usual allowed the matter to drift. But in the meantime the Government was pressed by the railways for money. If I remember rightly, in the year 1914, $15,000,000 was paid out, in 1915 $45,000,000, and in 1916 $10,000,000. In those three years $70,000,000 in all went into the sinkhole of the Canadian Northern, and after that money was all gone the Government resorted to its usual method of appointing a royal commission to find out what they should do next. The royal commission has not yet reported, and the Lord knows what kind of -a report they will give and whether the Government will follow their advice when they get the report. Now, every toon- member of the House knows very well that the railway situation is not a question for a Royal Commission to solve- What is wanted is some kind of a railway policy, and the decision and the courage to carry it out.
Then take the question of the commandeering of Canadian ships. Here was another case of indeqjsion. When the war broke out this Government should have acted promptly in regard to that matter. They did nothing. The Imperial Government began to commandeer Canadan ships without reference to the Canadian Government. They did not ask their advice at all. I believe that ,after the ships were all commandeered the Canadian Government did pass some kind of an Order in Council authorizing themselves to commandeer Canadian ships. I do not say that Canadian ships should not be commandeered. I do not say that Canadian ships should not be used by the War Department for any necessary purposes in connection with the war- Canadian ships should be used as well as British ships, ana I am sure every Canadian ship-owner would be willing to give his last ship for the purpose of carrying on the war. But the commandeering of our ships should have been done by the Canadian Government and not by the British Government. Then the ships could be turned over as required. This is a free country; we have a Government of our own, and we manage our own affairs. The Imperial Government has no more right to commandeer ships than they had the right to commandeer Canadian men or Canadian money, and they would not have done it if our Government had looked after Canadian interests as they should have done. That

is another ease in which the Government showed its characteristic indecision.
There are numerous other instances of the same kind. I could name one in connection with the naval controversy. You will recollect, Sir, the indecision that was shown by the Government in that matter. You will remember that the question of the repeal of the Naval Service Act hung fire for a great many months; that certain gentlemen elected on that issue in the province of Quebec insisted on an answer in the House; that day after day the question was read by Mr- Speaker, " Do you intend to repeal the Canadian Naval Service Act?" That question stood on the Order Paper for months. The answer finally was given, " Yes, we intend to repeal the Act." But they never did repeal it. Again the Prime Minister himself, when he returned from England in 1912, at a large public meeting in the city of Montreal, propounded a naval policy for his party. My policy, he says, is to ask Parliament to vote $35,000,000 to build three dreadnoughts for the Admiralty, and if Parliament refuses to vote the money I shall appeal to the people. The Prime Minister carried out the first part of his programme and asked Parliament to vote the money. Parliament refused to vote it, and the Prime Minister could never make up his mind to make his appeal to the people of Canada. It was another case of indecision.
I have given a large number of these cases to show that hon. gentlemen opposite are past masters in the art of marking time. I do not know whether anything can be done to rouse them. If I might be permitted to use the elegant language of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia, I would say: "The time has come when this Government should begin to scratch gravel."
I wish to refer for a few moments to another matter. Since we last met the long-looked-for report of Sir Charles Davidson has been made public. Now, Sir, if royal commissions are to be used for the purpose of delaying exposure, the first prize must certainly be given to Sir Charles Davidson. After two years he has brought down his report, and the report, now that it is brought down, turns out to be chiefly white-wash. Permit me to select one case as a sample. I refer to the case of the sale to Col. J. Wesley Allison of 3,000,000 rounds of small-arms ammunition. It will be remembered that the auditor general brought this scandal to the attention of the

House and the country. When the war broke out, the Government had in the arsenal at Quebec 3,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. They kept it there for several months, and then sold it privately to Col. J. Wesley Allison for $20 per 1,000 rounds. The ammunition had cost $34 per
1,000 rounds to make. When this transaction was exposed in the House it was defended by the ex-Minister of Militia, supported by the Prime Minister, on the ground that it was sold to Vickers Limited for the purpose of testing guns. We accepted that explanation at the time, but that explanation had to be abandoned when Vickers Limited denied ever having anything to do with the purchase of the ammunition. After considerable investigation the truth came out that the ammunition was sold, not to Vickers Limited at all, but with the assistance of Sir Trevor Dawson, one of the directors of Vickers Limited, it was sold direct to the British Admiralty for $25 per 1,000 rounds, giving a profit of $15,000 to Col. Allison out of the transaction. Judge Davidson cannot discover anything corrupt or anything wrong in this transaction. There is one phase of it, however, to which he does not refer at all, but which I think is the main question in regard to it, and that is this. In the early period of the war, when, as I have stated, this small arms ammunition was lying idle in the arsenal at Quebec, ammunition was more valuable to the British Government than gold dollars. It was scarce and could not be procured. Hon. gentlemen will remember the battle of Mons, when General French, with his little army of 75,000 men and 250 guns, was forced to retreat until the Germans were almost knocking at the gates of Paris before they were turned back. Machine guns were scarce and ammunition was scarcer; everybody knew that. This was the case, and of course every member of the present Administration knew it. Yet all that time, while British soldiers were being shot in their tracks for lack of ammunition, our Government had 3,000,000 rounds of small-arm am-muniton packed away in the arsenal at Quebec and never offered to make use of it.
What would you expect the Government to do, Mr. Speaker? If you had been Minister of Militia, I know what you would have done. The first thing you would have done would be to send a cable message across the ocean to the Admiralty, saying: We have here in Canada three million rounds of ammunition; can you make use of it? If you can

you are welcome to it for nothing. That would be the kind of message you would send. No such a message was ever sent, but instead of that the ammunition was kept in the arsenal at Quebec for several months, badly as it was wanted on the other side, and then it was sold privately to a friend of the ex-minister for the sum of $20 a thousand rounds. What excuse was given? One was that the ammunition was defective. Was the ammunition defective? I doubt it. There is evidence the other way. It turns out that the ammunition was used by the army, and so far as I can learn, it was good ammunition; but I do not care whether it was defective or not, the skirts of the Government cannot be cleared in that way. If the ammunition was defective, then it should not have been sold at all, because it would be a crime to put defective ammunition into the hands of any one from whom it would find its way into the hands of the British soldiers. If the ammunition was not defective it should have been sent direct to the British Admiralty without the intervention of Allison or any other boodler.
The question of the extension of Parliament has been referred to in the speech from the Throne. It is not necessary for me at this stage to deal with that question at any length, but an extension ought to be preceded by an accounting on the part of the Government. At the last session Parliament voted $270,000,000 of expenditures. Would it not be reasonable that the Government should tell us something o.f what they did with all that money before they ask for a second lease of power? I confess that I do not like the manner in which the application for this extension was announced, by the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp). The decision appears to have been reached at a meeting of the Cabinet some weeks ago, and the present Minister of Militia, when he had the Cabinet committed to apply for another year, immediately gave the announcement to the Toronto newspapers, and in the announcement he said that if the Liberal party did not agree unanimously to the proposal there would be an election. As we have been living under the threat of an election for a good while, of course, that did not affect us very much. The example of Great Britain has been referred to, and it was alleged that extensions of Parliament have been made there, but the example of Great Britain cannot be quoted as justification in this case. If any one will look into what has happened in Great Britain he will see that they have had a coalition Government, all parties being represented in that
Government. If any one political party in Great Britain had attempted to run the Government of that country on party or patronage lines, as the Canadian Government has been doing here, that political party would not have lasted for three months.
Again, the Government say that it is a patriotic duty on our part to agree to this extension. The question is: Are they sincere about this? To me it looks a little like an invitation to walk into their parlour. What is the Minister of Inland Revenue saying about this? He made some reference to it the other day in one of his speeches in Dorchester county. He said that when we agreed to this extension last year, we all stultified ourselves. That is the view he takes of that matter. Let me quote a paragraph from the speech of Mr. Sevigny, delivered at St. Justin:-
Mr. Cannon pretends that the Conservatives are corrupt, Mr. Sevigny went on, but what happened at the last session? The Conservatives asked the Liberals if they would allow them to go on for another year, and the Liberals said 'All right, go ahead, we have no objection,' and that is the corrupt Government of which Mr Cannon speaks.
All I can say is that if by agreeing to this proposed extension I am to become responsible for the Yoakum scandal, the Allison scandal, the motor truck scandal, the Garland scandal and the Foster scandal and all the other numerous scandals, then I shall be compelled to vote against the extension. I do not see why we should ignore the Constitution altogether unless some arrangement is made by which all parties can be represented. The electors of Canada, if permitted, would settle this question in twenty-four hours; an election would clear the atmosphere, and if the Liberals should win, as I think they would, it would bring about certain very important things. This Government had its human weaknesses before the war started at all, and we all know that no saints or archangels have been added to it since that date. Those people who object so strongly to an election ought to be reminded that it is for free institutions that the people of Canada and the people of Great Britain are fighting. A certain Conservative newspaper and two or three windy orators of the baser type have been saying that' it would not be safe to entrust the administration of this country to the Liberal party, but I do not pay much attention to what men of that stamp say. They are the pole-cats of public life,

