April 19, 1918 (13th Parliament, 1st Session)


Frank Broadstreet Carvell (Minister of Public Works)

Unionist (Liberal)

Hon. F. B. CARVELL (Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, on rising to address the House this evening on what I consider the most momentous question which has ever been discussed in a Canadian parliament, I shall try to confine my few remarks to what I consider the very gist of the question, and in doing so I wish not to hurt the feelings of any person, and yet I must declare the principles which, in my judgment, have actuated the Government in passing this Order in Council and proposing it to Parliament; and when that is done I consider I have performed my duty. I have listened to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lauri .Mr Jlollov, 1
ier) in the very reasonable' criticism which he offered to this proposal this afternoon, and I listened also to the argument of my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Molloy) who has moved the amendment to the proposed resolution. My right hon. friend claimed., in the first place, that the Government was departing from all the well-recognized principles of constitutional government in Canada in passing an Order in Council of such tremendous importance as the .present one when Parliament was in session. With that statement I have not the faintest quarrel in the world. I realize that such a course has never been adopted in Canada before. I realize that, were this proposal made in peace time, no government would be justified in adopting it. But I could not help thinking all the time my right hon. friend was discussing this matter that he was forgetting the real situation and the real reason why this Order in Council has been passed. He was forgetting the fact that the civilization of the world is trembling in the balance, and there is nothing in this world which will save the situation in France and Flanders except men. My right hon. friend talks about the Prussian militarism of the Government in passing a law to provide-because that is what it amounts to-for the immediate and effective reinforcement of our troops at the front. I am not going into any long dissertation as to the necessity for the reinforcement of the troops. The Prime Minister has given figures which I think ought to convince any one that there is a real necessity for reinforcing Canadian divisions-not so much perhaps for reinforcing them at present, but a necessity which may arise at any time. That necessity may be arising to-night. Mr. Speaker. we have no idea what is going on in that horrible battlefield now; the whole Canadian army corps may be wrapped in a life and death struggle with the Huns; it may be that thousands of our men have been slain to-day, or will be slain to-morrow. But if the Canadian army corps is not in this condition to-night, and will not be in this condition next week, we know the British army has been under the most terrible strain under which any army has ever -been in this world. We know the conditions are so serious that a portion of the French army had to be withdrawn from other spheres of activity and sent to the relief of the British, and we know that was not done without the very strongest reasons imaginable. I do not have to argue with this House, or with any intelligent man or

