Sir

[Translation.]

Robert Borden and the province of
Quebec.

The Gazette announced recently that Sir Robert Borden desired to give our province its just share of representation in his cabinet, but that he was prevented from doing so because of the fact that the French-Canadians had at the election of 1917 rejected all his candidates. In the same way Senator L'Espérance had during the last session stated in the Upper House that if the French-Canadians were without representation in the ministry the fault lay at the door of their chiefs, who had been invited to join it.

We must not allow such a story to propagate itself, for its sole purpose is to exonerate from all blame in that connection Sir Robert Borden, whom we regard as personally and solely responsible for the isolation of the province of Quebec. It was he who desired to bring about that isolation, and he systematically pursued it. At the elections of 1911 Sir Robert Borden found himself powerless to obtain a majority, unless he succeeded in dividing the province of Quebec. It was this which he succeeded in doing through his alliance with Mr. Bourassa and the support of the pseudo-nationalists.

In 1917 Sir Robert Borden had no hope of successfully repeating his double game. It was clear that our province was going to drive out the Nationalist Conservatives, who had odiously deceived it.

The chief of the Conservative party could no longer count on the same support in the other provinces, for his ministry had suffered in public opinion through the outbreak of numerous scandals, which had led to the resignation of Sir Sam Hughes and of Robert Rogers. The West also formed a solid block against him, who had sacrificed their interests on the question of reciprocity.

Sir Robert Borden returned from Europe in May, 1917, filled with sombre presentiments. He knew that the Opposition would not agree to a second prolongation of the life of the present Parliament, and he realized that his days were numbered. He had not till then thought of uniting all the forces of the country for the more effective carrying on of the war. He had governed by and for his party which thought first of its own fortune, and after that of the war.

That state of mind showed itself clearly when in 1915 a Toronto newspaper suggested the formation of a union government. The idea was received with a burst of derisive laughter by all the Tory press. That was the frame of mind of the party and of its chief up to the moment when power seemed to be slipping from their hands, after three years of war.

What was the military situation at that time? Canada had already equipped and sent to the front 400,000 soldiers. The United States had just entered the lists, and opened to the allies their immense reservoir of men. Their riches were enormous, and had increased by gigantic strides during the war. They had already 100,000 men under arms, and they could call up others more quickly than was possible for us, and as many of them as they wished. To make an effort equal in proportion to ours, the Americans would have to raise an army of 5,000,000. We were to be henceforth allies. There was no longer any frontier line between them and us. Our cause was a common one. It was the same transports-for the most part

English-which would carry over the American as well as our own Canadian soldiers. Canada, which had never up to that time had recourse to compulsory service, had less reason than ever to resort to such a system.

These were the conditions existing at the moment of Sir Robert Borden's return to the country. The election was imminent. What new tactics was he going to employ to maintain himself in power? He told us that he desired to create a union government in the country, that he might assist the allies to win the war; but, before asking Sir Wilfrid Laurier to join him, he entered the House and announced that he was going to lay before it a Bill for conscription, to secure the enrolment of 100,000 new recruits. It was after that that he knocked at the door of the chief of the Opposition, Sir Robert Borden knew perfectly well that the preliminary condition which he had just proposed would inevitably evoke from Sir Wilfrid Laurier a negative answer, for he knew his opinion, which had been expressed publicly in the Commons, and which reflected public sentiment in the province of Quebec, which was unanimous in its opposition to conscription. The manoeuvre was intended to place his adversaries on one of the two horns of a dilemma. Either Sir Wilfrid Laurier would consent to enter the Cabinet, something beyond the range of possibility, and Sir Robert Borden would be assured of an easy return to office. Or Sir Wilfrid would refuse the offer, and Sir Robert would make an appeal to the English provinces against our province, and unchain against her all the passions of race and religion, and, in case of need, there was to be a so-called War-time Elections Act, which would create for him an assured majority.

