Arthur Meighen on military conscription, 1917

MP Arthur Meighen piloted conscription legislation through parliament in 1917

In 1917, there was a divisive debate in Canada over military compulsory conscription. It was led by Conservative cabinet minister Arthur Meighen, who had drafted the legislation. That bill became the centrepiece of  the bitterly contested “khaki election” which occurred in December 1917. The Conservatives won the election but divided the  country. Brilliant, opinionated, and incisive, Meighen was one of Canada’s great parliamentary orators. He entered the conscription debate on June 17, and attacked the aging Liberal leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier who wanted the legislation be deferred and put to a national referendum. Here is Meighen’s speech:

“A choice between fidelity and desertion”

I regard the forwarding of troops to the front as a necessity, as an all-out essential, as something we cannot shirk. Does anybody dispute that? Whatever means are necessary to procure these men, they must be sent, and whatever action is necessary on our part to support our army at present in France, we must adopt. No one has seriously argued in this House—and I give every hon. Gentleman the credit of saying no one seriously believes—that we can dispatch 350,000 men overseas, commissioned by us to stand between our country and destruction, and leave them to be decimated and destroyed. The obligation of honour is upon us, it is the plainest obligation that was ever placed on a nation. The obligation of honour is fortified by the primary obligation of all people to protect the security of the state. There is no other way in which the honour or the security of the state can be preserved …

Not enough volunteers

Who can contend, with justification, that the voluntary system has not been adequately tried in Canada, both as to vigour of effort and as to length of time? The member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), if I understood correctly an interruption that he made yesterday, feels that the voluntary system is now doing enough. Well, for twelve months it has produced an average of 6,000 to 7,000 men a month, while the wastage in Canada and in England amounts to a very substantial portion of that figure. In the two months through which we have just passed, the voluntary system yielded us not one man for four of those who were casualties among our armies in France. Add casualties in France and wastage in England to wastage in Canada, and it is as plain as any rule of arithmetic that further reliance on the voluntary system will in time—perhaps in a very short time—so reduce our forces that we shall have no substantial representation in the war …

No to referendum 

I pass on from that and proceed to take up certain of the contentions that have been advanced in support of the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. It had been a matter of great interest, and indeed of curiosity, to observe the wonderful collection of opinions that are massed behind this referendum amendment. The referendum amendment is really not an amendment at all. At all events it is not a policy: it is the negation of policy. Why is it adopted? Merely as an expedient to avoid facing the issue, and to collect behind the Opposition leader all support he can get. What are the opinions behind the amendment? It is seconded by the honourable member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who complains that we have already waited too long on this matter: that we should have taken this course and had a referendum started a year ago. It is moved by the leader of the Opposition, who complains that we have dashed this Bill upon them too suddenly and too soon. What is the ground of the leader of the Opposition? He argues that the Bill is going to bring about disunion in this country, and will be met with opposition, if not with resistance on the part of French Canada. His amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton who wants a bill that will take all of these 100,000 men out of French Canada alone …

“Poolroom loafers”

Do hon. gentlemen realize that the passing of this amendment will bring joy to friends of Germany in every part of the world? It will be welcomed at Potsdam. It would be supported, were he here, by the head of the German nation itself. It will be welcomed by every German newspaper on this and every other continent. It will be welcomed by every slacker all over Canada. That is the company the hon. gentlemen are in who support this referendum. The passing of this amendment would be a subject of rejoicing to every poolroom loafer, to every movie veteran, to every sporting fan, to all who have shrunk from duty. But it would be a subject of resentment, regret, and pain to the men who have nobly done their part to preserve the liberty, and uphold the honour, of Canada …

“Lead us”

Let us rise to the level of our duty, let us not be afraid to lead. We have been execrated from end to end of Canada for failure of leadership and all the rest. Many of those men who have lagged behind but who ought to have gone to the front have lampooned the leader of this Government because of alleged failure of leadership. Newspaper after newspaper has thundered that out. Well, here is some leadership. Here and now is a chance to follow. Let us as a Parliament get in front; let those who lagged behind and cried for leadership walk up now, close the gap, and stand beside the Prime Minister. The people of Canada, we have oft been told, call out to the Parliament of Canada for strong and fearless leadership. Are we going to answer that call with our hands up in the air and cry out to the people: “For heaven’s sake, lead us.” Such is the amendment of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It is all very well to deliberate upon something that is left for us to decide, but we have already decided on the carrying on of this war, and of carrying it on with all our might. If there ever was a time for a referendum—which I deny—it was in August 1914; it is not now. We have committed ourselves as a nation, we have signed the bond, it is for us now to discharge the obligation …

