the committee which has had this matter in charge during the past two sessions. There have been many sittings of the committee. They have studied the building from point to point to find where this memorial could most advantageously be erected, and have finally decided that it be placed on the right hand side of the entrance to the House of Commons side of the building. We ask for the re-appointment of this committee so that they may confer with a like committee of the House of Commons. We are now in communication with Tait Mackenzie, a Canadian living in the United States, who is going to co-operate with us in the erection of the memorial.

The motion was agreed to.

THE PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT.

MOTION.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED' moved:

That a message be sent to the House of Commons by one of the clerks at the table to inform that House that His Honour the Speaker and Hon. Messieurs Blain, Thompson and Watson have been appointed a committee to assist his Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant of Parliament so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the said restaurant.

He said: May I say, by way of explanation of that motion, that it was the opinion of the Committee on Selection that this committee should act tentatively, pending the organization of the restaurant when the new quarters are completed. I intend to move, when we have disposed of the Address, that a joint committee of both Houses be appointed to deal with the question of the new restaurant when it is completed. So far as the building and equipment are concerned, the restaurant will probably be equal to any on this continent, and it is therefore very desirable that special attention should be given to see that in its administration, as well as in its equipment, it is placed on a parity with the dining-rooms of the best hotels or clubs on this continent. There is no reason why that should not be done.

the restaurant in the meantime, a joint committee should be named to take the whole subject into consideration. The members of both Houses, I am certain, will not only desire, but will insist, that this restaurant be administered in such a manner as to make it a credit to Canada and especially a comfort to the members of Parliament.

The motion was agreed to.

ACCOMMODATION OF SENATORS IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

On the Orders of the Day:

particular

Hon. RUFUS POPE: Honourable gentlemen, I rise to a question of privilege. I was very much surprised yesterday afternoon, on entering the lobby of the House of Commons, to be told by the doorkeeper that the rule of the Speaker prevented my admittance. I was informed that no senator might enter at that doorway. I refer to the space, in front of the Commons Chamber, leading to the lobby to the left, behind the Government side of the House. I do not know how narrow an interpretation may be placed upon the clearly written article of our Constitution which proclaims that Parliament consists of two Houses, namely, the House of Commons and the Senate. I consider that a broad and reasonable interpretation of that article of the British North America Act would include members of the Senate as well as members of the House of Commons as being entitled to free entry into any of the lobbies in and around Parliament. mention this matter because I think the order of His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons indicates too narrow an interpretation and one that should not be maintained. Personally, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker and honourable gentlemen, my knowledge of the rules and regulations of Parliament is not what it ought to be, considering the number of years I have been loafing about the foot of the Throne. That, of course, is my own fault. But I think it would be desirable for this House to take some action to prevent the recurrence of such an unfortunate and uncomfortable situation as I was placed in

I

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: May I suggest, honourable gentlemen, the desirability of there being a clear understanding between the two Houses as to what the privileges of a member of Parliament should be with regard to the lobbies of either House. I am unaware to what extent the

order promulgated by the House of Commons is effective. It may be that the lobby behind the Throne and the lobby in front of the entrance to the House of Commons, because of the open grill-work, are regarded as part of the floor of the House. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but if it is, it seems to me to be a very radical departure from the privilege which was extended particularly to members of this House in the old Parliament Buildings. There is no reason why there should be a stricter rule enforced against the visit of a Senator to the lobbies of the House of Commons than previously. It is very desirable that good relations should exist between the two Houses, because whatever rules may be passed by the House of Commons, if they operate as a restraint upon senators, will probably be duplicated in this House, so that similar rules may operate equally by way of restraint upon the members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting

Hon. Mr. POIRIER: Der tag.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: I am not suggesting reprisals in any sense, but it is desirable that we should have uniformity, to say the least.

Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE: Reciprocity.

Hon. Sir JAMES LOUGHEED: May I therefore suggest that His Honour the Speaker of the Senate take up the matter with His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons, so that there may be a good understanding as between both Houses and a mutuality of privileges.