Such was the programme which Sir Robert Borden brought back from Europe, after having for a long time deliberated upon the chances which this combination offered him. He was aware, as we have said, that Quebec was unanimously hostile to conscription, His alliance with Mr. Bourassa in 1911 was founded on the knowledge that he had acquired in Drummond and Arthabaska that the French-Canadians were radically and unalterably opposed to every form of militarism which would attach them to the imperial war chariot. When he formulated his hope of the sacred union in the country and invited Sir Wilfrid Laurier to take his place by his side, that they might give their united support to the Conscription Bill, his duplicity was clearly revealed. If he had been in good faith, and if he had desired that the minds and energies of the entire country should be devoted to the victorious pursuit of the war, he would not have begun with a declaration of policy which had exactly the contrary effect. In that case his first thought would have been to invite Sir Wilfrid Laurier to study with him the measures to be taken and the programme to be adopted for the creation of that union in the country and in the Government. In first declaring for conscription, Sir Robert said clearly, in so many words, that he did not wish to share power with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose prestige would have too easily eclipsed his own.

To avoid sharing power with another, Sir Robert did not hesitate to place the two races in violent antagonism. to create the false impression that Canada was not unanimously in favour of the Allies, and to have his faithful henchmen cover the province of Quebec with ignominy and insult. He fooled her in 1911, under the guise of nationalism. He openly flouted her in 1917:

The success of the Allies was then far from his thoughts. He paralyzed for more than six months all enrollment for the front and our troops in the field received fewer reinforcements during the twelve months which followed the introduction of conscription than they had under the voluntary system. But he won the election, which was the one object of this bit of political strategy. In the same way, in 1911, in order to gain the election, he paralyzed the construction of a Canadian navy, which would have protected our coasts in the day of peril.

It is untrue, therefore, to say that, if the province of Quebec is isolated, that is not the fault of Sir Robert Borden. There is not a single French Canadian possessing the least regard for his own dignity and for his duty towards his race who would consent to serve under a man who had treated his people so shamefully. Temporary isolation is better than servitude. To enter this cabinet would be not only to commit an act of servility, to play the role of a whipped cur, but it would be also to be come an accomplice in the robbery, in broad daylight, of the last elections, which imposed upon us what is nothing but a de facto Govern- ment. To this Government, born of force and trickery, the product of an iniquitous election law, the province of Quebec owes nothing but the expression of her contempt.

RAOUL DANDURAND,

Senator.

I have said that we are to-day facing a Isham Union Government. When the idea of a Union Government was first mooted by Sir Robert Borden, he went to a number of the leaders of the Liberal party and offered them an opportunity to join in the administration of the affairs of the country and to form a Union Government. What was the answer which he received from these gentlemen? It will be remembered that they came to Ottawa to confer upon the question. The answer was a most humiliating one to Sir Robert Borden. They said unanimously, "We will not serve under you, Sir." Some few days after the Session the Montreal Star published a telegram from Ottawa, stating that the gentlemen who had looked with contempt upon the offer of Sir Robert Borden would yield, and that the reason for their yielding was that the War Time Elections Act would force them to come to their knees, because in it Sir Robert Borden had a strangle-hold upon them. Two gentlemen, Messrs. Carvell and Maclean, had qualified the War-time Elections Act as a most horrible, iniquitous piece of legislation. Those words are to be found as having been uttered by these gentlemen from their seats in the House of Commons in the last days of the session of 1917. There are people who would have struggled, even to suffocation with that strangle-hold, rather than go down on their knees; but some of these gentlemen were not built that way-they swallowed the

infamy with the portfolio. I am proud to say that the Liberals of Quebec were not in that class.

The leader of the Government yesterday boasted of the achievements of the Government during the last three years. He laid particular emphasis on their accomplishments in finance. What seemed to loom up largely in his mind was the ability of the Government to borrow money. They had increased the debt from $350,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. They had appealed to the people and had obtained their support in a marvellous way-that was a feat to boast of. The Government borrowed from the people of Canada at 5 per cent interest, giving them an assurance of exemption from taxation, something which never appeared to me to be worth boasting about. Many were the financiers in Canada who thought it was a most imprudent and most dangerous policy to pursue and that it would create a difficult condition and cause violent recriminations in the collection of the Income Tax. They were answered that that was the only way to ensure the success of the loans. My honourable friend has boasted of the last loan, $700,000,000 which was taken up by the people of Canada. I would ask him to reflect and consider whether that last loan, which was not made free from impost, is not a full condemnation of the previous loans, and of the previous policy followed by the Minister of Finance?