woman in Canada, as to the necessity for men in this titanic struggle. But without labouring the question, I would like to ask my right bon friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and other gentlemen opposite if there is any difference in the principle between taking the opinion of the House of Commons and the Senate on a resolution, -and taking the opinion of the same bodies by the ordinary circuitous method, of passing a Bill? The only difference I can see is that if the principle of this proposed Order in Council be adopted it will become law to-morrow. If you introduced a Bill in this House it might become law in four weeks from to-morrow. That is all I can say. I cannot see any difference between the House of Commons voting upon a principle of this kind once, and voting on it four or five or six times. That is all it means. Under the ordinary methods of procedure as outlined by my right hon. friend this afternoon, a Bill gets its first reading, its second reading, goes -into committee and comes back for third reading. It then goes to the Senate and goes through the same procedure there, and we know -that, even if we apply closure at every step we take, which the rules of Parliament provide for, it is doubtful if the Bill could become law in three weeks, and it might take four weeks. In the meantime the Canadian army corps may be cut to pieces. "But," they say, "you cannot get the men there for four months." If you lose one month it will be. five months before you get tbem there. Therefore, -as a member of the House of some years standing, as a man who, I think, knows something of constitutional rights and privileges, and one who holds them as dear as any man in Canada, I make no apology, "and I have every justification for the course we are pursuing in taking the opinion of the Parliament of Canada at the earliest possible moment, and getting the men- to the front as soon as we can. Therefore, I do not wish to discuss this any longer. I lay down the principle that the first and only duty of this Government and Parliament is to stand by- the men at the front and to see that they are reinforced and supported in every possible way.
Now we come to the real question at issue, and that is whether or not we are justified in forcibly taking men from the ordinary avocations of life and putting them in the army. We fought out this question a year ago. We spent over two months in this Parliament discussing it, and the Parliament as then constituted declared by a very substantial majority in
favour of the principle, and the people of Canada by an overwhelming majority declared in favour of the same principle when the question was submitted to them a few months later. Therefore, I say that constitutionally this Government has all the justification and all the authority which any Government requires to go ahead and produce the necessary' recruits in the most effective and expeditious manner. But my hon. friend from Pro-vencher (Mr. Molloy) comes in with an amendment, the substance of which is that instead of passing this Order in Council, we should amend it so as to provide that exemption be granted to practically every person who belongs to the agricultural part of Canada: I represent perhaps one of the most complete agricultural districts in the Dominion of Canada. Probably three-quarters of my constituents-I do not know but nine-tenths-are of the farming population. I realize that this Order in Council is going to take many men whose labours will be lost to the farm and whose labours are needed on the farm. What is true of my constituency is true, I suppose, of three-quarters of the constituencies in Canada. I do not doubt for a moment that there will be some dislocation of agricultural labour in Canada. It may be possible that a few farms will not produce as much, on account of this resolution, as they would have produced if the resolution had not been passed. Do not think for a moment that the Government has not canvassed this matter from every possible ' standpoint. Do not think for a moment we did not realize that there might be some dislocations. But every time we discussed it we have been brought back to one proposition-which is required most in the battlefield to-day, men or wheat? If I believed we could not raise wheat if we sent these men, then I would hesitate very, very seriously before I would vote for this resolution; but I want to tell hon. members that the labour possibilities 'of Canada are not nearly exhausted, and I want to tell the hon. member for Proveneher that if we adopted his amendment we would be right back to the condition of affairs which existed in Canada since the month of October last. We started out last October to get 100,000 men by the combing out process, by allowing exemption to very many different classes of people, by allowing people to come forward and say: It is necessary I should remain on the farm, and it is necessary for business reasons, for family reasons, and for one reason or another, that I should be exempted.

The result is that these exemption tribunals have gone on, the appeal tribunals have followed them, and in four months we have not succeeded in getting more than thirty thousand men by the circuitous, cumbersome machinery that was enacted last year. If we go on under the present conditions for four months longer we would not probably get thirty thousand more. Now it comes down to the hard question of expediency. Are we going on with the present method and allow our sons, brothers and friends to be slaughtered at the front, and possibly allow the war to be lost, or are "vve going to act as sane and courageous men ought to act? If it be necessary to sweep away some of the safeguards of the constitution, then sweep them away and get the men; there is no other course to pursue. I take it, Sir, that the man who has not the ability, the man who has not the will, to meet a situation of this kind and meet it with a hand of iron is not fit to hold a position m any government in any country in times of war. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) talked about voluntary recruiting, and gave figures for 1917 and part of 1916 to show what had been accomplished by that method. Up to the month of July or August last there was no more warm advocate of the voluntary recruiting system in Canada than I was. I have stated in Parliament, and I repeat now, that, perhaps, there is not a man in Canada to whom the word " conscription " is more repulsive than it is to myself. I wanted to exhaust the recruiting system to the very limit before I decided to differ with my old leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), whom I have always loved and have not yet ceased to love. It was one of the most serious situations of my lifetime, and one which comes to few, I am glad to say, in the political life of Canada. Yet, Sir, looking the matter over, realizing that in the "whole of 1917 out of some seventy-five thousand volunteers, less than twenty-five thousand of those were volunteers for the infantry, one could appreciate the seriousness of the situation. You cannot wage this war, or any war, without infantry. We did not get as .many infantry as we lost in the month of November last in the way of casualties. We found that voluntary enlistment had absolutely fallen down as a means of securing the troops we need. Consequently, there is no other way in the world to get men except by the method we are now adopting.
No man regrets to a greater degree than I do the fact that it is necessary to call

upon farmers' sons and take them away from the farms; no man realizes more clearly than T do what that means to the fathers and mothers of these young men; no man, I believe, realizes more clearly than I do, the necessity of having men upon the farms. But I want to tell my hon. friends that if we do not adopt this resolution we would simply be going over and over again along the circuitous route, which has proved such a dismal failure as a means of bringing in men. It has been said by some person, the remark is not original with me, that the Military Service Act as it is now enforced is a splendid exemption Act, but a very poor conscription Act; it has produced something like two hundred thousand exemptions and about thirty thousand soldiers. I want to ask my hon. friends opposite, can we go on and win the war under these conditions? That is all there is to it. Is it better that we leave these young men on the farms, and not only on the farms but in the workshops, and all the different avocations of life in Canada, than do as we propose to do?
My hon. friends are talKing about exempting farmers. That only touches a certain percentage, not a very large percentage either, of the men who will be taken under this Act; and the moment you adopt your system of exemptions in order to exempt the farming class, you will have practically the same results as we have had 'in the past. But, Sir, I am not as pessimistic over the agricultural situation in Canada as my hon. friends opposite seem to be. It has been pointed out this afternoon, and it is within the knowledge of every member this evening, that in France, in England, in all the European countries, people are working upon the farms and producing foodstuffs who never thought of doing such a thing until this war broke out; There is an enormous quantity of labour available for the farmers that has never been touched heretofore. I am not very well acquainted with the conditions in western Canada, and therefore I am not in. a position to personally gainsay the statement made by my hon. friend from Provenoher (Mr. Molloy), but I know something about the conditions in eastern Canada; and I tell my hon. friend that there are hundreds and thousands of men in eastern Canada who can be impressed for work upon the farms if this Government has only enough courage to go on and do it. We have made a start,- and I am speaking now with some sense of responsibility. We have, passed an Order

in Council which makes it a criminal offence, under certain conditions, for men to be unemployed. But the Order in Council hardly goes as far as I would like to see it go. Still, I am always thankful for small favours, and once we have adopted the principle it will not be very hard to extend it. You can go round the city of Ottawa, or the city of Montreal, in fact any city in Canada, and you will find young men attending the moving picture shows in the afternoon, you will find them loafing in the parks, you will find them standing on the street corners, you will find them in all conditions and avocations in life, men who may be taken and impressed for farm service. We are taking a registration of the man and woman power of Canada, and we hope to complete it by the middle of June. Up to the present time y/e have not decided, we have not gone so far as to say these men shall be conscripted to work. We think they ought to be at work. I think, Mr. Speaker, if this Parliament adopts the principle of taking a certain class of men without exemption and putting them into the army to fight, there cannot be very much difficulty in getting the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada to stand behind us and say that men shall work where they ought to work. I am not laying that down as a settled policy of the Government, I am only giving my own views; but it follows as logically as night follows day. Why, Sir, if a man had said to me four years ago that I would be standing up here to-night advocating the conscription of men to go into the army I would have said he was an arrant fool, and I think that is practically true of every man in this House. But four years of war have produced a wonderful change in the sentiments of members of this House, and a wonderful change in the sentiments of the people of Canada. The people of Canada to-day are prepared to stand for things which they would not have dreamed of standing for four years ago, and they will stand for still more drastic measures inside of four months if the necessity arises. Therefore, I want to give notice here, so far as I am concerned at least-and I think I am pretty well voicing the sentiments of my colleagues and of the supporters of the Government, and, I believe, of the people of Canada-that if it becomes necessary to impress for service on the farm certain people who have not been farmers heretofore, the people will stand by us and the Government will not hesitate to do its duty in order to see that production is increased to .the requisite extent, I am not going
to advocate to-night that women should labour on the farm, although women can do so. Women can run machinery and 'can do many things on the farm that they have not hitherto done. The boys who are attending college can be taken away from those colleges and put on the farms. Young men who are loafing on city streets can be taken and put on the farms; and with all the resources in eastern Canada at least, and with the powers of the Government and the will of the people exercised as, they should be, I have no doubt whatever as to what will take place so far as farming is concerned. Therefore, I have no hesitation in voting against this amendment. I realize that in doing this I am not going to please a great body of my constituents, but I think that my friends around me who are ready to vote for this resolution, feel the same as I do. The time has gone by when any man has any right to consider what may be popular or unpopular. The one great question which every man in this Parliament should ask himself to-night is this: What is necessary in the interests of this country at large; what is necessary in order to see that Canada does her full duty with a view of bringing this [DOT] war to a successful termination?
There are certain duties cast upon a Government in any country in times of stress such as these are; and in addition to that there are certain duties cast upon every good citizen of a country in such times as we are passing through now. I realize, that up to the beginning of this war we had so much freedom in Canada that the ordinary man and woman could not understand or realize what it meant when any of this freedom was taken away from him. We had never been taught war in Canada; we never believed it would be necessary to teach our people their duty in time of war. And, when it became necessary to teach them, I can quite understand that it was hard for them to realize-it is hard for people in Canada today to realize-that the first duty of every citizen in a time of stress and clanger is to stand up for his State. They have been taught differently from that in European countries, and while we all abhor the nece^ sity of it, yet we realize that in Europe for decades they have been taught that when a nation is at war the first duty of every man is to respond to the call of the army. As I said before, I realize that it has taken a good deal of education to beat these things into the heads of the people of Canada, but our people have risen to the occasion, I think, in a manner which calls