Bill is not anti-Quebec

I want to say something else, and I do so with special earnestness. It may be that in the heat of discussion I do not avoid animosities perhaps as carefully as I should; but I say this to those hon. Gentlemen opposite whose position with regard to this bill is surrounded by embarrassments much heavier than those that surround us, I say to them that this Bill is not designed and it is not framed to be unjust to the province of Quebec or to any other section of this country … We of English-speaking Canada have the kindest feelings towards our French Canadian compatriots. We realize that there are certain considerations having to do with this subject of recruiting that apply to them that do not apply with the same force to us. I want to say to the members from Quebec that this Bill as drafted is not intended to, and will not, if I understand the Bill, work unfairly to that province …

Honour or shame

Surely the prosecution of this war with the whole might of Canada is not a subject which is now left to us to decide. That question has been passed upon. Its prosecution is now a matter only of good faith: 300,000 living men and 20,000 dead are over there, the hostages of our good faith. All that is left to us now is a choice between fidelity and desertion, between courage and poltroonery, between honour and everlasting shame …

We are told this action will result in disunion. I see no reason why it should produce disunion. It is framed to avoid disunion. But let no man deceive himself. We do not avoid disunion by dropping back to where we were, any more than we avoid disunion by going ahead with this measure. I see no more peril in the one course than in the other … While we would do almost anything to avoid disunion, we cannot purchase union at the cost of national disgrace …

I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to hon. gentlemen around me, for party divisions as we once had them are not just the same today, I appeal to all hon. Members to take the course which, in my belief, alone can command the respect of this House, of Canada, and of the world.


Prime Minister Borden dissolved Parliament in October 1917 and announced a union government committed to conscription. Quebec was adamantly opposed and the country was divided in ways that have never entirely healed. Laurier refused Borden’s offer to participate in the government, although some of his Liberal members from English Canada did so. Meighen succeeded Borden in 1920 and on two occasions he served briefly as prime minister. He was later appointed to the Senate.

Source: House of Commons. Debates, 12th Parliament, 7th Session: Vol. 6.  June 21, 1917, pp: 2529-2538.
See page links 393-402.

Note:  This speech by Meighen is treated in depth in my new book Speeches That Changed Canada.

Photo credit
: Library and Archives Canada

2 thoughts on “Arthur Meighen on military conscription, 1917

Add yours

  1. Meighen may have been an orator, but with the wisdom of hindsight (and perhaps some of this was already quite apparent even then to those whose vision was not clouded by notions of colonial “honour”), his reasoning is faulty. One of the arguments he uses depends on the logic of “sunk costs”: a classic fallacy. Because we have already invested X lives, X dollars, X effort, we must now invest these further lives, dollars, or effort. What has been invested is never a justification for further investment. With every new or further investment, the question must always be “Is this further investment now justified? Is it in accord with our values, will it serve our interests/needs, is it moral, is it legal, is it fair to those who will actually incur the costs?”

    On those bases, fighting a virtually meaningless imperial war at great cost to the young men and women, their families, and their communities was not a wise choice.

    I wish our leaders could have the wisdom in making similar decisions today to avoid the fallacy of sunk costs, to measure more wisely the comparative value of false “honour” (being in reality a kind of servile loyalty to imperial interests) versus the lives and health of the real people being sent to slaughter.


    1. Thanks Ed for your comment. As Margaret MacMillan and others have shown, this was not a war fought for democracy or freedom from tyranny. It was, rather, an imperial war whose perpetrators were for the most part royalty who were actually related through marriage and alliance. The social setting was such that young men were under intense pressure to volunteer. One slogan (in Canada) was “knit or fight.” You will find another pejorative reference in Meighen’s sneering reference to “poolroom loafers.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: