1909-03-29

DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Mr. LEWIS.: With the permission of the House and the consent of the government I move that Bill (No. 108) of the Public Bills and Orders be now called.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LEWIS moved the second reading of Bill (No. 108) respecting the Saving of Daylight.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LEWIS moved that Bill (No. 108) be referred to a select committee of three members to consider and report upon the same, the said committee to consist of Mr. McLean (Sunbury and Queens), Mr. Monk (Jacques Cartier), and Mr. McLean (South Huron), with power to send for persons, papers and records, and report from time to time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am happy to agree with the motion, but I would amend it by adding the names of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Talbot to the committee.
Motion as amended agreed to.



ELECTION ACT AMENDMENT-RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

Mr.   J.@: CONMEE (Thunder Bay) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 112) to amend the Election Act. He said: I may say in respect to this Bill that it is not my intention to press it with a view of its becoming law during the present session. The object of the Bill is to afford an opportunity to a class of citizens to exercise their franchise who could not otherwise exercise it because of the nature of their employment; I refer to railway employees. I am told that there are about 15,000 disfranchised because the duties of their service require them to be absent from the riding in which they reside, and in which they are on the list and entitled to vote;

the object of the Bill is to provide machinery by which this class of men can poll their votes. I am aware that it may be said this opens a wide door, that if this privilege be extended to this particular class of citizens it should be extended to others. I do not hold that view; I do not know of any other class of citizens in a similar position, at least if there are any their number is very small. These gentlemen are fulfilling what is really a public service. The mails must be carried, passenger traffic must be conducted, the train service on the great railways must go on, notwithstanding that it is election day, and these gentlemen are called upon m the performance of their duties to be absent from the riding in which they are entitled to vote, and in which they are on the list. The object of the Bill therefore is to provide machinery to give them the right to vote wherever they may be on election day. These gentlemen are entitled to vote, they have all the qualifications of voters, they are residents of the country, they have homes and interests in this country as well as any other class of citizens, and I think that parliament should provide the machinery by which they may cast their vote, notwithstanding that their calling requires them to be absent from the riding in which they could cast their votes under the Election Act as it stands.
The Bill provides that, at the request of any candidate, elector or electors, the returning officer shall provide such number of polls as are necessary to poll the vote of that class of electors in any riding in which they may be during election day, either in the province in which they are resident or in an adjoining province. It provides that such deputy returning officers shall be appointed by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, as may be necessary, and as polls will be held throughout the country on that day. There will be in the majority of cases polls held in sufficient proximity to railway points to enable the train service men to cast their vote in the ordinary polling booths which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery may select for that particular day, but the deputy returning officer would require additional authority to that which he now possesses, namely, the authority to receive the votes of this class of electors and deposit them in a separate ballot box. It will be an easy matter for the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to keep in touch with the election in such a way as to be able to nominate a very large number of deputy returning officers without incurring any additional cost, or at all events, very trifling additional cost. It may be that at some divisional points in some of the ridings a special officer would have to be appointed, but even so, the expense would not be very great.
The Bill provides that the Governor in Council shall fix the polling places at divisional or other suitable points along the line of any railway; it provides that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall instruct the returning officer for the particular riding in respect of which a request is made for the holding of such poll, to forward to the deputy returning officers appointed for the purpose, all the necessary ballots, papers, stamps and forms to enable him to hold the poll, and to forward to him a ballot box which shall be labelled in these words: 'Ballot box in which the ballots of voters being railway employees for the riding of	shall be deposited.'
Provision is also made as to the procedure under which the elector is to be entitled to vote. He may obtain a certificate from the returning officer which will entitle him to vote at the polling booth named in the certificate. Upon presenting that certificate he may be required by the deputy returning officer holding the poll to sign a declaration to the effect that he is the person named in the certificate. The object of these provisions is to prevent manipulation and fraud at elections. The Act provides for the counting of the votes by the deputy returning officer, and the sending of the ballot box, locked and sealed, the same as in all other cases>
to the'returning officer of the riding affected, who is, under the machinery of this Bill, required to include the votes cast in the respective polling divisions in which the electors are resident and entitled to vote. The effect of this would be that the vote would be counted just in the same manner as if the elector were able to cast his vote in his own riding upon the day of the election. I noticed that when I mentioned that some of the provisions of this Bill were intended to prevent fraud at elections it caused a smile to appear upon the countenances of some of my hon. friends opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. CONMEE.: I am rather inclined to think that, notwithstanding that, they do understand' what the word means. There is, I believe, in every election, and hon. gentlemen, I am quite sure, are aware of it, a considerable amount of manipulation. You can call it intimidation, you can call it fraud, or you can call it what you please, it is manipulation by which the voter is either compelled to lose his franchise or to vote perhaps in a different manner from that in which he would desire to vote. It is within the power of a railway company. I do not wish to convey the idea that any railway company in this country would so manipulate those in its service as to deprive them of their franchise, but I do wish to say that officials and subordinates of

these companies do act in that manner, and that men are sent out who, they know, will vote for a certain candidate or a certain party purposely to deprive them of the opportunity, while others are brought to the polling booth where it is possible for them to vote simply because there is a knowledge of their political leanings or of the candidate for which they may vote. This, I think, will do away with that class of manipulation. I do not believe there will be very much room for that if this Bill is worked out properly. I do not say it is a perfect measure. It is a tentative measure, and I propose to ask the House to refer it to the privileges and elections committee. I do not think that committee is very much overworked. I think it might very well take up this subject and that after the Bill has been dealt with a certain number of copies of it might be printed and distributed so that at the next session of parliament we would have a better idea than we have now as to the wisdom of passing such a law. They have adopted a similar law in some other countries. In western Australia they have a law which goes a little farther than this one. It gives to all absentee voters the right to vote by mail. The machinery provides for the voter obtaining a certificate, according to the form laid down in the Elections Act, and presenting that to an officer or magistrate during the seven days preceding the day of polling. He is allowed to vote according to the regulations laid down in the Act, have his vote mailed to the returning officer of the riding to which he belongs and have it counted in the same manner as other votes. The returning officer, under a clause of the law, opens these envelopes and counts the votes in the same manner as the ordinary votes placed in the ballot boxes are counted. I am not able to speak with any degree of knowledge or from experience as to the working of the law but it seems to me that it opens a very wide door for manipulation. It- seems to me that the plan proposed by the Bill which I have introduced would be a safer measure and would leave less room for manipulation in the casting of the vote. Then, as to extending the vote to other classes of absentee voters; I know of no other class in the same position unless it be the mail clerks. There is quite a number of them. Their duties and service require them, in many instances, to be absent from the polling booth at which they are entitled to vote. If it is thought well to include that class of voters I see no objection. So far I have confined the Bill merely to railway employees. The absentee voter, if the measure were wider, would have less incentive to exercise his franchise in accordance with the interest of the country, or in accordance with the interest of the riding in which he might cast that vote. In this case the voter is a resident of the riding to which his vote is to apply, his Mr. CONMEE.
family lives there, he has all the interest that any other voter would have in the election, and it seems to me that under these circumstances there is not much room for doubt that this class of voters, who are a very intelligent class of our citizens, would cast their votes with due regard to the best interests of the country. I would ask that the Bill be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. STAPLES.: I followed the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) very closely all through his remarks. He covered all the ground as far as I can see with the exception of one point and that is that I do not think he made any provision for special trains.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 94) respecting the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Boyer.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: When this Bill was last before the committee I suggested that the extension of time should be reduced from 1914 to 1912. That seemed to meet the views of the committee. A short time ago, however, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries spoke to me, and he would like the Bill to stand over for a short time, if the promoter of it is willing, as he wishes to make some inquiry with regard to it.


Mr. PERLEY.: I wish to call the minister's attention to the fact that on Friday evening it was suggested that the date be changed from 1914 to 1911, and thereupon the minister gave notice that he would move that amendment to-day.
Progress reported.



KOOTENAY AND ARROWHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 80), respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Geo. Taylor (Leeds).
Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to say something in reference to this Bill, but as the promoter is absent, I move that we report progress on the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported. QUESTIONS.

Mr. SAM. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Have the following persons had contracts for supplies, Ac., with the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date

of Hon. Judge Cassels' report, viz.: James Murphy, W. It. Blakiston, James Holliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Jos. Samson, Ter-reau & Racine, Jean Drolet, E. Amyot, Charles A. Parent, A. N. Melvin, Howell & Co.?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister Marine and Fisheries):: No contracts have been entered into with the following persons by the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date of Hon. Judge Cassels' report: James Murphy, W. R. Blackiston, James Holliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Jean Drolet, Elie Amyot, A. N. Melvin, Howell and Company, Jos. Samson.
Orders have been given to the following persons by the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date of Hon. Judge Cassels' report:
Terreau and Racine, $164.04. This purchase consisted of grate bars, patterns for which are the property of the above-mentioned firm.


Chas.   A.@: Parent, $22.00.



BROCKVILLE, WESTPORT AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR-by Mr. Blain- asked:
1.	Who are the present stockholders of the Brockville, Westport and Northwestern Railway, and what are their post office addresses?
2.	What are the present ordinary passenger rates to intermediate stations between Brockville and Westport?
3.	What are the present freight rates per cwt. in small lots to intermediate stations between Brockville and Westport?
4.	What are the present freight rates per cwt. on carloads to different intermediate stations between Lyn Junction and Westport, and to Westport?
5.	What are the rates during the season of navigation in competition with the Rideau canal to the various stations west of Delta?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The department has no information as to stockholders; but the following is a list of directors:
Name of Director and Post Office Address. Edward R. Thomas, New York City.
John Gerkin	"


Orlando F.: Thomas	"
Carster Heilshorn	"
F. T. Lewis	"
W. S. Buell, Brockville, Ont.
W. G. Curie	"
Robert Bawk	"


Mr. GEORGE  H.@: Comstock "
Jas. Cumming, Lyn, Ont.
W. C. Fredenburg, Westport, Ont.
2.	The present ordinary passenger fares from Brockville to points on the Brockville, Westport and Northwestern Railway are as follows:
Lyn	$0	15Seeleys	
0	25Forthton	
0	40Elbe	
0	45Athens	
0	60Soperton	
0	80Lyndhurst	
0	85Delta	
0	90Elgin	
1	10Forfar	
1	15Crosby	
1	20Newboro'	
1	35Westport	
1	50
3. The present freight rates are covered by the company's standard mileage tariff, governed by Canadian classification, and are as follows:
FROM' BROCKVILLE. Classes in cents per 100 lbs..
To 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10Seeleys.. ..10	8	7	6	5	5	4	4	4	4Forthton &


Elbe .. ..: 12	11	9	8	6	6	5	5	5	4Athens.. ..14	12	11	9	7	6	6	6	6	4


Soperton ..: 16 Lyndhurst	14	12	10	8	7	6	7	7	5& Delta.. 18	16	14	11	9	8	7	8	7	6Elgin and


Forfar ..: 20	18	15	13	10	8	7	8	8	6
Crosby and									
Newboro .22	19	17	14	11	10	8	9	8	7


Westport ..: 24	21	18	15	12	lil	8	9	8	7
Less than carload shipments are covered by classes 1 to 4 inclusive, minimum charge for one consignment 35 cents.
The company have a special tariff on oil in barrels, L.C.L., as follows:
Brockville to Lyn	 5 cts. per 100 lbs.
Seeleys	 6	"
"	Forthton and
Elbe	
7	"Athens	
9	""	Lyndhurst &


Delta ....: 10	"
"	Elgin and
Forfar....	11	"
"	Crosby and


Nevvboro ..: 12	"
"	Westport.. ..13	"
4. Carload rates are generally covered by classes 5 to 10 inclusive, although 4th class applies on carloads of high grade goods. In addition to the class tariff, the company have filed special carload commodity tariffs as follows:
Coke and coal, minimum 30,000 lbs.-Brockville to Athens, Delta and Elgin, 80 cents per net ton; Brockville to Newboro and Westport, 85 cents per net ton.
Brick, minimum 40,000 lbs.-Brockville to Westport, 4 cents per 100 lbs.
Under freight classification above referred to, 10th class would apply on heavy commodities, such as lumber and forest products, sand, stone, lime, cement, &c.; 9th class rates apply on live stock; 8th class on grain and grain products; 7th class on pitch, grindstones, mica, and certain ores; 6th class on machinery, agricultural implements, cream separators, &c; 5th class on

sugars and heavy groceries, also the majority of manufactured goods; 4th class on cot-tcn goods, carpets, furniture, tea, spices, and other high class groceries.
5. During the season of navigation the following class rates governed by Canadian freight classification are in effect from Brockville to points west of Delta:
Classes To	1
Elgin and Forfar . .15 Crosby and Newboro.16 Westport .17
in cents per : 2	3	4	513	11	10	814	12	10	815	13	11	9
pounds.
6	7	8	9 107	6	5	.. 47	6	5	.. 48	7	5	.. 4



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-THE WALL-BERG CONTRACT.