What was that policy based upon? It was a policy which allowed wealthy people to invest their money in loans which would free them from the income tax. What was it based upon, if not a distrust of the people? There was a patriotic duty to perform, and instead of going squarely to the people and telling them that they should take the loans of the Government at 5 per cent, they lured them to it by the exemption from taxation. The people gave the Government a lesson in patriotism by subscribing $700,000,000 last autumn without that exemption. To my mind the true test of statesmanship is not to be found in the levying of patriotic loans in Canada. To borrow and to spend lavishly is easy. In my opinion the real test is to be found in demobilizing extravagance. The real test of statesmanship at this moment, is in the restoration of pre-war conditions in all the departments, and in finding ways and means for re-establishing the financial equilibrium. The first duty of the Government after the 18th of November was to see that its house was promptly put in order. One needs

courage to raise revenue through taxation. How can it be done otherwise? Where is the money to come from if not through appeal to the pockets of the people at large? As I have said, it is easy to borrow money, and while the loan was increasing by hundreds of millions, and while my honourable friend was thinking that things were running merrily along, I could not help thinking of the constantly increasing annual charge for interest that would fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. The continuation of the policy of borrowing only aggravates the situation. Why has no policy been expressed to-day which would hold out the hope that conditions are soon to change? My belief is that the Cabinet is too weak and too divided to bring down a policy which would lead us to hope that we might meet our yearly obligations. I am convinced that the present Cabinet will, before September next, announce another loan of $500,000,000.

My honourable friend spoke with glee of the last loan of $700,000,000; I think at the same time of the $38,500,000 interest upon it the country will annually be called upon to pay. As I said last session, I am convinced that the taxpayers of this country will have to be bled to the tune of $200,000,000 in additional taxation in order to meet our yearly expenditure. We have heard no announcement, either in the Speech from the Throne or in the speech of my honourable friend, which would indicate that the Government has any idea of where this supplementary $200,000,000 is to be found. Why have we had no indication of a policy which would tend to re-establish confidence in the country? Why? One of the most influential newspapers in the Conservative party has said that it was because the Cabinet was headless and brainless. Yesterday morning, coming up on the train to Ottawa, I read a curious despatch sent to the Montreal Gazette by one of its correspondents. It said:

If Hon. J. D. Reid and Hon. James A. Calder, who are in New York to confer with Sir Robert Borden, fail to secure the Prime Minister's consent to remain as nominal leader of the Government, they will ask him to name his successor. These ministers and some of their colleagues are opposed to a parliamentary choice of a leader and would in the event of Sir Robert's retirement prevent this by having Sir Robert hand his crown to his own choice. Any leader chosen will have a difficult task, but it will be doubly difficult if the parliamentary supporters are told why they must follow instead of making the selection. Sir Thomas White has definitely stated that he will not be a candidate for the leadership nor accept it if offered him. Sir Robert will be asked to

name first and second choices, and these will be Sir Thomas White and Sir Henry Drayton. Hon. James A. Calder is a favourite of the Prime Minister and would be quite willing to be a compromise selection. The Cabinet ministers, with the exception of two or three, would accept any leader except Hon. Arthur Meighen, The Commoners would accept Mr. Meighen and would be split in several factions were he ignored. It is believed, however, that the ministers in New York will prevail with Sir Robert and return with the glad tidings that the Prime Minister will retain office. This will carry the Government through the session, and with Parliament prorogued the Cabinet with eight months' recess can afford to ignore the Commons.

I have said that this influential and respectable organ of the Conservative party felt that the Government was headless; and it establishes that it is brainless by adding:

Unionist troubles are due to lack of an accepted policy to an even greater degree than from absentee leadership.

Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King was justified in his criticism of the Government on this issue. The Unionist Cabinet cannot continue to exist indefinitely on its war record, no matter how clean and effective. Its supporters in the Commons are sick at heart from the Government's indecision and procrastination in formulating a constructive policy. A war administration is of necessity autocratic and secretive.

Then, in order to show the chaotic condition of the Cabinet, the writer goes further and explains that the Government stands nowhere before the people. He says:

In

While it is doubtful if there will be Unionist candidates in either St. James, Montreal, or Temiskaming, there will be candidates who support the Government's fiscal policy. Temiskaming there are two candidates in the field, Liberal and Farmer-Labour. A Conservative convention has been called, but this will probably be cancelled and a well-known business man with large interests in the constituency enter the fight as an independent protectionist. Owing to the lack of Unionist organization and even a platform, it is very There difficult to secure an official candidate. is no one authorized to call such a convention, nor would there be much to gain by being selected as the Government's official candidate, as in the past Cabinet ministers have given no support to such candidates either by endorsation or on the platforms.