for the commendation of every man who gives it serious consideration. When you realize, Sir, that over four hundred thousand men have voluntarily given up their homes and all that is near and dear to them, and have gone into the army ready to make the supreme sacrifice, it proves that there is a splendid public sentiment in Canada, a public sentiment above and beyond what any of us imagined.
But there is no use in trying to hide it. Practically all the men in Canada who were willing to volunteer and take their chances have been recruited. If you want evidence of that, all you have to do is to look around and see what has been done by the remaining people of Canada to evade military service under the conscription law. And I want to say here, as publicly and as forcibly as T can, that the attempts to evade the conscription law are not entirely confined to the province of Quebec. A great deal has been said in this House during the last four weeks about that province. From the figures given here by the Prime Minister this afternoon, we must all realize that the number of Frenchspeaking Canadians who have enlisted is not very great. I am not here to find fault or to criticise; I have not a word of condemnation to say to them. It is a bald fact that stares everybody in the face. But there are thousands and tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands, of people in the rest of Canada who have tried as assiduously as they could to evade military service. Among the farming classes, every device has been resorted to which the ingenuity of man could think of. Men by the score have been practically adopted by their neighbours on the ground that it was necessary to work their farms, and through that have obtained exemption; and the next day these young men have gone away from that farm as if it were a pest house, with no intention of ever returning to it. This thing has gone on in English Canada to my knowledge. I do not believe there is one section where it has not gone on. Therefore I think I ought to say that it is just as necessary that w'e have some method of securing these men in the English portions of Canada as it is in the province of Quebec. It may not gather in as many men-possibly not; but the principle is the same, and the same law that applies to the one will apply to the others.
There are duties cast upon a Government in times like these which no member can refuse to look in the face, and the man who is not willing to look them in the face

and grapple with them had better get out of the Government and hand the duties of government over to some man who has the courage to perform them. We have known this situation since last January. We could see at that time that the Military Service Act was not producing the men required. We have tried to speed it up, have tried to enforce its provisions; we have tried to get men, and have failed to a very great extent. I dare say that, if we went on with all the appeals now pending before the central appeal judge, we might get more men; but we would never get
100,000 men or anything like it. Therefore it became the duty of this Government either to face the situation, or hand it over to men who would face it. We decided to face it. After careful consideration we have brought down this measure. We have placed it before you and we ask you to adopt it. We know there will be criticism in the country; thousands will not like it, there is no question about that. We know it will be as displeasing to many of our followers as it is to many of our opponents. Nevertheless, it is a stern necessity staring us in the face, and we are not going to flinch from it. I nave no doubt whatever but that it will be carried by an overwhelming majority*; I wish it could be made unanimous, I had hoped that it would be carried unanimously. But I will go further, and say that if this measure did not pass in this House, I would not give up the - fight. There are other ways. I would not give in until everything had been done that possibly could be done. Notwithstanding that this measure will not be popular in the country, I would not hesitate to go to the people and ask them to pass, judgment upon it, and I have every faith in the world that the verdict would be as favourable as it was in December last.
Now, sir, I do not think that I should argue the necessity for getting these men. We are all reading the papers every day. There cannot be a man or woman in Canada who is not aware of what has taken place in Europe during the last forxr weeks. On the 21st of March the enemy, after concentrating all the forces which he could possibly draw from the eastern front after the collapse of Russia, after withdrawing all the men possible from the Italian and every other front, made up his mind that he simply had to break through the British line or throw up his hands. And the result i3 that the British army in France and

Flanders has been subjected to the most terrible ordeal which any body of troops has ever been subjected to in history. The most terrible onslaught which human ingenuity could devise has been hurled upon that army. While they have gone back, they have not broken. But it is no use for any man to hug himself and say: "Oh, the British army has always won, and, somehow or other, they will win." They have accomplished wonders, and no man is prouder of his country and nation than I am of mine to-night. There is no man who realizes the perilous situation to a greater extent than I do. If every man in this House and in Canada realized the situation in France as I do to-night, we would not be standing here and arguing as to how we shall get men. When I think of the horrible consequences which would follow if Germany should win, when I realize what would have followed had they succeeded in carrying out their object, and how nearly they did succeed in breaking through, I almost tremble. Do hon. gentlemen realize what would have happened if they had broken through, or if the British and French armies had been separated? The British army would have been forced to capitulate. When the Germans had reached the channel ports and the means of communications between Great Britain and France had been cut off, France would have been forced to surrender also. Do people want German guns in the St. Lawrence river, or German guns along our Atlantic coast, to wake them up to a sense of their duty? That is what will happen if they break through our line. Nothing on this earth can stop them from breaking through that line except men, more men, and still more men. I hope that no one will think that I am drawing upon my imagination in this respect, and trying to make the picture darker than it should be, (because I am endeavouring to present my view as it impresses itself upon me. I do not think that my conclusions are unreasonable; I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that if the Germans do break through, the things may happen which I have suggested to you. And should that be the case, what would be the use of your farms? What would be the use of your property? What in the world matters if that happens? Does any man here want his family and his female relatives subjected to the degradation which has been heaped upon the people of France and Belgium? All these things might happen, and 61
probably would happen, in such an eventuality as I have mentioned.
I know that I shall 'be called an alarmist; people will say that I have tried to scare the public into accepting this measure. I am not doing that; I am simply giving my honest opinion, which I have arrived at after viery careful reasoning; and I think that hundreds of people in Canada, if they speak out their minds, will tell you that they have come to a similar conclusion. I have never been a pessimist. I have always believed that we shall win this war, and I believe so still. But I have always fried to look this matter in the face and to realize what might happen in case we did not do our duty and this war should be lost.
I took the trouble this afternoon to look up a few of the remarks I made in this House on the 27th day of June last, on the second reading of the Military Service Bill. The question under consideration at that time was whether this matter should be referred to the people of Canada by means of a referendum, or whether the Bill providing for compulsory military service should be adopted by the House. When I voted with the then Government and against my own leader and many of my friends, I reasoned the matter out just as I am trying to reason it out to you tonight. I want to read simply one paragraph from my remarks, which will show you that my mind was travelling along the same channel nine months- ago as it is tonight. I said:
Sir, I am not the keeper -of my brother's conscience ; I am the last man in the world to force any other man to vote with me who does not wish to vote with me. I hope I -am big enough to give any man who differs from me the credit of being just as honest in his convictions as I am 'honest in mine. And I have just as much respect for the honesty of the man who declares he will vote for the referendum as I have for my own. But I cannot help asking: Should the referendum be defeated, what then? That Is a question X cannot get around. I do not say it will toe defeated. I do not say that Parliament ought to pass a law if it is sure that in doing so it is going against the will of the people. But again I come back to my first proposition : This country is at war and
must have men; this oountry must go on doing its duty. Again I say: Suppose the referendum is defeated, what then? And, not being the keeper of any other man's conscience, I have no fault to find with the man who says he is willing to take this chance. But so far as I am concerned, I can only say, it is not good enough for me.
These were my considered views nine months ago; they have since then been substantiated, strengthened, and modified- to some extent. I say now that the question is not whether the majority of the people