Mr. PORTER asked:: How many railway mail clerks have been killed or injured while on duty in Canada during the past two years?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for Postmaster General).: One killed, and thirty-six injured.



PILOTAGE RATES.

Mr. BARNARD asked:: 1.	Has any new scale of charges for pilotage services levied against vessels entering the port of Victoria, British Columbia, been made since the 28tli February, 1908?
2.	If so, what is the new tariff and what was the tariff prior to 26th February, 1908?
Mr. CROCKET-by Mr. Daniel-asked:
1.	Has Mr. E. A. Wallberg completed his contract for the construction of the new Intercolonial Railway passenger car repair shop, passenger car paint shop, stores and-office building, freight car repair and machine shops, at Moncton, New Brunswick ?
2.	What was the contract price under each contract ?
3.	What has been the total cost under each contract ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes. The works in question are completed; but final payments have not been made.
2.	The passenger car repair and paint shops and the stores and office building was, lump sum, $146,445, with a schedule for additions or deductions. The freight car repair shop was, bulk sum, $56,630, with a similar schedule. Locomotive shops, bulk sum, was $430,000, with a similar schedule.
3.	The amount paid to date for passenger car and paint repair shop and stores and office buildings, was $147,736.08. Voucher has been prepared for final estimate; but not paid, amounting to $72,304.75. Freight car shop, amount paid final estimate, $75,213.32. Locomotive shops, amount paid to date, $403,171.29. Voucher has been prepared for final estimate, but not paid, amounting to $81,740.



RAILWAYS IN SASKATCHEWAN.

Mr. LAKE asked:: How many miles of railway were under operation in the territory now comprised within the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan on December 31, 1896, and December 31, 1908, respectively?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Number of miles of railway in territory now comprised within the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan on .Tune 30, 1896, 1,185-96; and on June 30. 1908, 2,081-30.


George Perry Graham: 


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The orders in council are published on page 557 of the 'Canada Gazette' of August 29, 1908. If the information contained therein is not sufficient for the hon. member's purpose, will he be good enough to move for a return, as the details of the pilotage rates in the district of Victoria and Esqui-malt are too lengthy to be satisfactorily given in a reply to a request in this form?



PROPRIETARY MEDICINES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SEGUIN-by Mr. Lavergne-asked:
1.	Has the government appointed officers or analysts to carry out the provisions of the law respecting proprietary or patent medicines, passed at the last session?
2.	If so, what are the names of the officers cr analysts appointed and the amount of their remuneration ?
3.	If not yet appointed is it the intention of the government to make these appointments soon ?
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	No appointments have been made.
2.	No appointments have been made.
3.	It is not the intention to make any appointments for the purpose mentioned.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ST.


Mr. C. ROY asked :: 1.	Were some works done at the St. Ignace station, on the Intercolonial Railway during the autum of 1908? If so, by whom were they ordered, and on whose recommendation?
2.	If the said works were done, was it not at tile request of other persons than those interested, the inhabitants of tlie said parish of St. Ignace, who requested the construction of a new station, or the enlargement of the present one for the convenience of the public?
3.	If the said works are done, what kind are they, and what was the cost?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes. On the authority of the Department.
2.	See number one.
3.	For the erection and completion of an addition to the old station at Cap St. Ignace, for which tenders were invited by poster advertisement, and the tender of Messrs. Cloutier & Gaudreau, for $750, being the only one, was accepted, by order in council, and a contract awarded them at their tender price. The work has been satisfactorily completed, and the amount of their contract, viz., $750, paid them.



' EAST HURON PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron) asked:: How much public money has the Dominion government expended on the construction of public works in the constituency of East Huron during the last 20 years?


William Pugsley: 



ANNUITIES ACT.

Mr. J. HAGGART asked:: 1.	What is the number and amount of life and yearly annuities respectively applied and paid for up to March 1, 1909?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The number and amount of life or yearly annuities applied and paid for (or which have been applied for and are being
paid for on various plans, immediate last survivor; immediate, single; immediate, guaranteed for a number of years certain; deferred, single payment; deferred, lump sum and annual payments; deferred, by periodical payments), and the amount of purchase money received up to and inclusive of the 28th February, 1909, are and is as follow :
Number	Amount	of	Amount	ofof	annuities	purchase	moneyAnnuitants.	applied for.	received.42	
$7,047 78	$35,859 56Since that date up to	and includingMarch 27, 1909, the additional figures are as follows:	-Number	Amount	of	Amount	ofof	annuities	purchase	moneyAnnuitants.	applied for.	received.39	
$6,109 54	$14,503 10
Making a total of:
Number	Amount	of	Amount	ofof	annuities	purchase	moneyAnnuitants.	applied for.	received.81	$13,157 32	$50,362 66



FENIAN RAID VETERANS.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked:: Does the government intend during the present session to introduce any legislation granting any bounty or assistance to the veterans of 1866 and 1867? If not, why not?


Mr. GEORGE  H.@: It is not the intention to introduce this session such legislation for the reason that after consideration it is not found advisable to disturb the decision arrived at many years ago.



SHERBROOKE DRILL HALL.

Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	When and to whom was the contract given for the Sherbrooke drill hall?
2.	From whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of each?
3.	What part of the work was covered by the original contract?
4.	Has any of the work been let without tender ? If so, what, to whom and the amount in each case?
5.	What is the total estimated cost of the said drill hail complete and ready for use?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) Date of contract, November 7, 1907. (b) Simoneau & Dion.
2.
Simoneau & Dion, Sherbrooke.. **$ 82,000 Paquet & Godbout, St. Hyacinthe. 86,000 A. Joncas, Sherbrooke	117,000
3.	Excavation, mason work, brickwork and tiling, carpenter work, plastering, iron and steel, felt and gravel roofing, sheet metal work, plumbing, painting and glazing.

4.
Subsequent tender asked for name stone in French from Simoneau
& Dion	$	98 50
Subsequent tender for heating from
Simoneau & Dion	
3,550	00Boilers, Star Iron Co	
617	24Printing, advertising and translating	
640	72Travelling expenses	
44	15Supervising architect, J. W. Gregoire	
931	40Professional services, E. B. Worthington	
43	95Survey, J. Tremblay	
70	00Survey, J. Migneault	
150	00
Work on grounds, test pits, &c.
(pay-list)	
195	05Lumber, Fortier	
5	21Hardware, Bourque	
25	41
5. $107,000, exclusive of site.



FISH HATCHERIES.

Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	How many fish hatcheries are there in Canada ?
2.	Where are those in Ontario situated, what was the cost of constructing and maintaining each last year, respectively, including salaries?
3.	How many applications for fry were received at the Ontario hatcheries last year, and how many were granted?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Thirty-five.
2.	Sandwich, Newcastle, Ottawa, Wiar-ton and Sarnia. Sandwich, $14,354.55 maintenance; Newcastle, $3,934.30 maintenance; Ottawa, $2,825.59 maintenance; Wiarton, construction, $4,660; maintenance, $5,031.63; Sarnia, construction, $4,136.
3.	Seventy-seven received; sixty-four granted.



CAMPBELLTON AND BRIGHTON MAIL

Mr. OWEN asked:: 1.	When was the contract for carrying the mails between Campbellford and Brighton re-let for the year 1909, to whom was it given, and at what amount for the year ?
2.	What was tho contract price last year?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Lowest tender that of E. R. Cryderman at $600 per annum accepted on the 17th March, 1909.
2.	$365.



BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.

Mr. ROCHE asked:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government, in view of the conference held with the provincial ministers of Manitoba, to introduce a Bill at this session of parliament to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 2.	If not, what is the intention of the government in reference to this question?


Mr. GEORGE  H.@: I have to remind my hon. friend that by a resolution adopted last session, this House authorized the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, out of the Northwest Territories, to an extent therein specified.
Until the legislature of Manitoba has signified its acceptance of these boundaries, and until the Dominion government and the provincial government have come to an understanding as to the financial conditions consequent thereon, the government has no authority to introduce any legislation on this matter.



RURAL MAIL EAST NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. OWEN asked:: To what extent has a rural mail delivery been established in the county of East Northumberland ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: _
A contract has been awarded providing for rural mail delivery between Brighton and Campbellford.
An application is now in the hands of the post office inspector for a rural mail delivery service on the route between Brighton and Lovett.



MAIL AT ST. JUSTINE STATION.

Mr. BOYER asked:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department already received complaints about the postal delivery service at the St. Justine station by the Grand Trunk Company?
2.	On wliat dates and by whom were these
complaints brought to the knowledge of the department?	'	.	.
3.	Has the department made an inquiry into these complaints and adopted any preventive measures?
4.	Has the government been informed by another person than the member asking this question that another accident of the same kind as those referred to happened on Friday, March 19, at St. Justine station, that is to say, that a mail hag fell under the wheels of the train and would have been damaged and its contents spilled on the track?
5.	Does the department intend to compel the Grand Trunk Company to make a better delivery and by what means?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	16th February, 1908; 19th March, 1908; 7th November, 1908. By the postmaster, Gustave Boyer, M.P., and J. A. Lortie, M.P.
3.	Yes, and measures taken, which it was thought would prevent future accidents.
4.	It is understood that on 19th March when the mail bag was thrown off at St. Just ne station it was through suction drawn under the wheels of the train and the con-

tents of the bag containing unregistered mail matter badly mutilated.
5.	The Post Office Department has no power to compel railway companies to stop trains for the exchange of mails. If the people of the locality consider that trains should stop, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Railway Commission.



FORT CUMBERLAND.

Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	How much land, if any, is owned by the government embracing the site of Fort Cumberland, Westmoreland county, N.B. ?
2.	If owned by the government, is it under lease? If so, to whom and on what terms?
3.	If not owned by the government, when was it sold, to whom was it sold and for what price ?
4.	When was the armament of this fort sold, to whom, and on what terms?
5.	Has the government in contemplation any arrangement for preservation of this or any other ancient fortification?


Hon.   S@: The Department of the Interior has given the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3.
1, 2 and 3. This property was transferred to the Department of the Interior by order in council dated October 20, 1879.
4.	Nothing is known in this department of the sale of any of the armament of the fort.
5.	The only ancient fort which the government is at present engaged in preserving is Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia.
1.	Seventy-two (72) acres.
2.	Yes. James Lowerison from year to year at an annual rental of $64, payable half yearly. Mr. William Miner, agent for Lowerison, is the present occupant.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-SHANGHAIING.

Mr. COWAN asked:: 1.	Did the commissioners appointed about two yeans ago to inquire into ' shanghaiingJ at the port of Vancouver make a report ?
2.	If so, when and what action was taken by the government thereon?
3.	Is the government aware that captains of vessels leaving British Columbia ports are still obliged when getting their crews to pay $35 per man to Sims, Levi & Evans, who in return guarantee that the seaman's wages shall not exceed $20 per month?
4.	Is the government aware that there are about 70 sailing ships leaving British Columbia ports annually whose owners are still obliged to pay to this firm about $45,000 per year for crews, and that these crews are obliged to advance to the above firm about $32,000 annually, being at the rate of $25 per man?
5.	What action, if any, does the government propose to take to abate this evil?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1. Yes.
_ 2. No action was taken as the commissioner gathered from the evidence adduced that the conditions at the port of Vancouver do not differ materially from those obtaining in other seaport towns throughout the empire.
3.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has only recently been informed that this firm is operating in Victoria, and the matter is receiving attention. Some of the contracts to supply men are made with this firm by the owners of the ships in Great Britain before the ships leave there.
4.	No.
5.	The facts will be ascertained, and whatever action is possible to meet the difficulty will be taken.