and I hope that their influence, if they have any, will not be felt outside of a few back concessions in the province of Ontario.
While I believe in a change, I do not say that these gentlemen across the way are all bad. There is a mixture of bad and good, but I am afraid that the bad predominates. The activities of the patronage hunter, the greed of the grafter, the zeal of the political heeler and the hopes of the Godly, are all so inextricably tangled up together, and it is pretty hard to do anything with a combination like that. While these gentlemen retain power they do pretty much as they please, as they are not subject to any law but themselves, but it is our duty on this side of the House to remind them that the ten commandments are still in force in this country.
Now, assuming that an election comes, and the Liberal party wins, it would accomplish several things:
1. It would give to the country a vigorous government fresh from the people with a mandate to carry on the war, not in a half-hearted way as at present, but with the whole might of the nation enlisted in the task.
2. It would give us a trade policy that would make for expansion and development and would place the country in a position to grapple with the conditions that are certain to arise after the war.
3. It would bring the Liberal policy of British Preference again to the front and free Canada from the reproach of having increased the taxation against British goods at a time when the old land was engaged in a life and death struggle with the greatest military power in the world.
4. It would give Canada a naval policy that would at lea.,t restore her self-respect and place us in the saim class on the sea as the Commonwealth of Australia.
5. In short, it would give us clean, honest and progressive government, and cut * the claws of the grafter.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks over the political history of 1916 one is not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite prefer an extension to an election. Look, for example, at the defeats suffered by the Conservative party in the provincial arena during the past year. There have been four provincial general elections. In Nova Scotia 30 Liberals and 13 Conservatives were elected; in Quebec, 73 Liberals and 6 Conservatives; in Manitoba, 44 Liberals and 4 Conservatives, and in British Columbia 32 Liberals and 10 Conservatives. The Conservative

press takes the ground that a general election would be a calamity. Perhaps it would be a calamity to them, but I submit it would be the dawn of a new day to the people of Canada.
I should like to point out that the defeat of the Liberal party in 1911 was brought about by means that cannot be repeated in 1917. What hon. gentleman opposite is shouting to-day: "No truck or trade with the Yankees?" We do not hear a word of that to-day. Who over there is demanding the repeal of the Ne Temere Act? Even the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) is quiet at the present time. Who is claiming to win ten seats, or even one seat, in the province of Ontario on the issue of the Farmers* Bank? You never hear of it. Who is boring holes in the flag or cursing Laurier because he is an English imperialist? Who is pledging himself to-repeal the Naval Service Act, or promising free medicine for the fishermen of the Maritime Provinces? Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of pride to us on this side of the House that while those bogus issues that won seats for the Tory party in 1911 have all gone to the limbo where they belong, the-two .great issues on which the Liberal party stood in 1911 are as good to-day as they were then. I refer, Sir, to the Canadian navy and to reciprocity with the United States. That is the reason why we on this side of the House are willing to carry on and to strive for the ideals of our party. We are proud of the Liberal party, proud of our leader, proud of the past history of that party and of those watchwords of duty, freedom and manly effort that have made it great in the past and will alone keep it great in the future.
Mr. ARHTUR B. COPP (Westmorland): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to the House for a short time, and as it is now late in the evening and it is not my desire to keep the House too late, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Full View