Hon. FREDERIC NICHOLLS: Honourable gentlemen, while this matter is under discussion I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the seating arrangement of the Senators' gallery in the House of Commons permits of only twenty seats. On ordinary occasions twenty seats may be ample, but when an important debate is in progress, many Senators who take an interest in the legislation which is being discussed and are anxious to learn at first hand the viewpoint of the Commoners, would be quite unable to attend in the gallery reserved for them in order to listen to the debate instead of reading about it next day in Hansard. It seems to me that twenty chairs in the gallery space provided in the new House of Commons are altogether too small a proportion to be allotted to the Senate. I would suggest to the honourable leader of the House that His Honour the Speaker

be requested to take that matter also into consideration.

The Hon. the SPEAKER: Honourable gentlemen, I am glad to have my attention called to the complaint of the honourable member from Bedford (Hon. Mr. Pope), and also to hear the suggestions made by the honourable leader of the Government in this House. I shall call the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons to these matters and try to have them arranged. I shall at the same time mention that the number of seats in the gallery allotted to the members of this House is not sufficient.

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.

ADDRESS IN REPLY.

The Senate resumed from Wednesday, March 3, consideration of the motion for an Address in reply to His Excellency the Governor General's Speech at the opening of the Session.

Hon. F. L. SCHAFFNER: Honourable gentlemen, in asking your indulgence for a short time this afternoon, may I say that I have decided to make some remarks because it appears to me that this is about the only opportunity the members of this House have of speaking on certain subjects. In the other Chamber we had at least two opportunities, and sometimes a third.

My first intention was to confine my remarks almost entirely to two questions: one of these is the agrarian movement in this country and the entry of farmers into politics, and I was presumptuous enough to intend to discuss, as the second question, the machinery of this honourable body. But after listening to my honourable friend from De Lorimier (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) yesterday, I decided it would be necessary for me to make a few other remarks before entering upon the discussion of the subject on which I had made some preparation.

There seems to have been since the beginning of this session a concerted action to abuse-I do not think that is too strong a word-the present Union Government. Since I entered this House I have learned to respect very highly the ability of the honourable gentleman who spoke yesterday. I have a very high appreciation of his mental qualities. I have also found him a very amiable man. So yesterday I had to conclude that something was wrong-that my honourable friend was not exactly

I said there seemed to be a concerted action to abuse the Union Government and to criticise adversely the work that it did, and especially to criticise Sir Robert Borden. I have no brief for Sir Robert, nor does he need to be defended by me, and I trust that any remarks of mine will be considered as coming from myself only. I have watched Sir Robert Borden pretty carefully and, although I have tried to think back to the very beginning, I do not know of any mistake that he made in the conduct of the war. From the criticism to which I listened in the other House and the criticism made yesterday in this Chamber it does seem to me that the members of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the members of the Opposition-if it may be termed an Opposition-in this House absolutely forget that for four or five years we were carrying on a war. They talk about the immense debt and about our ministers being away from Parliament and off in Europe; but I would remind those honourable members that there has been a war a very severe war, and if our debt has increased and if there is unrest in this country to-day, these effects may be attributed largely to the events that have been occurring throughout the world, particularly in the belligerent countries in Europe, during the last four or five years. The unrest which undoubtedly does exist is not confined to Canada. I think I am within the bounds of truth in saying that unrest is prevalent all over the world. But let me confine my remarks to this country. There is unrest amongst the soldiers. How could it be otherwise, honourable gentlemen? Five hundred thousand young men went overseas from this country to preserve our liberty-in fact, I may say, to preserve our very selves. There are present in this House to-day men who have experienced the loss of sons. When we consider for a moment the trials to which our men were subjected during the war, not only in the trenches, but elsewhere, is it any wonder that there is unrest among the soldiers at present? To my mind it could not be other

wise, and what surprises me is not that there is unrest, but the fact that there is not a great deal more unrest than at present. And what about the people who stayed at home? It may safely be said that there is scarcely a hamlet in this great country of Canada that has not felt the trying conditions of the war. Those who did not

have husbands or sons or brothers over there certainly had friends whose relatives were overseas. In my own little town we have had a number of sad cases. One in particular is that of a woman who sent three sons to the war; they are all buried in Flanders. The point I wish to make is that, as not only the soldiers who have r turned, but also many other people, have been affected by the war, we could not expect conditions to be normal.

My honourable friend (Hon. Mr. Dandurand) told us yesterday that Quebec would vote against Union Government. That was brand new information to us, surely; it was something we did not expect. A great deal has been said about the money which we have expended and the amount we have borrowed. Reference has been made to the fact that the public debt of Canada has increased from $350,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. That is not strange. Does any one think that war can be carried on for any length of time without very greatly increasing the public debt? We have heard complaints, both here and in the other House, because of the large amount of money that has been raised in Canada. Over and over again, it has been stated that the Government had lost the confidence of the people. If that is so, it seems most peculiar that they should have been able to raise the large amount of money they did.

My honourable friend from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Roche) yesterday asked what we had got in return for the money expended. He said:

We spent two thousand millions of money; we gave the services of five hundred thousand men, and, what was more precious, sacrificed the lives of sixty thousand men. What have we got in return?

I must say that it never occurred to me that we entered the war expecting to gain anything. I am sure that when Parliament met in the special session of 1914 such a thought never entered the minds of the members of either the House of Commons or of the Senate. What was our object in entering into the war? One of the most autocratic and devilish men in the world had undertaken, after years of preparation,

to destroy the peace of the world. This tyrant commenced operations by attacking little Belgium, and later aroused the indignation and anger of nearly all civilized nations by ordering the sinking of ships, thus causing drowning of innocent women and children. In August, 1914, Sir Robert Borden-I do not think he waited for a meeting of Parliament-at once cabled to the Mother Country that, if it was necessary, the people of this country were willing to sacrifice their last man and their last dollar to help preserve the peace of the world and the existence of the British Empire. That is what has been preserved to us. That is what we have got. Our men were sent overseas, not for the purpose of gaining territory, but because the people of Canada believed that it was their duty to assist Great Britain in restoring peace to the world.

A good deal has been said by honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House about the War Time Elections Act, which was passed, I think, in 1917. I have not got a list of the ugly names they called it. I must say that that Act never seemed to me to be very unjust. What were the two principal objects which it effected? First, it took the vote from a certain class of people who were not sympathetic with the aims and ideals of this country and the British Empire. That some injustice may have been done here and there I am not going to deny; it is impossible to bring about any great change without some individual injustice; but surely it was not wrong to take the franchise from people who were not in sympathy with us. The other object of the Act and I think perhaps more fault has been found with that-was to extend the franchise to the mothers, sisters, and wives of those who were fighting in France. Those are the two points to which the greatest amount of adverse criticism has been directed, and, in my opinion, the Government were justified in doing what they did. I believe that Sir Robert Borden and his Government made very few mistakes. Li ever a man was imbued with the interests of the Empire and of this country, and if ever a man sacrificed himself to his ideals, that man was Sir Robert Borden. I think that some of the criticism which was directed yesterday towards him was too small for the men who made it. I wish to offer my meed of praise to the Union Government, and to the men of the Liberal party, who upon the solicitation of the Premier joined with the Conservatives in

forming the Union Government. Some honourable gentlemen in this room were in Parliament in days gone by when, under the old party system, we fought harder and at greater length than we do to-day. They will remember that on many occasions we commenced sitting at 3 o'clock on Monday afternoon, and fought continuously until 12 o'clock on Saturday night, only stopping then because of the Lord's Day Act. Honourable gentlemen opposite were defending their beloved leader, and I do not think any one on either side of the House would say that he was not a most lovable man. When the crisis came, however, some honourable gentlemen, in adhering to their party principles, seemed to forget the importance of the crisis that was facing us. In the early days I was not so enamoured of Union Government as I afterwards was. Now, in the light of what has transpired, I am confident that Sir Robert Borden was right; and I want to give credit to the men from the other side who joined with him.

On Tuesday, in the House of Commons, a splendid tribute was paid to the Union Government by a gentleman who, judging from his name, never belonged to a Tory family. I refer to Mr. Mowat. The very name smacks of Liberalism. This is what he said:

I, in common with the Liberals on this side, have had pleasure in supporting this Government, and supporting it enthusiastically, even though it be unpopular. During war I do not want to support a Government merely because it is popular.

Since this session commenced, we have heard a great deal about the unpopularity of this Government and the remarks of Mr. Mowat appeal to me very strongly. He goes on to say:

I want to support a Government that does the right thing even if it is going to be unpopular. And what a number of unpopular things this Government has had to do!

One of the things the Government has had to do was to enforce Conscription. In my opinion, Conscription was necessary in order to properly carry on the war. Ι would say that every man should do his part. Mr. Mowat continues:

One thing after another, which would almost strain to breaking point the ordinary man, these men in the Government benches, heedless of party politics, caring not whether their actions might incur the disapproval of their supporters or constituencies, or what effect those actions might have in the event of an election, have day in and day out framed policies and passed measures-Orders in Council, if you will-that were bound to be

unpopular, but which were in their belief for the ultimate good of the country. The only thing that saved Canada during the war was the fact that there was a Government that was not afraid to do things that would be unpopular. That is very gratifying when one considers the source from which it comes.

I do not want to detain the House too long, but I would like to read a short item from the Toronto Star, which I always understood to be a strong Liberal paper. This is what it says about the Union Government:

"The Union Government is in an extraordinary position," says the Toronto Star in reviewing the session of Parliament just closed. It says: "It has given the country more legislation of first-rate importance than any previous government ever did in the same length of time. It has shown more courage in handling big and difficult questions than any previous government. Yet it is conceded on all sides that the Union Government stands no chance of being upheld by the country, and apparently nobody, even at Ottawa, expects anything else than that the Government will be wiped out when the next elections take place, be it soon or late."

"The work that stands to the credit of the Union Government since the election of 1917 is considerable. but that which has been done in the brief session now closing would in itself be enough ordinarily to make the reputation of an administration. The Grand Trunk has been nationalized in the face of all the influence that the C.P.R. and the big financial and other corporations, mostly with headquarters in Montreal, could exert."

"The Union Government has pushed through legislation enabling Ontario or any other province, to make prohibition bone-dry within its boundaries by taking certain steps which will ensure federal aid in the doing of it."

There may be some difference of opinion on that point.

The work of abolishing patronage and perfecting civil service reform, of having all purchasing done on a sound basis, has been pushed through. This is one of the biggest things in the way of cleaning up graft and waste ever done by any government in any country.

Another great thing has been done. It was during the present session that the Government explained the new status Canada has attained within the Empire a status which has been accorded international recognition. Canada is now declared to be one of a group of British nations, in full control of her own affairs.

Canada's new status is something which seems to be causing our friends on the other side of the House a great deal of uneasiness. The honourable gentleman from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Roche) was at great pains to show that Canada had not attained a new status.

As I have said, during the period of the war the Government has done much; and the same is true of the period of reconstruction. I do not know about military life

there are men here who do--but I believe I am not far wrong when I say that it is extremely difficult to re-establish men in civil life after they have spent some time in the army. I can only refer to what has been done in this respect in Manitoba. The remarks which I am about to read were made by the member for Lakeside in the Manitoba House. The following are statistics on soldier unemployment in Manitoba as of February 7:

Number of soldiers not working, 1,481; number who have not applied for work, who were living without assistance of any kind 600; number to which A class certificates had been issued, or those who had no employment and were seeking work, 165; number to which B class certificates had been issued or those in employment whose wages were not sufficient, 148. Those who had been receiving assistance right along numbered 591. When it was considered that 30,000 soldiers had been demobilized in Manitoba, said he, those figures were very reassuring.

Judging from that statement the Government has been very successful in the reestablishing of the soldiers.

During the last year or two we have heard a great deal about the agrarian movement, the farmers' movement. I do not know of any reason why a farmer should not move if he wants to and has the ability to do so. The sympathy of the House may not be with me in what I am about to say, but I ask honourable members of this Chamber to accept what I say as a sincere expression of my views. I believe that Canada, because of its diversified interests, is one of the most difficult countries in the world to govern. It is easy to govern a municipality because the interests of the people are not so varied; it is comparatively easy to carry on a local government, because the interests of the people are similar; but when it comes to governing Canada, owing to the diversified interests and extent of the country, government is a very difficult problem.

For forty years I have lived in the West, and what I am about to say will apply principally to the three Prairie Provinces. The three Prairie Provinces have not very much on which to depend. It is estimated that the population of those provinces is to-day very nearly 2,000,000 people-1,960,000, I think. Including British Columbia, the population of Western Canada is about two and a half millions of people. The people of the three Prairie Provinces have a great deal with which to contend. Some of you know it and some of you do not. I was astounded to read in the press the other day a statement to the effect that