SATJLT STE. MARIE CHANNELS.

Mr. BOYCE asked:: 1.	Who were the contractors for placing buoys in the old channel from Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., to the head of St. Joseph's island, and from Point aux Pins to Batchewana, during the season of 1908?
2.	Was the work let by contract? If not, who had charge of it, upon what terms, and why were tenders not invited?
3.	What was the amount paid for the placing of buoys in these waters, during the preceding five years, and to whom were such moneys paid respectively?
4.	If the work was let by contract, was it open to public competition?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Roderick A. McLean, of Sault Ste. Marie.
2.	Work was let by contract to Roderick A. McLean, of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; the service from Sault Ste. Marie to the head of St. Joseph's island at $215 per annum, and the service from Point anx Pins to Batchewana at $400 per annum. Tenders were invited for the service between Sault Ste. Marie and the head of St. Joseph's island in 1899, and the contract was awarded to Mr. McLean, who has performed the service under contract since that date. Tenders were invited for the service between Point aux Pins and Batchewana in 1904, and the contract was awarded to Mr. McLean, who has performed the service under contract since that date.
3.	The price paid for maintaining the service from Sault Ste. Marie to the head of St. Joseph's island, was $215 per annum, and for the service from Point aux Pins to Batchewana $400 per annum. The contract prices were naid each year to Mr. Roderick A. McLean.
4.	Yes.



PACIFIC COAST FISHING LICENSES.

Mr. COWAN asked:: 1.	How many seining licenses for fishing on Pacific coast waters are now current?
2.	To whom have they been granted?

3.	What is the area covered by each license?
4.	How many of these licenses are being operated by the original licensees, and how many iby aliens?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The answers to questions 2 and 3 are so voluminous that 1 would ask the hon. gentleman to let them stand as notice of motion. I will procure the information immediately.
Stands as notice of motion.



DREDGING AT STE. ANNE DE BELLEVUE LOCKS.

Mr. BOYER asked:: 1.	Has the government received a petition signed by several navigation companies on the Ottawa river, asking for certain dredging vorks in the river of that name below the locks of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, which would have the effect of shortening the course of the canal ?
2.	If so, what are the names of these companies ?	_
3.	Has an engineer been sent to this place to ascertain the possibility and utility, of these works?
4.	Does the report admit the justification for these works?
5.	What does the government intend to do in the exigency?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Sincennes-McNaughton line, the Montreal Sand and Gravel Company, Quinlan and Robertson, the Ottawa Forwarding Company, and the Ottawa Transportation Company.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Matter under consideration.



MR. BREWSTER.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 1.	Is Mr. Brewster still in the employ of the government as immigration agent for the eastern townships?
2.	If not, when were his services dispensed with, for what purpose and on what date?
3.	Has any one assumed the duties of immigration agent for the eastern townships since the date of Mr. Brewster's retirement?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint an immigration agent for the eastern townships? If so, will the appointment be of a temporary or permanent nature?
5.	Is the government aware that there is a great dearth of farm labour in the various counties of the eastern townships, and that an active immigration agent is urgently needed in that locality?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior) :: 1.	No.
2.	First of November, 1908, on termination of engagement.
3.	No.


Mr. COWAN.: 4.	An appointment will be made for the season.
5.	The government is aware that there
is a need of farm labour in the eastern townships.	,



DEFENCE FOR OUR SEA COAST.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and self-respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
He said: I desire to state in the first place, that this resolution, which I have the honour of introducing, was handed in to the clerk by me before the session opened, and appeared on the first Order Paper. It is therefore not one which has arisen out of the lat?r events and circumstances which are in the minds of all present. I also wish to state that it was not conceived, and is not introduced to-day, in any party spirit. In making that statement, I am absolutely candid and open. Party spirit in Great Britain, has not generally intruded itself upon great questions of international interest, and in our country, though we have many subjects which produce keen contests between the parties, I may be permitted to express the wish that those questions that concern national defence and Imperial obligations may be kept as far outside of party politics and party contention as they are in Great Britain. It is in that spirit and with that intent that I move this motion. For a good many years I have been more and more impressed with the necessity of our facing the question involved in this resolution. Nothing particular has been done with it so far in parliament. I do not think that we mitigate any difficulties by avoiding them, or get rid of any of our responsibilities by evading them, and it seemed to me that the time had now come when the parliament and people of Canada should sit down together and take stock of the position and come to some conclusion as to whether they have duties., and what thes duties are, regarding the great question of the defence of our common heritage.
Now we have, I myself have, all sympathy with that class of good and estimable men who declare that war is horrible, that its burdens are almost intolerable, and that its effects are wide reaching and in the main injurious, and who, in our country as in others, declare that we want no armaments no militarism, no defences, that ours is an

era of peace, and that we should strive, as best we can, to make good this in principle and in action, without arbitrament of war. But whilst I have sympathy with this view, I have taken into account the history of' the world and the lesson it teaches. And whether I be right or wrong, I draw from the history and experience of the world this one great fact that force, absolute physical force, lies at the foundation of all our progress and civilization. In the primeval times, physical force expressed itself and exposed itself in bare and brutal form. To-day it is surrounded with, and disguised by the trappings and refinements of civilization; but in the last resort, it is there. Just as underneath the varied soils, beautiful in varied growth, there yet lies the solid granite-base, the foundation and guarantee of permanence, so under all the civilization and refinement of to-day, there is to be found, in the last analysis, the appeal to physical force. A man meets his neighbour, as individual against individual. If he can persuade him by argument, if he can prevent and restrain him by quoting the law and the conventions of society, well and good; but if none of these prevail, it is his right and duty to defend himself by sheer physical force. In the family, the school, the city, the province, the country, the situation, in the last analysis, is similar. If there are, mischevious members of society, who are not amenable to Christian teachings or to moral ethics, then the force of the law has to deal with them, and the constable, the policeman, the militia and the standing army, if need be, are resorted to as the personification of a physical force that is conclusive. If this is true of societv and the individual, it is equally true with reference to nations. From the earliest times to the present, there have been mischievous, unscrupulous and ambitious peoples, which has compelled resort in the end to physical force. We deduce therefore this fact that to defend and to preserve is the right and the duty of the individual of society, and of the nation, and that if it is necessary to do this by force, then force must be invoked. The right and duty of the individual is the right and the duty of the aggregation of individuals, that is of the nation itself. As we find the selfish and the unscrupulous and the strong preying upon society, so among nations it has always been, so it is now and so, as far as I can see, it will be for our own lives and very probably for many generations thereafter. In fact the more inviting the situation that a country possesses, if it is combined with weakness and Jack of preparation, the more that country becomes the prey and the mark of the ambitious, of the unscrupulous, of the strong. There are considerations which act
as restraints, the jealousies of surrounding nations, the ententes cordiales, the pacts,
the agreements, the commercial ties, the world's conscience-all these restrain and retard and moderate. But some day all these become storm swept and the naked sword flashes out in defence of altar and hearth-fires. All history teaches the lesson of this insecurity and that the nation which is forewarned and forearmed, which makes its preparation with proper care, is the only nation that has reasonable security and guarantee of existence.
Take, if you will, the last 50 years of the greatest and most civilized century of the world. Take the last 50 years, and what are the examples! The fire that was kindled on the Crimea, the blood-red streams that ran in India, the long struggle in the United States between the South and North, the Anglo-Italian war, the Franco-Prussian campaign, the Spanish-American battles, the British-Boer war, and the Japan-Russian war,-all these are outstanding, large examples of the fact that all the restraints of Christian morals and of ethics are impotent to curb the ambitions and the passions of nations, examples of the sad dis* appointments of those who have believed that the era of peace, and enduring peace, had been at last ushered into existence. To-day we must come to the conclusion that neither Christian teaching nor peace conventions, nor strong commercial liens, nor Hague conferences nor Triple alliances, nor Berlin Treaties, can guarantee peace. In a single night, within the last few weeks, a great nationality tore in tatters the Treaty of Berlin, and the lurid war cloud hovered over the Balkans and shot its lightnings into every chancellory in Europe and even to-day the unrest is not stilled.
Sir, into this world of trouble, of uncertainty, amongst this world of nations, Canada has pushed forward to her place. She has taken a position which is important now, which will become more and more important as the years advance. Her ship of state is launched on the world's waters, it is open to every storm, it is exposed to every danger. She cannot escape the common burden, she cannot neglect the common duty, she cannot ignore the common responsibility. I do not believe that she wishes to. Having entered the game, I believe that it is the disposition of the Canadian people to play it valiantly, to play it honourably, and to play it successfully. If her sons have the pride of manhood, as I believe they have, if they know what the stern joy of contest means, if they have proper faith in their high destiny, if they visualize any adequate picture of the future, it seems to me it is up to the people of Canada and to the manhood of Canada to



$3.60 per unit-to maintain the naval defence of the empire. But when we read these names, Natal, Cape Colony, New Zealand and Australia, the name of Canada does not appear, and as we look at that procession in the first line of defence we come to the conclusion, and it is not an exhilarating one, that not only have we not put a dollar into the naval defence of Canada for her own coasts, but that not a ship in the procession bears the name of Canada and that not a stiver or a sixpence of the mighty expense of that great battle line has been contributed out of the money of Canada. Well, I say that this grips attention. It gives us, at least, to press it no further, reason for thought. To some, and I confess to myself, it appears necessary for very shame's sake, that we did something and did something adequate. But says some objector, Great Britain is bound to protect the empire, her prestige demands it, her necessities demand it. Well, all I have to say of that argument at the present time is, that it is not the argument of the brave, or of the generous-hearted, or of the self-respecting, or of the properly independent man, and it is not the argument for a young and growing people which is a candidate for admission amongst the nations of the earth. The most sublime figure in all history, the one that grows upon one as he views it in the light of the history of 503 years, to go back no farther, is the figure of the old mother empire, the great-hearted mother who has given birth to the young nations that circle the globe, the greathearted mother that has gone outside of her own kith and kin and has mothered nation after nation, people after people, continent after continent, brought them out of darkness and slavery and set them upon the path of a better civilization. That grand old mother nation, endued with great heart and more than Titanic force to sustain world burdens-behold her course. Watch her in India and see what she has done for its three hundred million people, follow her in Egypt and see what she has done for the physical, the moral and the national betterment of that country, everywhere we know that she has done more in beneficient, scientific, humanitarian, uplifting action than any country in any age of history. What has she done in Africa, what has she done in America, from those early times when her armaments, her soldiers and her navy began to carve out of this North American continent the great heritage which she once enjoyed upon this continent a large portion of which she has given over to us. To-day, Great Britain has her armed guards on the Pamirs, and in the passes of the Himalayas, her sentinels on every frontier line, her sailors and flag in every sea, Mr. FOSTER.
her bodies of living scarlet and khaki here and there dispersed throughout the world and though she has done all that and bears the immense burden to-day, she has yet to exact the first penny of tribute from any country that she has liberated or any people that she has made free. Every dollar of the money, every drop of the blood worth more than money poured out so lavishly and so long in those great world efforts has been contributed by the people of the British Isles. For five centuries the patient, toiling British taxpayer has paid the bill and paid it with a cheerful countenance, and so far without grumbling. Can you find in the history of the world any more sublime figure and any more benificient instrumentality for good worked in so unselfish a way and borne so cheerfully and unstintingly by the few millions of people that live in the islands in the North Sea? What rank ingratitude in us,' of all people, to shield our selfish indifference to the sacrifices of such a mother behind such an argument. Well, but, says some one: 'We are safe in Canada, the Monroe doctrine will be all that we need, the United States will not allow any foreign country to plant its flag on the soil of the North American continent, we are immune, because of the Monroe doctrine.' Mr. Speaker, the Monroe doctrine and the United States of America might guarantee our safety from foreign invasion but what would he the price that Canada would have to pay? The humiliation of it would be like the Cain's mark on the brow of every Canadian; the degre-dation of it would eat into the heart of every man until he grew servile and cringing. The price we would have to pay would be continual demand, continual concession, until at last absorption finished the craven course, covered up our name and blotted out our hope of a national future. Bad enough for us to hang on to the apron strings of a loving opulent mother, but when we have grown t<D manhood it is the negation of every principle of manhood and independence that we should live in our national home by the grace of the stranger, however well intentioned and kind he might be. I put away the Munroe doctrine as absolutely unthinkable for us as a shelter under which to grow up to national manhood. I come then to the conclusion, imperfectly argued out I know, first :	That
protection is necessary, absolutely necessary; that we cannot as a people owe our protection to the United States of America, or to any other foreign power ; that that protection must either be borne by ourselves or by ourselves in conjunction with Great Britain and in co-operation with the mother country.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments then to take up the question of how this protection is to he given. In the first

place I recall the circumstances under which my motion was introduced and what has taken place in the way of more or less important events since. Recollect that my motion deals simply with a stated, regular, uniform, normal line of proceeding and policy. Let us argue that out first. It seems to me that when you boil down all the propositions that are made you get down to two propositions, one or the other of which must in the end be adonted. and I desire for a very few moments to canvass these two propositions not as an advocate * who has dogmatically made up his mind j and who admits of no reason on the. part j of one who takes the oposite thought and j might wish the opposite _ course. But let us as far as we can. think around them and see what the two mean The first is the policy of a fixed annual contribution in money to the British government or the British admiralty. Now, that divides itself apparently into two branches but it is really the same thing. One man says: Send one million dollars or two million dollars a year; another man says: Send a Dreadnaught or two Dread-naughts, and so far as Canada is concerned these two are absolutely one. We are not in a position to build and equip and send over Dreadnaughts. When we translate our contribution into Dreadnaughts it comes down in the end to money which would be sufficient to build and equip a Dreadnaught and therefore I say there are both parts of the one proposition, an annual fixed contribution of money to the British government for the purpose of national and imperial defence; or if you would rather have it, for the purpose! of Canada's defence through imperial co-operation and imperial supreme command in war times. The first difficulty in that is as to fixing the amount of the contribution. The very moment that you sit down in council and say :	Let us talk the matter
over and fix the proportion that Canada ought to give, you come upon a pretty difficult question. The British taxpayer pays $3.60 per head and that translated in equal proportions to the Canadian taxpayer would mean an amount of money which would be something appalling. Then again; how long shall the sum which you fixed to-day remain the proper sum, and will it be subject to constant revision, constant negotiation, and may he occasional disagreement and consequent troubles. That is one difficulty that arises when you discuss a proposition of a fixed annual money contribution. Another objection raised is that it smacks too much of tribute, that we are a free people, and we do not want to be paying a contribution to the old country for this or for any other purpose. I do not take much stock in that objection. Not one atom of our autonomy, not one atom of
our independence, not one atom of our power as a parliament is taken away from us because we decide and by vote do place a certain sum of money into the hands of the British government or the British admiralty to be applied to the purpose of our and the Empire's defence. It is not demanded of us ; there is no tribute unless there is force, and unless there is a specific demand which brings the tribute. A fixed sum may be a most willing gift of the most liberty enjoying legislature in the world.
But one says:	We pay, but we do not
control. That is true; but what are we paying for ? We are paying for a portion of the defence of the empire, including ourselves. If we believe that the British government and the British Admiralty have the widest experience, the greatest knowledge, the plans of war more thorough, the expert skill, every appliance and every accompaniment of the effective use of the money which we give, does it matter after all so very much whether we follow the course of the expenditure of that money or not ? So that I do not take too great stock in that objection.
Another objection put forth is that it impinges on our autonomy. I have dealt with that in a few brief sentences. To me it doeB not seem that a free contribution interferes in the least with our autonomy, with our own full and free legislative liberty or in fact with any other kind of liberty which
we possess.	.
Another objection that is made is tnat Britain may use our contribution in unjustifiable wars, and that we should guard ourselves carefully lest we make a contribution for the equipment and strengthening of a fleet which may be used in wars that we do not approve of. That might be with some countries an objection; but it you take the history of Great Britain for the last fifty years or more, you may pretty fairly come to the conclusion that, as she has not and is not now, so in the future Great Britain will not be liable to carry on unjustifiable wars of conquest. She has more territory than she needs. _ Her trouble now is to administer the wide territory which she has. Her business now is to defend the borders, already if anything too far enlarged, of her territory. The whole spirit of the old country and its history for the last half century, may make us pretty sure that wars of conquest, undertaken for aggressive purposes and for mere lust of battle, are not likely to take place so far as Great Britain is concerned.
While these objections have some torce, though as I think not a force that is irresistible, there are some reasons which appear to me to have deeper force with reference to that method of taking our part in defence I do not know whether I can make myself understood to the members of this House on this point, but I shall briefly try to do so.

The first and greatest objection which I have to a fixed money contribution is that it bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do; as though a man, the father of a family, in lusty health and strength, should pay his neighbour something per month for looking after the welfare and safety of his home instead of doing that duty himself. That seems to me, when you work it out, to be a basic objection to this form of aid. It goes still further than that. Suppose you contribute this year your sum, and next year your equal sum, and thereafter year after year. After ten or twelve, or twenty, or thirty years, you will have paid out an immense amount of money. You will have been protected in the meantime ; but in Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the soil, or beginning of the growth of the product of defence. Yet some time or other, no one can doubt that with resources and with a population constantly increasing, we must and will have in this country a naval force of our own for our coast and home defence.
The interest that we take in a contribution spent by another is not the interest that I desire for Canada. I want to see something grafted on the soil of Canada's nationhood, which takes root and grows and develops until it incites the spirit of defence in this country, leads to a participation in the defence, leads to that quick interest in it, its glories, its duties and its accomplished work, which is after all the one great thing that compensates a people for great expenditures either on land or on sea in the way of defence and of the main-tainance of the rights of the country.
Again, it disjoins what has been joined together from the earliest days of the world's existence-commerce and the protection of commerce. After all, the basic idea of a naval force is the protection of the commerce of a country. A commerce side by side with its protector, and its protector side by side with the growing commerce of a country, flourish best together, and are the surest helpers to each other. That is the idea which is in my mind-that when we make our contributions in the way of a fixed sum and it goes from us, and we are not responsible for it, we have none of the inspiration arising from the growth and development of a system of future defence in our own country. We are deprived of the larger benefit ourselves, and in the future we do no greater service to the empire of which we form a part, in this matter of defence.
Then, again, I think this method ignores the necessities and the aspirations and the prospects of a great people such as the Canadian people are destined to become. We must have beginnings; these must at first


George Eulas Foster: be small; but some time, or other, as I have said, our country will have its naval force for the defence of this country if for nothing else. The point with me is as to whether it is not the greater wisdom to sow the seed at once and cultivate its growth, as best we may, in our circumstances and with our resources, until at last we arrive at that stage of expansion which we have reached in other great lines of our country's progress. You will notice that while I have tried to discuss the pros and cons in connection with this method, while I have stated reasons in favour of and others against it, my own mind tends rather towards the employment of another form than that of an out and out money contribution.
The second policy to which I would refer is the assuming by ourselves of the defence of our own ports and coasts, in constant and free co-operation with the imperial forces of the mother country. Let us see what are the objections to and what may be urged in support of that second policy. It has its advocates and its opponents. In the first place we begin with no plant, no expert skill, no trained cadets, no trained sailors. In those respects, Canada is a blank sheet. Whatever may be necessary has to be collected and assembled and developed with such expedition and in such abundance as circumstances will allow. Under that system our first vessels would be British built, British equipped, British manned, British officered from stoker to captain. There is no other way in which we could proceed. We are absolutely bare of the skill, the experience, the training and the machinery necessary to put one single war vessel on a proper footing; but-and it is but the beginning of a circle-the first Canadian owned vessel, built and eqipped in Britain, and sent out to defend our coasts would become the nucleus and the tiaming ground of Canadian stokers, Canadian sailors, and Canadian officers, and by and by perhaps, of a Canadian admiral on the Canadian coast. How much time wcnld be taken in completing that circle none of us can say, but if we begin the tracing of it and follow it fairly and faithfully, the time must come when we get a complete circle and have an imperial adjunct to the British navy for the defence of Canada and the defence of the empire, in which Canada has some of her body, her bones, her blood, and her mental power, her national pride. Then would come the dockyard, which would be of sufficient size to enable us to repair the smaller vessels and in time build the smaller class of. vessels that we need at first, to be implemented by co-operation between Canada and Great Britain in the shape of a dockyard sufficient to dock any lame vessel of the Bitish navy that might happen to limp to our coast