are in favour of a referendum or of conscription, but, what is the duty of the Government and Parliament in view of the conditions which exist in Europe to-night?
I am willing to brueh aside all my preconceived ideas of constitutional rights in times of peace, and to say frankly and openly that, no matter whether it be popular or unpopular,-I would go so far as to say, no matter whether the majority of the people are behind it or not-it is our duty to go on and get every man we possibly can get without crippling the ordinary affairs of the country. Entertaining these views, my duty is clear, and I hope that I shall be able to convince every man who listens to me to-night that his duty lies along the same path as mine.
A splendid sentiment has been exhibited by the people of Canada. I said a while ago that over 400,000 men had voluntarily answered the call of duty, had gone to the front, and had faced conditions of which no man can have a proper conception unless he has been there to become familiar with them. I regret to say, however, that something else is required in the sentiment of Canada to-day to make it what I should like to see it. Everything is not as lovely as the sentiment expressed by the action of the 400,000 men who voluntarily offered their lives, if necessary, for their country. I am very sorry to say that there is a sentiment throughout the country which does not measure up to that high standard. There are people who have used the war as a means of getting rich to an extent which they had never dreamed of. There are men who come to the Government-" patriots " who want to help win the war, but to win it in some way by which they can make themselves rich-and want everything in the world one possibly can imagine. There are men who come to the Government and want things for which they have no right to ask. There are men who come to the Government without asking for a moment where the money which their proposals involve is to come from. There are men who never consider for a moment what the revenues of the country are or what is the extent of the debt which is being piled up. " Patriots " come to the Government every day who want to build everything from a ship down to the smallest article of commerce, and who want the Government not only to furnish the money to do it with, but the money which will make them rich for the rest of their lives.
While I am on this subject, there is a class of men to whom I want to address my respects to-night, and that is the fMr. Car veil.] .
labouring men of Canada. I know that what I am going to say may not be very popular. I do not wonder that the labouring men of Canada are making a demand for increased wages every day in the week, when their employers are getting rich beyond the dreams of avarice. But I want to say here to-night-I give this not as the opinion of the Government, but as my own private opinion-that no man in Canada is justified in laying down his tools and saying: I will not work at any necessary industry in this country. No man is justified in saying: I will not mine coal; I will not produce steel; I will not run a railroad; I will not do other things necessary in the ordinary affairs of the country. They may have grievances, and those grievances could be remedied; but they should never quit work, nor should the employer ever cause the conditions to be such that they can quit work. I know that this is beyond the question under consideration, but as I am speaking of the sentiment of Canada, I cannot resist the temptation of making these statements. They may not please many people, but they are not made for the purpose of pleasing. They are made with a view to causing a few more people in Canada to think who have not thought in the past. I am sorry to say that thousands of men in Canada to-day have looked upon this war as a God-given opportunity of getting rich beyond their former dreams. I may be saying something which is unpleasant to myself and unpleasant to them, but in doing so it is possible that I may cause some people to think of things to which they have not given consideration before. I hope that the people will rise to the occasion and realize that this is not a time to get rich; that this is not a time to quibble over small things; it is a time when every man, and every woman, and every child almost, should say: What can I best do to play my part in putting Canada in a position to do her full part in winning this war?
I do not wish to say more than I ought to say, nor do I desire to leave anything unsaid which it is in my heart to say to-night. I am sorry that my hon. friend has moved this resolution and that he proposes, as I imagine, to divide the House upon it. If this amendment be carried, we shall simply have the old question of exemptions .tried over again and the whole purpose of the resolution will be defeated.
I hope my friend the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will not think me rude if I say to him that I

was disappointed this afternoon at the concluding part of his remarks. It is true he did what I, knowing him as long as I have, realized he would do. He said to the people of his province that they must obey this law. I would have been very much surprised if he had said anything else, but I wish he had gone further and said to his people: Not only is it your duty to obey this law, but it is your duty to come forward without this law. I wish every one of my hon. friends opposite, every one of my hon. friends on this side of the House, and, in fact, every hon. member, would say to the people of his constituency, no matter who they may be: We are living in the greatest crisis this world has ever known; we are living in a time when nothing but the strong arm and the blood of the men of Canada can save the situation; it is not a question of obeying the law when the minions of the law come and take the men, but it is a question of saying to the young men: Turn out like men; do your duty like men; assume the responsibility of citizenship without being compelled to do it; take your share, play the part which the 400,000 men who have gone before have played in this gigantic conflict. I am not given to poetry; perhaps there is less poetry in me than in any other man who has ever lived, but I wish to put on Hansard for the third time a few lines which were written by a soldier at the front, and which were quoted in this House on two former occasions:
Take up our quarrel with the foe.
To you from falling .hands we throw The torch,-be yours to hold it high;
If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep though poppies grow In Flanders' fields.
I can only say in conclusion: God help the man on whom is cast the responsibility of playing any part in carrying on the Government of this country who breaks faith with the 40,000 men who have given up their lives on Flanders fields, and the 100,000 men who have been wounded and who have gone through pangs which no man can conceive unless he has had a like experience. The responsibility is a terrible one. I have sufficient faith in the people of this country to believe that they will hold the torch on high; that they will not break faith with those men, and I have sufficient faith in them to believe that they will pass this law; that they will nobly and sincerely uphold the Government in enforcing the law. Those men who are enlisted under it will go to the front and add more lustre to the name of Canada. They will make Canada a coun-614
try upon which every man and all our children and children's children will be proud to look back and say: When the terrible stress came, the people of Canada did not break faith with the men who fought and died for them, but they stood up like brave men and fought, and, if necessary, died themselves in order that civilization might live upon the earth.
The House divided upon the proposed
amendment of Mr. Molloy: Yeas. Messieurs:
Archambault, Lapointe
Boivin, (Kamouraska),
Bourassa, Lapointe (St. James),
Boyer, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Brouillard, Lavigueur,
Bureau, Leduc,
Cahill, Leger,
Cannon, Lesage,
Cardin, MeCoig,
Casgrain, MeCrea,
Chisholm, McGibbon (Argenteuil),
d'Anjou, McKenzie,
Dgchone, McMaster,
Delisle, Marcile (Bagot),
Demers, Mayrand,
Denis, Michaud,
Desaulniers, Molloy,
Deslauriers, Murphy,
Devlin, Pacaud,
DuTremblay, Papineau,
Ethier, Parent,
Euler, Pedlow,
Fafard, Pelletier,
Fontaine, Power,
Fortier, Prevost,
Fournier, Proulx,
Gauthier, Read (Prince, P.E.I.),
Gauvreau, Robb,
Gervais, Ross,
Gladu, Savard,
Jacobs, Seguin,
Kay, Sinclair
Kennedy, (Queens, P.E.I.),
Lafortune, Tobin,
LanetOt, Trahan, Turgeon, Vien.-70. Nays. Messieurs :
Anderson, Hoeken,
Andrews, Hughes (Sir Sam),
Argue, Johnston,
Armstrong (Lambton), Keefer,
Arthurs, Lang,
Ballantyne, Loggie,
Ball, Long,
Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (Halifax), McGibbon (Muskoka), McGregor,
McLean (Royal), McQuarrie,

Campbell, Mewburn,
Carvell, Middlebro,
Casselman, Morphy,
Chabot, Mowat,
Chaplin, Myers,
Charlton, Nesbitt,
Charters, Nicholson
Clark (Red Deer), (Queens, P.E.I.),
Clarke (Wellington), Nickle,
Cochrane, Pardee,
Oockshutt, Paul,
Cooper, Redman,
Cowan, Reid (Grenville),
Crerar, Reid (Mackenzie),
Cronyn, Rowell,
Crothers, Scott,
Crowe, Sexsmith, .
Currie, Shaw,
Davidson, Sheard,
Davis, Sifton,
Doherty, Simpson,
Douglas (Cape Breton Spinney,
S. & Rich.), Stacey,
Edwards, Steele,
Elkin, Stevens,
Fielding, Stewart,
Finley, Sutherland,
Foster (Sir George), Thompson (Weyburn),
Foster (York), Thompson (Hastings),
Fraser, Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Fripp, Tolmie,
Fulton^ Tremain,
Green, Turriff,
Guthrie, Tweedie,
Halladay, Wallace,
Harold, Whidden,
Harrison, Wilson (Wentworth),
Hartt, Wilson (Saskatoon).-
Hay, 118.
Amendment negatived.

Topic:   P. C. 919.
Full View