This is delightful irony. The Government will have no candidate in those three constituencies, but will try to win on its fiscal policy. It will not show its face; it will rely upon the Opposition carrying its colours to victory.

Now, what is the fiscal policy that is spoken of? Is it the high tariff of the Cockshutt wing of the Conservative party, the low tariff of the Calder group, or the moderate tariff of the Meighen-Winnipeg brand? We do not know. It appears that the Government will have no candidates

The success of the Allies was then far from his thoughts. He paralyzed for more than six months all enrollment for the front and our troops in the field received fewer reinforcements during the twelve months which followed the introduction of conscription than they had under the voluntary system. But he won the election, which was the one object of this bit of political strategy. In the same way, in 1911, in order to gain the election, he paralyzed the construction of a Canadian navy, which would have protected our coasts in the day of peril.

It is untrue, therefore, to say that, if the province of Quebec is isolated. that is not the fault of Sir Robert Borden. There is not a single French Canadian possessing the least regard for his own dignity and for his duty towards his race who would consent to serve under a man who had treated his people so shamefully. Temporary isolation is better than serv

infamy with the portfolio. I am proud to say that the Liberals of Quebec were not in that class.

The leader of the Government yesterday boasted of the achievements of the Government during the last three years. He laid particular emphasis on their accomplishments in finance. What seemed to loom up largely in his mind was the ability of the Government to borrow money. They had increased the debt from $350,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. They had appealed to the people and had obtained their support in a marvellous way-that was a feat to boast of. The Government borrowed from the people of Canada at 5 per cent interest,

to commit an act of servility, to play the role of a whipped cur, but it would be also to be come an accomplice in the robbery, in broad daylight, of the last elections, which imposed upon us what is nothing but a de facto Government. To this Government, born of force and trickery, the product of an iniquitous election law, the province of Quebec owes nothing but the expression of her contempt.

RAOUL DANDURAND,

Senator.

I have said that we are to-day facing a sham Union Government. When the idea of a Union Government was first mooted by Sir Robert Borden, he went to a number of the leaders of the Liberal party and offered them an opportunity to join in the administration of the affairs of the country and to form a Union Government. What was the answer which he received from these gentlemen? It will be remembered that they came to Ottawa to confer upon the question. The answer was a most humiliating one to Sir Robert Borden. They said unanimously, "We will not serve under you, Sir." Some few days after the Session the Montreal Star published a telegram from Ottawa, stating that the gentlemen who had looked with contempt upon the offer of Sir Robert Borden would yield, and that the reason for their yielding was that the War Time Elections Act would force them to come to their knees, because in it Sir Robert Borden had a strangle-hold upon them. Two gentlemen, Messrs. Carvell and Maclean, had qualified the War-time Elections Act as a most horrible, iniquitous piece of legislation. Those words are to be found as having been uttered by these gentlemen from their seats in the House of Commons in the last days of the session of 1917. There are people who would have struggled, even to suffocation with that strangle-hold, rather than go down on their knees; but some of these gentlemen were not built that way-they swallowed the

taxation, something which never appeared to me to be worth boasting about. Many were the financiers in Canada who thought it was a most imprudent and most dangerous policy to pursue and that it would create a difficult condition and cause violent recriminations in the collection of the Income Tax. They were answered that that was the only way to ensure the success of the loans. My honourable friend has boasted of the last loan, $700,000,000 which was taken up by the people of Canada. I would ask him to reflect and consider whether that last loan, which was not made free from impost, is not a full condemnation of the previous loans, and of the previous policy followed by the Minister of Finance?

What was that policy based upon? It was a policy which allowed wealthy people to invest their money in loans which would free them from the income tax. What was it based upon, if not a distrust of the people? There was a patriotic duty to perform, and instead of going squarely to the people and telling them that they should take the loans of the Government at 5 per cent, they lured them to it by the exemption from taxation. The people gave the Government a lesson in patriotism by subscribing $700,000,000 last autumn without that exemption. To my mind the true test of statesmanship is not to be found in the levying of patriotic loans in Canada. borrow and to spend lavishly is easy. In my opinion the real test is to be found in demobilizing extravagance. The real test of statesmanship at this moment, is in the restoration of pre-war conditions in all the departments, and in finding ways and means for re-establishing the financial equilibrium. The first duty of the Government after the 18th of November was to see that its house was promptly put in order. One needs

To