Scott W. See. The History of Canada. Second Edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

An Argument Against

Conscription

A diverse number of Canadians disagreed with Borden’s government

on a host of issues having to do with the war effort. Sparking some of

the most contentious debates were the questions of loyalty and the

need for conscription. Henri Bourassa, the politician and journalist

who was considered by many contemporaries to be one the most

indefatigable defenders of francophone interests, spoke and wrote

extensively about those questions. The following piece, which was

originally published in Le Devoir on 12 July 1917, provides a fine

illustration of a francophone interpretation of national identity and

Canada’s role in the Great War.

We are opposed to further enlistments for the war in Europe, whether

by conscription or otherwise, for the following reason: (1) Canada

has already made a military display, in men and money, proportio-

nately superior to that of any nation engaged in the war; (2) any

further weakening of the man-power of the country would seriously

handicap agricultural production and the other essential industries;

(3) an increase in the war budget of Canada spells national

bankruptcy; (4) it threatens the economic life of the nation and,

eventually, its political independence; (5) conscription means national

disunion and strife, and would thereby hurt the cause of the Allies to a

much greater extent than the addition of a few thousand soldiers to

their fighting forces could bring them help and comfort. . . .

Henri Bourassa, Win the War and Lose Canada (Montreal: s.n., 1917) [CIHM

microfiche series; #71868].

An Argument Against Conscription 337

If Canada persists in her run towards extreme militarism, in order

to supply the armies of Europe with a number of men wholly

insufficient to influence the fate of arms, she will soon find herself

utterly unable to give to the Allied nations the real help which ought

to be, and could be, her most valuable contribution to the common

cause: nourishment. . . .

We, Canadian Nationalists, hold that Canada has not the right to

commit suicide for the sake of any European or humanitarian cause,

excellent as it may be. It must live and do honour to its own

obligations. It must also keep the pax Americana, and not sow the

seeds of future strifes with its only neighbor. British politics brought it

twice to war with the United States, in 1774 and 1812, and twice at

least on the verge of conflict, during the Secession war and the

Venezuela embroilment. We do not want Canada to raise a quarrel of

its own; we do not want to see it reduced to such as state of financial

despondency that the money lenders in the United States will have to

recoup themselves at the expense of our national independence. A

free Canada—free politically, free economically—and a peaceful

America are more important to us than the establishment of

democratic governments in Europe, or the settlement of the Balkan

problem. . . ..

Conscription is sure to bring serious troubles in the labour circles.

Indiscriminate enlistment has already disorganized labour conditions.

Rightly or wrongly, labour leaders apprehend that conscription is

sought for not so much for military purposes as with the object of

controlling wages and work. The enforcement of conscription will

certainly be resisted by the organized labour of Canada. . . .

Much has been said about the small number of French-Canadians

who have enlisted for the war; but very little about the large numbers

of European-born volunteers in the so-called “Canadian” force. The

truth is, that the over proportion of British-born volunteers, as

compared with the Canadian-born volunteers of English or Scottish

extraction, is as great as between English-speaking and French-

speaking Canadians. The fact is that the proportion of enlistments,

among Canadians of various extractions, has been in inverse ratio to

their enrootment in the soil.

The only trouble with the French Canadians is that they remain the

only true “unhyphenated” Canadians. Under the sway of British

imperialism, Canadians of British origin have become quite unsettled

338 An Argument Against Conscription

as to their allegiance: they have not yet made up their mind whether

they are more British than Canadian, or more Canadian than British;

whether they are the citizens of a world-scattered empire, of members

of an American community. The French-Canadians have remained,

and want to remain, exclusively Canadian and American. . . .

Opposition to conscription and war-madness in Canada is not anti-

patriotic: it is essentially patriotic and clear-sighted.

An Argument Against Conscription 339

A Case for Women’s Suffrage

The movement for opening the franchise to women unfolded in the

nineteenth century and gathered pace in the first two decades of the

twentieth century. Proponents of women’s suffrage presented a

number of reasons to support their case. Strikingly, some of the most

dedicated advocates of suffrage were quite moderate in their

predictions of the impact that the female vote would have on politics.

Two very different positions on the rationale for and potential

benefits of women’s suffrage are presented below. The first is a piece

from Olivar Asselin in Montreal’s Daily Herald of 26 November

1913; the second is from Nellie McClung, one of Canada’s leading

suffragettes, in an article published in Maclean’s Magazine in July

1916 and entitled “What Will They Do With It?”

Olivar Asselin:

[I]f the family be looked upon as the basic unit of the state, the head

of the family, man, is the natural spokesman of the family in the public

councils. For myself, I am inclined to think that conception the wiser in

principle. But then, the logical consequences would be the barring of

unmarried men from suffrage. Since the family unit has, the world

over, been given up for the man unit, and since woman has a far greater

interest in government than unmarried men, there is no reason why

women should not be allowed to share the right of government. . . .

In modern communities, woman, through the press, has just as

effective a means of apprising herself of the needs of the

Ramsay Cook and Wendy Mitchinson, eds., The Proper Sphere: Women’s Place in

319–324. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

A Case for Women’s Suffrage 341

commonwealth without injuring the home, as man without injuring

his private business. So much for the practicality of woman

suffrage. . . .

Education, liquor selling, city and town planning, public health and

police, child labor, public charities, and dozens of other pithy

questions would be nearer a proper solution if women had the

vote. . . .

The fear has been expressed that the atmosphere of the polling

booth might deny the character of our women. I would rather expect

woman’s presence to purify the atmosphere of the polling booth.

There are of course bad women, and plenty of them, but woman has a

native moral cleanliness which men lack, and the chances are that her

entrance into the political field would be something like her sudden

advent into a circle of “gentlemen” while the latter are engaged in

telling nasty stories. . . .

I favor woman suffrage not so much out of a belief in equal rights

as because I am convinced that woman suffrage would help to lift

politics out of the slush into which personal appetites and capital’s

corporate greed have caused them to sink.

Nellie L. McClung:

And now the question naturally arises, “What will they do with it?”

There are still some who fear that the franchise, for all its innocent

looks, is an insidious evil, which will undermine and warp a woman’s

nature, and cause her to lose all interest in husband, home and

children. There are some who say it will make no difference. There

are others who look now for the beginning of better things. Every one

is more or less interested; some are a bit frightened. . . .

Women have not tried to get into Parliament in the countries where

they have the franchise and I venture the prediction that it will be

many years before there are women legislators in Canada. And when

they are elected it will be by sheer force of merit; for there will be a

heavy weight of prejudice against women which only patient years

can dispel!

342 A Case for Women’s Suffrage

The first work undertaken by women will be to give help to other

women, particularly mothers of families. . . .It seems a fitting thing

that women should use their new political power to make

motherhood easier, to rob colonization of its fears and dangers, to

give the lonely woman on the outposts of civilization the assurance

that she is part of a great sisterhood and is not left alone to struggle

with conditions which may prove too hard for her!

More and more the idea is growing upon us that certain services are

best rendered by the state, and not left to depend on the caprice,

inclination, or inability of the individual. . . .As it is now many a man,

woman, and child, suffers agony, or perhaps becomes a menace to

their family, because medical aid cannot be afforded. Why should a

child suffer from adenoids, which makes him stupid and dull in

school, and give him a tendency to tubercular trouble, just because his

father cannot afford to pay the doctor’s fee, or maybe does not know

the danger?

One of the most hopeful signs of the advent of the woman voter is

the quiet determination to stay out of party politics. Party lines are

not so tightly drawn in the West. Great issues have been decided by

people outside of politics. The temperance fight in Alberta and

Manitoba obliterated the lines of party, and when that once happens

they can never be quite so strong again. It is no uncommon thing to

hear public men say: “I have voted both ways, and will change my

politics any time I want to.” The women have no intention of forming

a woman’s party. They see no future for such a movement. But they

do see that a great body of intelligent women, who study public

questions, fairly and honestly, uncontaminated by party hypothesis,

not trying to fit their opinion to the platform of any political leader,

may become a powerful influence in forming the party of a

Government, or perhaps in making the platform of an opposition.

A Case for Women’s Suffrage 343

Letters from the Heartland

An extraordinarily large number of Canadians suffered hardship

during the Depression. As the provincial relief programs rapidly

became exhausted and the ranks of the unemployed grew, many

citizens looked to support from the federal government. Prime

Minister Bennett received an extraordinary number of letters from

struggling Canadians during his term in office. Many made appeals

for government action to get people back to work; others sought

immediate financial assistance. The two selections below come from a

remarkable edited collection of these letters to Bennett. They give us

an insight to a difficult time from two regions of the country, as well

as an illustration of gender differences in assessing the impact of the

economic crisis. The first is from R.D. in Ottawa, and the second is

from Mrs. R. Paddy from Burton, Alberta.

Ottawa, 4 March 1932

Dear Sir,

I am just writing a few lines to you to see what can be done for us

young men of Canada. We are the growing generation of Canada, but

with no hopes of a future. Please tell me why is it a single man always

gets a refusal when he looks for a job. A married man gets work, & if

he does not get work, he gets relief. Yesterday I got a glimpse of a lot

of the unemployed. It just made me feel downhearted. To think there

is no work for them, or in the future, & also no work for myself. Last

year I was out of work for three months. I received work with a local

L.M. Grayson and Michael Bliss, eds., The Wretched of Canada (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 1971), 20–21, 117–118. Reprinted with permission

of the publisher.

Letters from the Heartland 345

farm. I was told in the fall I could have a job for the winter; I was then

a stable man. Now I am slacked off on account of no snow this

winter. Now I am wandering the streets like a beggar, with no future

ahead. There are lots of single men in Ottawa, who would rather

walk the streets, & starve, than work on a farm. That is a true

statement. Myself I work wherever I can get work, & get a good name

wherever I go. There are plenty of young men like myself, who are in

the same plight. I say again whats to be done for us single men? do we

have to starve? or do we have to go round with our faces full of

shame, to beg at the doors of the well to do citizen. I suppose you will

say the married men must come first; I certainly agree with you there.

Buthaveyouawordortwotocheerussinglemenupabit?The

married man got word he was going to get relief. That took the weight

of worry off his mind quite a bit. Did the single man here [sic]anything,

how he was going to pull through? Did you ever feel the pangs of

hunger? My Idea is we shall all starve. I suppose you will say I cant help

it, or I cant make things better. You have the power to make things

better or worse. When you entered as Premier you promised a lot of

things, you was going to do for the country. I am waiting patiently to

see the results. Will look for my answer in the paper.

Yours Truly,

R.D., Ottawa

Dear Mr. Bennett:

I suppose I am silly to write this letter but I haven’t any one else to

write to so am going to hope and pray that you will read this yourself

and help me or us, rather.

We are just one of the many on relief and trying to keep our place

without being starved out. Have a good ½ section not bad buildings

and trying to get a start without any money and 5 children all

small. . . .Am so worried on account of the children as we never have

any vegetables except potatoes and almost no fruit and baby hasn’t

any shoes have kept him in old socks instead. . . .Just had 70 acres in

last year and the dry spell just caught it right along with the

346 Letters from the Heartland