and require refitting and repairs. And so,
in that progressive, gradual way working up to the fullfilment of this idea, a defensive force in Canada which would be an auxiliary in the case of an outbreak of actual hostilities, which would be sufficient for the ordinary surveillance of our coasts ail'd which would be, in time of war, sufficient to work in conjunction with the main portion of the fleet that would be sent to the part of our country that was menaced.
I have spoken of commerce and the protection of commerce as falling side by side.
* I believe that Canada has, on the line of water development, as great a future as on the line of land development. We have fallen victims to our imaginations. Struck at once and forcibly by our vast landed estate, we suffer ourselves to think that the land is the sole theatre of the triumphs and the development of Canada. But look at what nature has given us. View the immense oceans on our east and wTest and the waters that lie between. Note the conjunc-of coal and iron and of lime stone and all building material. Look at our ports and harbours, dotting every portion of our coast, the most of them yet unused and a large number of them serviceable to a degree. Look at the 40,000 or 60,000 fishermen and boatmen on our coasts, our rivers and great lakes, born and bred within the sight of, and largely upon, the water, making themselves fit candidates for the career of commerce and all that pertains to it in the development and progress of this country. It seems to me that with the immense grain producing and meat producting resources of Canada, with our immense productive power in other respects, with our sea and water privileges, the imagination can scarcely grasp the commerce that waits for Canadian vessels, manned by Canadien crews, and a mighty instrument of expansion and wealth to be held almost completely in our own hands. But to accomplish that purpose we must build steel vessels. Take Great Britain and go around its coasts where shipbuilding is carried on from Newcastle to the Clyde, what are the great forces at work? The building of warships is the strong encouragement of the steel and iron commercial shipbuilding in Great Britain to-day. The two are joined. The one works into'and out from the other. I say that steel shipbuilding inaugurated in this country developed tc the capacity of turning out war vessels would not only benefit Canada, but Great Britain as well. For the old empire has not passed it zenith.
Though it has had its course of so many hundred years, there is no reason to believe that a still longer course is not before it. I do believe that irrevocable fate decrees the death of nations. I believe that, comparatively, they may have eternal life if they will seek for it in the right direction; and the old blood that some sneer at in the effete veins of the old country may easily be reinvigorated in the overseas possessions by the young flood of life and development and enterprise flowing back into the heart at home rejuvenating and revivifying the race. It is no stretch of the imagination to believe that the empire, with its component parts in full accord may have at some time immense dockyards in the Dominion of Canada, on the Pacific coast and on the Atlantic coast in which will be built not only our own vessels, distinctively Canadian, but a part of the navy of Great Britain itself. In Australia the foundations of such a course are laid. That country to-day has taken this line of policy: within seven years her programme calls for an expenditure of $11,000,000 on torpedo vessels and that kind of coast defence, and $2,000,000 annually thereafter to keep up and forward in an equal line of progression. After having tried the contributory method, Australia has adopted this policy witlj the best of concert between the mother country and herself, the coast defence in times of peace, the auxiliary body to the fleet in times of war, both carried on with the cooperation and good will, which perfect trust in each other engenders and keeps strong. Cannot we trust the mother country? She has done enough for us in the past and showed her good will. Are we afraid of losing our autonpmy? Every move of Great Britain has been to shift responsibility upon us rather than to take it from us. What has she denied to us? If she has erred in any way it has been in the sentiment now wholly extinct that the colonies had better go and fend for themselves; but to-day no man can point a finger to a policy or a solid weighty utterance of Great Britain in which there is the least shadow of a menace that she evens harbours the faintest idea of depriving one of the overseas dominions of her perfect autonomy.
An objection to this method is found in its greater cost. I doubt if the cost would be greater. As I said, our first vessels would actually have to be built, equipped and manned in Great Britain. The cost of these is no greater. It is said it would be ineffective. Ineffective how? As the last line of defence. Certainly it wmuld. If all the battleships of the empire were swept from the sea, the torpedoes and coast defence that any of the colonies might have would make no headway against the combined fleets of the conquerors. But we do not believe that that disaster will occur, and we do not believe it because we have faith that prevision and provision wall be made sufficient to obviate any such calamity, the prevision and the provision made by'the mutual component parts of the empire, trusting each other with a generous trust believing that in every time of stress
COMMON ci
and difficulty the best councils will prevail and the best course will be taken.
It is said also that there are physical and
mechanical difficulties to be overcome. 1 have mentioned these-they can be overcome. Time and the application of a reasonable amount of resource will overcome those difficulties and place us where we have had to place ourselves with reference to every other great line of development; we must begin at the beginning and work up gradually until we gain the skill, the plant, the machinery and the power to make foT ourselves what at first it was physically impossible for us to make. I do not know which of these forms our aid will take after due care and consideration but whichever form is chosen, one thing is certain, that something ought to be done-and done now. Our circumstances, our manhood, our sense of gratitude and our sense of right all demand that something shouldbe done, something adequate and something now. What boots it to drift from year to year? Are we proper stewards of this heritage if we allow it to go one moment longer without some proper care and provision for its defence? Are we doing our duty as men unless we put our own hand in our own pocket and share the burden of the defence of the heritage which is ours?
For what have we had from Great Britain? Our heritage, we are proud of it and we boast of it, has been conquered and held against all comers by Great Britain. Go back over a few centuries, watch the wars with European nations, the wars with the Indians, the first possessors of this continent, the struggles in 1776 and 1812, with the American Republic, Take your pencil and add up the treasure that Great Britain has expended during all that Ions series of years in order that this heritage might be free to those who now possess it-and the wonderful thing about it, which stirs our hearts and which calls for our concurrent action of gratitude, is that after all that expenditure of treasure and of blood, she handed it over to the Canadian people without encumbrance of any kind-no mortgage upon it, no balance to be paid, the patient British tax-payer footed all expenses and gave it to the colony that he mved and to the people for whom he had prepared it. Thereafter she has guaranteed by her army and navy our security. Our eastern gateway stands open ,our western gateways are unblocked, the ocean path is as secure as the, streets of a city. Why? Because of the guarantee of Britain's navy and of Britain's prestige. For all of that she has not asked one penny of tribute from these people, she has placed no contribution upon them. Our borders have been preserved. When the Fenian Raids of 1366 took place, what was the power that stood upon our Mr. FOSTER.
frontier? The British regulars joined with our own volunteers stood as the defence of Canada. The British government paid all the bills; and the British government afterwards paid the indemnity for the damages which were caused by the invaders. When the Red River rebellion took place, and our western heritage was in doubt, dt was Wolsley with the British regulars that, joined with our own volunteers, made the long and tedious journey to that far distant section, and stood for the protection of our nascent nationality. Great Britain paid all the bills. In the Riel rebellion our volunteers and our resources were sufficient to quell the rising; but just outside the ring stood the might and power of Britain, ready to interfere if any one had lifted hand against the nationality and the integrity of this country. Our rights have been upheld, our rights of fishery and navigation in the Atlantic and on the Pacific. When the threat was made that if Canadian vessels were found within the prescribed sealing area they would be confiscated, and our men imprisoned, it was the might of Britain which intervened and saved Canadians arrest and indignity. When Cleveland's message went out in 1888, it was Britain's prestige and power which robbed it of its sting, and which made us rest in peace because that power and that prestige - were behind us. Our liberties have been guarded. What have we asked that has not been given to us? Much that we have not asked has been freely bestowed. The rivals in long years of war, when once the war was ended, became equals in peace, guaranteed in their language, their creed, their rights and their privileges; and from that day to this we have lived together in more or less perfect peace, joined as Canadian citizens in common love for our common country, and a desire to develop it and to make it, if we can, the greatest in the world.
Our commerce has been protected. Where-ever a Canadian vessel goes, wherever a Canadian trader travels there he finds in every city, in every port, the ubiquitous protection of the fleet, and he finds there a representative of the best consular and diplomatic service in the world. All of these things cost money, all these are maintained there by Britain. The expense of every diplomatic establishment and of every consular agency is paid for by the British government and is at our free service. When we go to Madrid to negotiate a treaty, or to Paris to negotiate a treaty, or to Tokio to have some difficulties arranged, what do we find? The prestige and good will of Britain, and the embassy, the diplomatic service, all at the free use and for the free advantage of the
3501 MARCH 29, 1909 3502	
people of Canada, all without money and without price to ourselves. All these we have accepted, on all these we have relied, by all these we have profited, and the only thing we have given in return is now and then some cheap criticism, and more or less scant gratitude-not a very worthy return for the services that have been given to us. If we had been dependent on ourselves, what harassing, overshadowing fears would have been ours? What perils would we have incurred by sea and by land? What tremendous expenses would we have incurred with insufficient national insurance? What probable fire disaster extending even to loss of home, of name, of distinctive national existnce. That for a century our farmers have tilled their acres in perfect peace, that in peace our fishermen have gathered their waterbred harvests, the merchant handled his wares, the doors of external commerce been kept continually open and the ocean passageways secured from molestation is due to the fact we have been safely insured in the greatest guarantee company of the ages, John Bull & Company, who has charged us no annual premiums, who has given us an incontestible policy, an unquestionable security, 'as much as anything can be unquestioned in this variable world of ours. But she has also been our banker. Her money has built or partly built, our great railways, our canals, many even of our public buildings. Her money has furnished the life blood for our municipalities, for our great corporations, for great industrial concerns and development companies. To what nation amongst all the nations could we have gone with such assets, and assurances of good will, of ready resources and low rates of interest? If we were to wake up to-morrow and read that the British fleet had been swept from the ocean, that an irretrievable disaster had come upon her, what a feeling of insecurity, of absolute and utter loss, what a deprivation of power would take place in this country? Is there any doubt? I do not believe it will take place, because as I said before, my faith is strong that the good sense and cooperation of the various component parts of the British empire will make such reasonable provision that such a disaster will not come within the category of possibilities. But if it were to happen, can we picture to ourselves what would be the result? Well, in the end some one will snarl and grow cross at this long harangue, and say, 'Oh well, let Great Britain fight her own battles, she is able to do it.' Yes she is. But suppose her battles are our battles, how then would we look at it? Her battles have been our battles, her battles of the future will be battles for her defence, and the defence of those that belong to her as dependent and oversea dominions. I can-	not conceive, as I said before, of Britain fighting an aggressive war. To-day she is not an aggressor, she has not been for half a century. Her wars are our wars, her battles are our battles. One sees plainly, if a fleet were to invade this country and the British fleet were to range itself against our enemies, off our own coasts that it would be our battle waged in our defence. But suppose the battle is fought off the coasts of the threatening enemy; suppose, better yet, it is fought in the emergent pass ways when the vessels of the enemy are issuing from their ports one by one in straggling order before their full fighting power is possible and their full deployments made? Is not that our battle just the same as it would be if it were fought within sight of our own coasts? It seems to me that the best place to fight a battle for the defence of Canada, for the defence of Australia, is to fight it in the very ports and passageways of the enemy. That is the first, the primal, the effective line of defence. We must not think that because we are not in sound of the artillery or in sight of the vessels that are engaged therein, it is therefore not our battle. Now, all this refers particularly to my resolution. Let me say two things; first, that my resolution explains itself. My suggestions, or thoughts, are the crude thoughts of a man who has no expert knowledge but who reads, observes and forms an opinion. They aTe worth what they are worth and no more. Their inadequacy does not militate against the spirit and principle of the resolution. They are the contributions, for what they are worth, of my own thought and my own ideas towards the discussion of this question. Let not opposition that may frame itself against my particular details consider that it is necessary to frame itself as against the resolution which is broad, comprehensive and gives complete freedom of detail even to the slightest and most distinct particular. So far I have been dealing with what may be called the stated, normal policy that I think Canada ought to adopt; home defence, by a coast line and harbour protection of torpedo vessels at first which would make the attack of the rambling, raiding cruiser a doubtful and a dangerous one, which would ward off the first attack until more sufficient aid could be brought if the invading force were superior to the defence. But when once we settle upon this policy -and I hope we will soon settle upon it- there is another feature of the case, and it is this. Outside of any settled action, outside of the normal condition of things in society, in the world, in nationhood, occurrences arise, special emergencies, that are unexpected, suddenly loom in view, a great crisis, a great danger. That is absolutely outside of the normal policy

to be carried on year after year with settled purpose and upon a settled plan. Every one of these emergencies must be met as it comes and met according to the gravity and importance of the occurrence. Since my resolution was introduced into this House occurrences have taken place. I am not so sure of my knowledge as to dogmatically declare that this is all an overnight panic and that there is nothing in it. When weighty men, the foremost statesmen in the British world and, may'I say, in the world itself to-day, on both sides of party politics, utter their weighty warnings, which to me, are a sign of graver thoughts yet unexpressed that peril stands at the gateway, that an emergency of great gravity has arisen, then we are face to face with a condition which is to be met outside of the normal rule. When, in 1899, Kruger attempted to drive the British into the sea and take away the great outposts of South Africa from the British dominion, that was an emergency. That emergency impressed itself upon the people of Canada and aroused to white heat the loyalty and devotion, to Canada first, because an attack upon that outpost was an atack on Canada, and to Great Britain in the second place, because of her sacrifices in behalf of Canada for centuries, which would not be denied, which sought for immediate action and followed it up heroically on the plains of southern Africa, with glory to every participant, with honour to Canada and with a great addition of prestige and power to the old land herself. For every threatening rival nation, which, up to that time, had not been sure and was querying thus: 'Will the colonies stand by the mother country?'-queried no longer and knew that if they unjustifiedly made war against Great Britain they must count on the opposition of every colony and overseas possession that Great Britain cradled with her empire. Was that of no force, no weight, with the councils of Europe and of the world ? I believe it was. To-day, peril stands at the gateway. It is not for me to say how great it is, but I cannot brush it aside. To-day it impresses itself upon the gravest statesmen of the old country; to-day it appeals to Australia until public subscriptions are taken and the government is being importuned to do even more than its settled policy to meet the emergency; to-day little New Zealand gives one Dreadnaught and offers a second and to-dav Canada faces that position of peril, that imperial emergency. Let me say to my right hon. friend that if, after careful consideration, he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting that emergency adequately, by the gift of Dreadnaughts or the gift of money, this side of the House will stand beside him in thus vindicating Canada's honour and strengthening the empire's defence.


Mr. FOSTT  R.@: 


Mr. GEORGE  H.@: Mr. Speaker, to the eloquent and able_ observations with which the House has just been favoured by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) very little exception, if any, can be taken by any one and certainly not by myself. If my hon. friend will permit me, and if he will accept it from me, I will offer him, in all sincerity, my hearty congratulation, for the temperate and moderate manner in which he has approached a difficult and very important subject. Let me say at once to my hon. friend that the only exception which I have to take to the observations that he has offered to the House and to the policy that he has, to some extent, outlined for us, is simply that his conclusions have been too indefinite and that they should have been presented in a more concrete form. I was anxious to hear from my hon. friend what would be the argument which he intended to apply in support of the resolution which he has placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and which has been upon the Order Paper for the last two months. I am sure I will not offend my hon. friend when I tell him that in my estimation his resolution was not perhaps as^ clear as the crystal water of the mountain brook. My hon. friend did not define what was the policy that he would like us to adopt as explicitly as I would have desired. The gist of his proposition is to be found in these words :
Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
The only interpretation I could give these words was that in the opinion of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) Canada had been remiss in the duty she owes to herself of providing for her own defence. This seemed to me somewhat surprising in view of the fact that Canada has no quarrel with any one, that she does not desire any territorial aggrandizement, that she occupies geographically an issolated position, and that she has only one neighbour, with whom she has been at peace for nearly 100 years. But, now that we have had the pleasure and the \ advantage of listening to my hon. friend, we have learned that his opinion is not that Canada has been remiss in the duty she owes to herself, but that in his estimation Canada has been remiss in the duty which she owes to the empire. Well, let me say to my hon. friend, and I say it in all sincerity, because I hope that if we differ in details we shall be able to agree on the main issue, let me say that in my estimation, if Canada has been remiss to the duty she owes to the empire we are not conscious of it.

Sir, we will not for a moment admit that impeachment. We are British subjects; Canada is one of the daughter nations of the empire and we realize to the full the rights and obligations which are involved in that proud title. It has been, it is, it shall be our unalterable determination to meet and to carry out every duty which is implied by the title of 'British subject.' Nay, more-not only will Canada fulfil every obligation which is implied by that title, but I think I make bold to say that we will rise to every sacrifice that may be needed in order to maintain unimpaired the rank and status which is occupied by Canada in the British empire and the rank and status which is occupied by the British empire throughout the world. But, Sir, I may say-and I do not say it in reference to the speech which we have just listened to -I may say that we are not to be carried away, we are not to be stampeded from what has been the settled policy and deliberate course which we have laid down, by any hasty, feverish action, however spectacular such action may be. It behooves us as freemen to look at our position calmly and deliberately, to review the situation as it is, to ascertain where we are, and to determine whether we should alter or whether we should persist in the course we have adopted long ago. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has told us, and I agree with him, that this question should be approached not only from the point of view of Canada, but from the point of view of the British empire at large. I agree with everything my hon. friend has said, and eloquently said, with regard to the admiration and devotion which every British subject, every Canadian, should have in his heart for the British empire. I agree with my hon. friend that the greatest phenomenon recorded in the pages of history is the existence of the British empire as it is at this moment. In its origin perhaps it may not have differed widely from the origin of other empires, but in its continuance and permanency is the phenomenon. The empire of Rome, the empire of Alexander, the empire of Charlemagne, the empire of Napoleon, were all built up and maintained by force and the moment force gave way these empires crumbled. The empire of Britain has been founded less on war than on discovery and colonization, and wherever founded in any part of the world, whether by war or colonization or discovery, it has been maintained onlv by the free will and consent of the peoples who now acknowledge British supremacy. To-day the British empire is composed of a galaxy of young nations proud of their allegiance to the British Crown and proud also of their own local independence. And though they may have a common aim, each has reserved to itself the duty and the right to develop its own resources and to attain its aim according to its own views, and by its own
methods as may be best suited to the peculiar cimcumstances of each.
Now, it may be said that defence which is the duty of all nations is a matter as to which there should be a common aspiration. Yes, I agree in that, but at the same time the young daughter nations of England have insisted that even in the matter of defence they should preserve in its entirety local autonomy, and that each should approach this subject according to its own lights. Let us not disguise the fact from ourselves that at present there is a passing wave in which we can trace anger, enthusiasm and fear, and which directed and pushed us to depart from our policy and to contribute at once to the British navy. Well, Sir, let us view this question as it is, let us not blink at it, let us realize that it is not the way in which in the past we have understood our duty. This question is not new; we are familiar with it, it is not of to-day or of yesterday.
I will not say it is as old as the hills, but it is as old as confederation itself and it comes to the front periodically. It presented itself in a concrete form in the Imperial Conference of 1902 to those who were there assembled from all parts of the British empire conferring with the government of the mother country. The proposition was placed before us that all the selfgoverning dominions of the British Empire should contribue to the army and to the navy. The Canadian ministers who were present attending that conference did not view that project with any favour. They received it with respect but they declined to accept it and thev presented their views in a state paper wherein they stated what they were prepared to do so far as Canada is concerned. Their views thus stated have often been quoted in this House, but I think it is opportune that I should quote them again. This is the statement :
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as well. On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that, while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which he now bears; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experi-


Wilfrid Laurier: history that Prussia had for years been silently preparing to cope with France which, up to that time, had been the greatest military nation in the world, that Prussia waited its opportunity, and when that opportunity came, delivered a mortal blow. If it be true then that Germany is organizing on the seas, no British subject can afford to be indifferent to the prospect. For my part I do not think that the danger is imminent. Germany is a great nation, she has made greater progress in peace and war during the last 60 years than any other nation; she has increased her population from 40,000,000 to 62,000,000; she has developed her industries and commerce in a marvellous manner; she has increased her wealth prodigiously. But to bring the German navy up to the standard of the British, to accomplish in a few years what has been the result of centuries, may be a task which is even beyond the ability of Germany, with all her great ability and resources. At all events, we know that the British nation is not unduly alarmed. We have the testimony of the great organs of English public opinion that Britain can cope with Germany alone, without the assistance of the British colonies. We know that the British government has, in response to the generous offer made by New Zealand of a Dreadnaught, postponed its acceptance. There is something else not to be lost sight of. I appeal to every student of history whether it be not the case that although England has been of all nations of Europe the one which has given more attention to trade than to war, she has generally come out victoriously in all the wars in which she has been engaged. This, she owes, in the first place, to the courage, the endurance, and dogged pertinacity of her sailors and soldiers, but surely in no smaller degree also to the fact that while other nations were wasting their energies in war, she was attending to the arts of peace and amassing wealth, and consequently had an abundance at her hand to make use of when other nations were deficient in that greatest essential to success. But although I do not believe that the danger is imminent, I have no hesitation in saying it would be folly to sleep in a sense of the fullest security. Vigilance, and eternal vigilance, must be the watchword to-day, not only in England but in Canada and every other part of the British empire. On more than one occasion I have said that I would deprecate Canada being drawn into the vortex of militarism existing in Europe. The situation of Europe to-day is one which cannot be characterized as other than madness. Europe is an armed camp. Every nation there is living in a condition of armed peace almost as intolerable as war itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: England is the one nation which has not lost her head, which has resisted militarism as much as she could, which has refused to adopt the conscription and sacrifice her children on the altar of this insatiable moloch. I hope the day shall never come when we will be drawn into the conflicts of Europe. But I have no hesitation in saying that the supremacy of the British empire is absolutely essential, not only to the maintenance of that empire but to the civilization of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that the supremacy of the British empire on the seas must be maintained in the highest degree of efficiency it has occupied the last hundred years. I have no hesitation in saying also that if the day should come when the supremacy of Britain on the high seas will be challenged, it will be the duty of all the daughters of the nation to close around the old mother land and make a rampart about her to ward off any attack. I hope that day will never come, but should it come, I would deem it my duty to devote what might be left of my life and energy to stump the country and endeavour to impress upon my fellow-countrymen, especially my compatriots in the province of Quebec, the conviction that the salvation of England is the salvation of our own country that therein lies the guaranty of our civil and religious freedom and everything we value in this life. These are the sentiments which animate the government on this occasion. As I said a moment ago to my hon. friend, the resolution he has offered is not sufficiently explicit in my estimation, and if he will permit, I will substitute for it -and hope with his concurrence-the following resolution:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the selfgoverning dominions the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House has observed with satisfaction the relief afforded in recent years to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last Imperial Conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain

is essential to tlie security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of t.ie world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the empire.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess,
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House listened with a great deal of pleasure to the very eloquent speech of the Prime Minister, and I was glad to learn that he did not take any exception to the remarks of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) except perhaps in one unimportant particular; I was pleased also to observe that he did not find any fault with the resolution proposed by my hon. friend except that it was not sufficiently definite. I was rather led to believe from that remark that the resolution which the Prime Minister himself would propose would be of a definite character, but 1 am bound to say that I found his resolution even less definite than that which was proposed by my hon. friend. Now the right hon. gentleman has spoken of the relations of Canada to the empire, and I for one am prepared to go as far as he, as far as any hon. gentleman in this House, in absolutely maintaining in this country of ours, the full control of our own affairs, which we have enjoyed for many years in the past. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the two political parties in Canada in that respect. It might be wise to refer for a moment to the circumstance that Great Britain, by giving to Canada and the other great dependencies of the empire, absolutely full control of their own affairs, an absolutely autonomy in respect of self-government, has, I believe, increased and strengthened the ties which bind these great dependencies to the empire as a whole, in a measure which would not have been practicable by any other policy. I believe also that the ties which bind Canada to the empire to-day are firmer and surer and more enduring than they have been at any time in the past.
It might be well to refer for a moment to the curious evolution by which this has been brought about, and to point out to the House that it has been accomplished by exactly the same means as the system of parliamentary government, both in Great Britain and in Canada, has been
evolved. It has been accomplished by the circumstance that the constitutional law of Great Britain is to-day for the most part an unwritten law, and that which determines the relations between the great de pendencies of the empire and the empire as a whole, is to a great extent a matter of unwritten law. I am not unmindful that we have a written constitution, I am not unmindful of the fact that there is, both in Great Britain and Canada, a great body of written law setting forth constitutional provisions; but the British system of parliamentary government chiefly depends upon that which a great French writer, M. E. Boutmy, in his work upon the constitutions of Great Britain, the United States and France, has called the customary law of the constitution; and the development of this customary law has had more influence in bringing about the evolution of parliamentary government, both in Great Britain and in Canada, than any other means of which I am aware. It seems! to me that the relations between Great Britain and her dependencies are being moulded and developed to-day, as they have been during the past 50 years, by the same influence of unwritten law and custom; and that makes it all the more important to us to-day to understand clearly what we propose to do, to see clearly the path on which we are entering, and to understand thoroughly what the consequences will be to Canada and to the empire as a whole of the action which we propose in this regard. I understand that we have a witten constitution in Canada, a constitution which is a statute of the imperial parliament. I understand also that m Great Britain the King has, as a matter of formal law, of strict legal, but not of constitutional right, the power to impose his veto upon any statute enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom. But I also understand that by reason of that which Mr. Lowell, the new president of Harvard, has called custom superimposed upon law, and which Mr. Anson another great constitutional writer, has called law overgrown by custom, the parliament of Great Britain to-day, although it has the legal power, has not the constitutional right to alter the British North America Act without the consent of the people! of Canada. So we understand that we have in this country full powers of self government, and that those powers of self-government depend, not only upon the written but upon the unwritten law, which has so largely moulded British institutions and the relations of the great dependencies to the empire in the past.
Coming now to the consideration of the matter which is immediately at our hand,

it has been said, we are all in the habit of saying it, my right hon. friend has uttered the boast, if it be a boast, some eight or ten years ago, that Canada to-day is a nation, and we are all proud to recognize and to hail Canada as one of the great nations in the greatest empire that the earth beholds. But Mr. Speaker, let us not forget also that a national status implies national responsibility. It is of no use for us in Canada to speak of this country as a nation, and to shrink in any manner from the discharge of our national responsibilities. What are those responsibilities? Acknowledged in every civilized community, recognized among all the great nations of the earth, a primal responsibility is the defence of their territories and the protection of their commerce. I do not gather, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend dissents in any way whatever from the enunciation of that principle which was laid down this afternoon in
such eloquent terms by my hon. friend the member for North Toronto.
Now I am prepared to recognize also, as the Prime Minister has very properly observed, that the people of this country, so far as military defence is concerned, have done a great deal, and have done a great deal more in recent years than they ever did before. As a matter of fact, if we look at the expenditure for military and naval defence of the whole empire and of the great dominions of the empire, we find that in 1905-6 Great Britain and her colonies paid respectively the following sums per head of the population:
United Kingdom	 1	9
Canada	 1
Newfoundand	
Australia	 5
New Zealand	 5
Cape of Good Hope	 5
Natal	 2
Transvaal	 2
d.
6

across the seas, and that in thus protecting themselves they were providing the best possible force for the protection of the empire. So, I am at one with the Prime Minister a3 far as this is concerned. I am at one with him in this respect also that I think that an expenditure of money designed for that purpose ought, in the main at least, to be under the control of our own parliament and that by making an appro, priation of that kind and attending to. the defence of our own coasts, by co-operation and co-ordination with the imperial naval forces, we would be rendering a Teal service in the defence of the empire and we would be doing our duty not only to Canada but to the empire as a whole.
My right hon. friend has spoken in very eloquent terms of the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the empire. We are all at one with him there, and there are just one or two observations that I desire to make in that regard. The first is that the loss of the control of the seas by the British fleet means the dismemberment of this great empire. Great Britain having once lost control of the seas it is impossible to conceive that this empire would longer survive. A world-wide empire such as ours; an empire which reaches out on every continent and spreads over every ocean can only be maintained by absolute naval supremacy. The moment a naval power arises which can effectively challenge the supremacy of Britain's navy that moment may the British empire be dismembered and that moment Canada may cease to be among the nations of that great empire. I am not one of those who look to see the integrity of the British empire menaced by the future independence of Canada. Like Sir John Macdonald, I was born a British subject, I shall remain a British subject, I hope to die a British subject. I trust the day will never come when the British flag will cease to float over this Canada of ours. But as has been eloquently said, Britain staggers under the too vast orb of her fate, and so it behooves us her children to decide how we can best assist the motherland to maintain control of the seas. It is not for us tonight to lay down the details of a scheme by which we can best co-operate towards that end, and I agree with the Prime Minister that we. should act in conjunction with and by the advice of the British Admiralty. They have experts at their command, they have the experience of the past to direct them, and these we have not. While I venture	to think	that a
system of torpedo boats and submarines	such as has been adopted
by the Commonwealth of Australia would be perhaps the most effective way in which we could assist Great Britain ip a stated policy of naval defence, yet I agree that the Canadian government ought to have the advice of the British Admiralty and lend it-



I do not desire to say anything more od this subject. I believe that the defence of our own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the self-respect which should fill the heart of every man in this country. You say that we may rest contented to depend for our naval defence on Great Britain. Well, if we have assumed the status of a nation in one respect, shall we adhere to the status of a Crown colony in other and still more important respects?
You speak of a Monroe doctrine, but that doctrine would not defend our coasts, our cities and our commerce from the attacks of any foe; and it is idle to suggest that we could, in the case of a great naval war, obtain any measure of comfort from the Monroe doctrine. But if we should depend on the Monroe doctrine, would it not, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) well said this afternoon, reduce us to a position of vassalage as regards the great republic. That is not a condition or a policy in harmony with our self respect or with our ideals and status as a nation. We desire that this resolution should go out as the unanimous resolution of the parliament of Canada to the whole world, and I believe it may go out as a message which [DOT] will do much to keep the peace of the world in these days of uncertainty. It should go in such terms as would entitle the Canadian people to the gratitude of the empire and do much to restore to the people of this country that self respect in which, it seems to me, we have been somewhat lacking in these days when others have done so much, and we so little, for naval defence so absolutely essential to the integrity and the maintenance of our great empire.


Mr. F. T. CONGDON (Yukon).: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be no word of complaint from any portion of the British empire at the tone in which this discussion has been carried out. It is recognized on both sides that the question is too important, not only to Canada but to the British empire, to be discussed in any party spirit. It certainly is one which must be discussed from the broadest national point of view and a solution of which must be sought, not merely acceptable to the government of the day, but to future governments, as governments change from time to time. _ There is very little difference in the opinions expressed regarding general conditions. There can be no doubt that great dangers always have, and always must, attend great empires; some of these dangers come from without, but the majority from within; and it is one of the pleasing features in the history of the British empire in modern times, that whenever her foreign relations have been covered with gloom, that gloom has been dispelled


Mr. E. L BOEDEN.: by the brightness of the loyalty of her daughters. That loyalty has burst forth amid the deepest gloom as when a sable cloud turns forth her silver lining on the night. There can be no doubt as to the loyalty of Canada and of every other dominion of Great Britain to the empire, and the question resolves itself into this: What shall the various portions of the empire do in order to put themselves in such a position as to be able, at the critical moment and at the proper time, to render the greatest assistance to the mother country. In Canada it is generally recognized that there is no military spirit dominant in the country and very little in favour of military establishments, unless such military and naval establishments as are absolutely essential for our welfare and the defence of the empire. There are better investments we can make in behalf of the empire and of Canada than expenditure upon navies or greater military organizations in the immediate present. If Canada desires to become a great nation, a nation that shall be a tower of strength to the mother country, as well as a sure bulwark of defence to herself, I do not see what better policy she can pursue than that of husbanding her strength and resources and thus enabling herself to become a powerful factor in the British empire. Were we at present to engage in a naval programme what would we require to do? It would be necessary to take the money of our people and go outside the boundaries of the Dominion to spend it. It seems to me that it would be better for the government and parliament of the Dominion to sanction such aid to our steel and iron industries in the east and west as will make it possible to us in a few years to build our own navy. You can never induce the people of Canada to make contributions for expenditure of that kind outside her own limits. I venture to say that no greater danger could arise to the empire than would follow if we agreed annually to contribute to the British authorities either a battleship or sufficient money to build one. That would create friction and controversy between the mother country and Canada; and any arrangement whereby the control of the money contributed by us would be under the authority of British statesmen, and not shared in any way by Canada, would lead to such conflicts and difficulties between the mother country and the Dominion as would be a source of danger to the empire. I believe that the best policy for us to pursue is the one we are now following and from which I see no reason for departing. That is the policy of being ready, as the people of Canada are always ready, to furnish whatever they have that may be necessary for the defence

of the empire in times of need.	But
if we start at present into any vast naval or military outlay we shall so impede our growth that in the course of a very short time we will be of much less assistance to the empire than if we permitted our country to advance and prosper as she is doing now. I do noi think that there is at present anything so critical in British relations as to cause us to get excited. One of our greatest publicists has said that of all the nations in the world, there is none so governed by their humour as the English. He said that two hundred years ago, and it is not less true to-day, and it is pleasant and consoling to find that the Scotchmen who are to-day in the cabinet of Great Britain do not share the excitement of some of the music halls of London regarding the danger hovering over the empire at present. I listened with some regret to the exordium of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster), I could not but think that if some heathen had been listening to that address he would have thought that the hon. gentleman was a great high priest of pessimism performing the funeral rites of Christianity. It may be that wars will come, it may be that we cannot prevent the recurrence of warfare, but the people of Canada are inclined to peace, and the efforts of our public men should be directed not to inflaming passions among nations, not to arousing hostility but to endeavour to bring about that time when war will cease and be looked upon as a vanity out of date and battleships as a superannuated piece of folly.
To-day there is talk of danger of war between the two great nations of Germany and Great Britain-Great Britain, the greatest contributor to the liberty of mankind in a political sense; Germany, the greatest contributor to the liberty of mankind in an intellectual and philosophical sense. These are the two most advanced nations of the world and why to-day is there any danger of hostilities between these nations? Is the fault entirely on the part of Germany? Is it not due to a large extent to the fact that each of these two nations is abusing the other, that their papers are full of abuse and ridicule, the English making tun of German awkwardness and the German of English awkwardness, saying all sorts of witty and offensive things, instead of treating each other with courtesy and attempting to conduct themselves in such a way as to render impossible a war between the two nations. Richter said that Providence had given to the French the empire of the land, to the English the empire of the seas and to the Germans the empire-of the air. I do not think any one could expect that Germany would be satisfied with the empire of the air. It must be remembered that Ger-111J
many is a vast and important and a great people, one of the greatest peoples of the world to-day and there is no instance in the history of the world of a great nation such as the German nation tying itself up within the narrow confines of an empire like Germany of to-day and not seeking and succeeding in obtaining some outlet for its population. Great Britain to-day has an outlet in all its vast empire for its surplus population, and I do not believe that anything could be better than that Germany should obtain some such outlet for hers. I believe the object in the creation of the German navy is to obtain an outlet of that kind, but I am satisfied that that aim could be best obtained by negotiations with other nations. It is customary to condemn the Emperor of Germany. We all remember when he ascended the throne 21 years ago the prognostications of what was to occur; he was to be the troubler of Europe, he was to create war here, there and everywhere, and w'e all know that the very contrary has been the case. He has undoubtedly made, as he doubtless would admit, a few mistakes. I do not know if he had the chance again, whether he would write the Kruger telegram, but that has long passed by and surely there should be a statutory limitation in regard to faults of that kind. No one can view his career without recognizing that he is one of the greatest rulers of modern times. Naturally enough he seeks to build up and_ to advance the interests of his own empire. It is only a few weeks since the King of England visited Germany and 'was received with great enthusiasm not only by the Emperor but by the people of Germany. The English were so delighted to find the people of Berlin naming streets after His Majesty that they almost became German in their sentiments. Yet to-day the Emperor . of Germany is going to conquer the British empire !
I do not think the people of Canada will cease to be patriotic, but I am sure they will never become hysterical in their patriotism. I hope they will continue to keep erected above them in regard to this, as in regard to other matters, the banner of sound common sense, and in the discussion of this and every other question they will not overlook homely self-interest, coupled with a due regard to and a due sense of what is reasonable and what is right. It seems to me you might as well have asked the old settler cutting down hardwood trees in Ontario in the days of tomahawk and scalping knife, to buy a uniform and enroll himself in a regiment of soldiers to protect those hardwood trees as to expect Canada to give up the development of this country, its settlement and the working of its vast resources and to turn her energies to develop-ping a great military and naval strength. If that is ever done, if that is immediately

done in Canada, you will divert from Canada her greatest attraction for increased population.
I venture to assert that if Great Britain would adopt the policy of the old tribes, when migrations of natives began, of dividing up the population, and placing in each portion a number of the noble and ignoble, the rich and the poor and then drawing lots as to which should get out of the country, we would gladly take one of those portions, help to bring them to Canada and help to build up here a further bulwark of strength for the British empire. I believe that some such sane, sensible scheme as that would be a thousand times better for the British empire, would make Canada a stronger support of the British empire than spending money on Dreadnoughts and on the military fuss and feathers some people would like to see in this country. The people of Canada will not submit to the drums and tramplings of militarism. They are going to defend themselves, but they are prepared to take some risk. Every man has to take the risk of loss of life or prop-perty; any one of us may be assassinated, but still the authorities will not allow us to carry guns for our own protection, and why cannot a large nation like the British or the Canadian take a certain risk? I would sooner be conquered by any people than go along as some people in London would have us, frightened to death that some foreign nation will conquer us. Even if Great Britain should lose her navy, and be in such a position that the New Zealander could stand on London bridge and view the remains of this old Dreadnought grounded on the Thames,
I do not believe that Canada would be in the slightest danger from any foreign aggression.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I hope that hon. gentlemen do not think I am prophesying any such disaster as that. If the hon. gentlemen in dissenting from my views thought that I was speaking of such a calamity as likely to occur to Great Britain, they misunderstood me. I was merely quoting Lord Macaulay's expression regarding the New Zealander standing upon the ruins of London bridge. Any reader of history knows that such disasters have occurred to the greatest empires. There are elements of strength and greatness in the British empire, but they do not relieve it from the possibility of the fate that has pursued all great nations of the world from the Hittites down to the present day. But even if that disaster should occur, there is no danger to Canada if the proper policy is pursued in Canada, the policy of training every young man in the country in physical exercise, the train-


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: ing to which Lord Stratheona has devoted his magnificent gift. If every young man is taught to use the rifle, if every young man is taught discipline, you can in this way build up a population of free men, ready to lay down their lives in defence of their country, and we need not fear the Dutchmen or any one endeavouring to invade or conquer our country. You might as well talk about raising fortifications as a protection against the great republic to the south. We all know there is no danger of invasion from the southern republic. The spirit of that people is too far advanced; the danger of collision between them and us has, I believe, absolutely passed away, and when you begin to talk about military matters at our present stage of a material development, it is exactly as though a young boy, a recruit, should shove into a lot of gladiators showing his biceps and declaring that they could not get on without fighting. It is not necessary for Canada to talk about fighting, it is necessary for her to pursue a policy that will avoid difficulties and entanglements for the British empire and relieve her from the horrors and dangers of warfare. The ideal I have of Canada is not a country with fortifications here and there, and people listening to the drums and trampling of soldiers, with horrid, hideous battleships around our coasts. The ideal I have of Canada is a Canada that, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall contain no city in which there is a single slum, no city in which there are any of those abominations which to-day exist in other countries, and I say that to-day Canada would be pursuing a noble aim and a noble object and an object which would make her a great country, if she pursued the policy of endeavouring in every city to create a civic spirit, determined ' to see that the labouring class in that city should not be in want, that there should be in it none of those disreputable quarters which seem to be an inseparable auxiliary of the cities of the old world. -I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that there is the slightest danger of Canada going crazy over this question. I am quite convinced that we shall not build any Dreadnoughts in the near future, and send them over the water; but if we do I hope we will give her the usual bill of lading,
' God send the good ship safe to harbour,' and that no disasters will occur to Canada, in consequence, to force us hereafter to declare ' It was that fatal and perfidious bark built in the eclipse and rigged with curses dark that sunk so low that sacred head of thine.'


William Sora Middlebro: I have listened with a great deal of pleasure, as I usually do, to the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) ; I have also listened with a great deal of pleasure to the eloquent speech delivered

by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and to the very able speech delivered by the leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). I may also say that I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) but I cannot say that I have listened to it with much pleasure. Judging from the hon. members speech, we have a right to conclude that he is going to vote both against the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto and against the amendment of the Prime Minister. He has totally ignored the conditions that exist in the empire to-day. He has totally disregarded the fact that the statesmen of Great Britain, in the speeches they have delivered in the British House of Parliament, have declared that the time has arrived when the supremacy of the British navy is being menaced, that Germany has shown by her haste in the construction of battleships that she intends to challenge the supremacy of the British navy. The hon. gentleman has totally ignored these facts, and has shown by his speech that he is not in favour of any immediate action by 'Canada to give assistance to the motherland.
A great deal has been said for and against any concrete action being taken to render assistance to the mother land. Let me say a few words on that question,. We are here to-day to protect the Dominion of Canada a country that has a population of nearly seven millions, a country that is thirty-three times as large as Italy, eighteen times as large as Germany, eighteen times as large as France, nearly as large as the whole of Europe, and slightly larger than the United States. We are here to protect the commerce and the productiveness of the Dominion of Canada. We are here to protect 7,000 miles of coast line on the Pacific coast. We are here to protect the great industries of British Columbia with her total yearly production of $88,000,000 worth, her fisheries worth between six and seven millions, her mineral production amounting to twenty-three million dollars, her 13,000 men engaged in the fishing industry, and her 9,000 men engaged on the shore fisheries of that province. Then I pass over the Rocky mountains and come to the province of Alberta. We are here to protect the nineteen million bushels of grain that' are raised in that province, valued at ten and a half million dollars, and her three million dollars' worth of cattle exported from that province last year. Then I pass on into the province of Saskatchewan. We are here to protect the 105 million bushels of grain raised in that province during the last year, and valued at sixty million dollars. I pass onward into the province of Manitoba, and we are here to protect the 113 million bushels of grain raised there, of a value of something like fifty million dollars. I come down into the old province of Ontario with its many
agricultural products. We are here to protect the 185 million bushels of field crops grown in that province, to protect its butter, its cheese, its fruit, its cattle that are being exported to Great Britain. Then I come on to the province of Quebec, and we are here to protect its eighty-five million bushels of field crops, to protect its large exports of butter and cheese, to protect its 260 million dollars worth of foreign trade. I pass on to the maritime provinces, and we are here to protect the products of their farms, of their mines and of their fisheries. I pass on to the coast of Nova Scotia, with her unprotected sea coast of 5,600 miles, extending from the Bay of Fundy to the Straits of Belle Isle. It is said that the farmers of this country will not sanction any contribution towards the maintenance of a naval force, or in -keeping up a navy. I come back again, and I collect the surplus agricultural products of these various provinces, and I carry them down to the sea, and what do I find? I find that out of the 120 million dollars worth of agricultural products exported from the Dominion of Canada, no less than 101 million dollars worth go to that grand old country beyond the seas. In other words, of our total agricultural production exported from the whole Dominion, five-sixths pass down through the great lakes and along the various lines of railways, and are transported across the sea. It follows as a consequence that unless we can protect these lines of communication by which our exports proceed, we are absolutely at the mercy of some foreign power.
Then I will touch upon another aspect of the question. Our total trade last year was $650,000,000, an enormous amount. It is true a great portion of that is trade with the United States, but the balance is trade which has to seek an outlet across the seas, and which must be protected by Britain's navy. Then I come to the question of our fisheries. I find that in the Dominion of Canada our total fishery output is valued at 25 million dollars, of which we export 14 millions. We employ 84,000 men, and the capital invested in that industry is 15 million dollars. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who would say that it is not of some importance to us to protect these fisheries, a large proportion of which is carried on upon the sea coast of our country? Then I come to the matter of tonnage owned by the various countries, as shown below:
British			 12,000,000
German			 2,744,000
American			 2,734,000
Norwegian			 1,491,000
French		
Russian		
Italian		
Japanese			 8t7,000
Swedish		
Canada			 700,000


Mr. ALEXANDER  B.@: 



WARBURTON

[Stage Direction]
(Queens, P.E.I.). Mt. Speaker, the speeches delivered in the House to-day lead to the conclusion that the views held by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House on this question are not so divergent as on the surface they would appear to be. It may be assumed as an axiom that every member in this House and probably every citizen of Canada is loyal and true to the empire and prepared to support it in case of need. The time has gone by when the charge can be laid against any section of our people that they have not the interests of the British empire deeply at heart. I listened with pleasure and profit to the patriotic speeches delivered by the right hon. the Prime Minister and by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). In this my first session in the Dominion parliament it was an inspiration to me to find that a debate of this importance could be raised to such a lofty plane and be so worthy of the Canadian nation. But, if we were to accept the words of the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) in their literal sense we might well wince at the contract which he offers to us. He told us that we had the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, as well as the commerce of the other provinces of the Dominion to afford ample protection to. I would like to ask him how in the name of common sense there would be any chance of a hostile force reaching the interior of our country?
Mr. BEATTIE.: He said we had to protect the products of these provinces in transit.


Mr. WARBURTON.: Of course, when these products are in transit on the sea they might require protection, but so far as hostile invasion is concerned, with the exception of a narrow fringe on our Pacific and Atlantic coasts our country is impregnable. Even as to our coast line, it would seem to me that if we can protect our coal supplies a hostile fleet would be rendered powerless. It could not keep the sea. It has 'been asked during the debate what we are doing for the empire in comparison, for example, with New Zealand. I have seen it stated that New Zealand has given way to the panic which for a brief space spread over the empire and has offered one Dreadnought and expressed her readiness to supply another in case of need. Well, I have conversed with a good many persons from New Zealand in the last few years and the thought occurred to me that a country which has to borrow sc largely might perhaps be accused of

being generous when she ought to be just. But let us see if we are not doing something for the mother land. Is it nothing that we are providing at great expense to ourselves homes for the people of Great Britain, and thus relieving the congestion of population there? Is it not a fact that every workingman who finds a home in Canada ceases to be an expense to the mother country and becomes a source of strength to her in this part of the empire? What happened during the Boer war? In some respects that war was a blessing in that it demonstrated that England was not alone, but that her kindred beyond the seas were enthusiastic to rush to her aid and defend her interests. It was an object lesson never to be forgotten that Canada and the other parts of the British empire sent their sons to the veldts of South Africa to fight for the common welfare of the British empire. The resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has been on the Order Paper since the first day of the session and hence the recent panic had nothing to do with its origin, but I think the House will agree with me that the existence of that panic had much to do with the interest taken in this discussion. The English are supposed to be the staidest people on earth, and yet it would almost seem that once in a decade or so they must get into some state of excitement, probably as a safety valve to keep them in their usually even frame of mind during the interval. There was a panic in England aroused by what was called the Battle of Dorking pamphlet, there was the Fashoda panic when some young French officer committed an indiscretion and the hot headed people and the excitable press of both nations were ready to fly at each other, but time has healed all that and to-day France and England live on terms of perfect amity. The present panic will, history repeating itself, be followed by others and so long as the instincts of the British people are as they are we may expect periods of excitement. To say anything detrimental of the British navy is a sore spot with every Englishman, and so whenever its supremacy is questioned there is likely to be excitement. Reading the history of the past we find there have been many scares of invasion in England. There was first the Armada, which miserably failed; then there was the Dutch invasion, but the Dutch navy, after a slight success and the British people found themselves, ceased to be a menace. Napoleon in the zenith of his power threatened to invade England, but it was but a threat, and so the present day scare of invasion will pass away and the British empire rise stronger and more glorious than ever. There is a matter which perhaps I am not competent to express an opinion on and it is this: Mr. WARBTTRTON.
We have heard much of Dreadnoughts and of the offers of some of the Australian colonies to contribute Dreadnoughts to the British empire. In the light of recent inventions and discoveries, it is just possible that the Dreadnought type of ship may not continue to be favoured very long. In our own recollection-and none of us are very old men-we can remember more than one change in the type of ships of war. In the early sixties, at the time of the civil war in the United States, the 'Merrimac' attacked an American fleet, which was supposed to be very powerful, and sank one or two ships, thus rendering obsolete all the fleets of the world at that time. During the Russo-Japanese war a few years ago, the Russian Admiral Marakoff placed his faith in the type of large cruisers which failed him, and now we have the very heavy type such as the Dreadnought. But many of the members of this House had the pleasure on Saturday last of listening to one of the greatest inventors of the day describing his recent discoveries, and speaking particularly of the airship. In view of the discoveries and inventions of the last twenty or thirty years, we cannot scoff at or belittle any invention. A few years ago any man who talked about transmitting messages by means of wireless telegraphy would have been looked on as a lunatic; and no one to-day can say that the warships of the future will not be airships. We know that the German government is experimenting along this line. In Cape Breton Dr. Bell and his associates are conducting similar experiments. It would not be at all beyond comprehension to suppose that one of these little airships might destroy a great ship of the Dreadnought type. So that we do not really know whether or not the vessels of this type are going to be permanent or not. It has seemed to me, ever since I devoted any thought to this question, that while we should take measures to protect our harbours on the sea coast, the real arm that we ought to strengthen is the military arm. I remember reading, in one of the speeches of Lord Roberts in Quebec last summer-and other men whose opinions are entitled to respect have said the same thing-that the great need of Great Britain to-day is not so much contributions of ships as contributions of soldiers to help her to fight her battles on land. She is very well able to take care of herself on the sea. The military arm of Canada has been greatly improved of late years until now we seem to have a real force. Possibly it may be necessary to spend more money on that force and on the protection of our seaports, and when we do that we do about all that it is possible for us to do. The British navy has held command of the seas for a century, and British statesmen say that there is no immediate probability

of her losing that command. So long as she can command the seas, the best assistance the outlying parts of the empire can render her is in strengthening the military arm and in protecting their own coasts.


Mr. GEORGE  H.@: BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.) Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I can add very little to the merits of this discussion, after the very eloquent speeches which have been made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and other gentlemen. At the same time, I feel that I would be derelict in my duty to my constituents if I did not endeavour to place before this House what I believe to be the views of the people of the city of Victoria and of the province of British Colum-bit upon this question. When the Pacific squadron was in existence, it had its headquarters at the town of Esquimalt, at a short 'distance from the city of Victoria, and practically a suburb of that city; so that the people of Victoria were brought into daily contact with the ofiicers and men, and had ample opportunity to judge of the ability and efficiency of the men composing His Majesty's navy. It was a sore blow to the people of British Columbia when the imperial authorities decided to withdraw the Pacific squadron from that port; but if that withdrawal should result in the Dominion of Canada using that point as a naval base for a navy of its own, it may prove to have been a blessing in disguise. Hitherto, the Dominion of Canada in this respect has occupied a humiliating position, because we find that practically every other self-governing colony of the empire contributes its proportion to the naval expenditure, while Canada contributes nothing. At the Colonial Conference of 1902 the Colonial Secretary declared that he had had an opportunity to communicate with the representatives of the different.colonies, and that all had agreed to make certain contributions except the Dominion of Canada, which he was assured was going to establish a naval force of its own. Yet at the Imperial Conference of 1907 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that Canada's contribution was the taking over of the Halifax dockyard, the negotiation for the taking over of the Esquimalt dockyard, and the maintenance of a fisheries protection service. With regard to the Halifax dockyard, we find by a statement of the ministers' own officials, that although it has been taken over, it is now being used only as a kind of glorified junk shop. I quote from the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1908 page 31, a statement regarding the dockyard and grounds at Halifax;
Dockyards and Grounds at Halifax.
The appearance of the naval dockyard and grounds was improved during the season. The dockyard is now used for departmental purposes in storing lighthouse material, buoy anchors, chain and lighthouse repairs and equipment.
That is one sample of Canada's contribution to naval defence. Taking up the other branch of the question, the fishery cruiser protection, what do we find? I cannot speak of those cruisers on the Atlantic, but we were assured to-day - and there was no contradiction of the statement-by the, hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that if any kind of a second or third-class cruiser of a foreign power should come to Canada with hostile intent our Canadian cruiser would show her heels and get into dock as fast as she could. As regards fishery protection on the Pacific coast, I shall not give you any words of mine, but quote again from the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1907-8, page 302. We have one boat out there, but I never heard her called a cruiser until I came down here. Regarding the steamer I find this stated in the report:
On the 28th, we visited Rock Fish bay. At 0.17 p.m., of this date we sighted a steamer fishing well inshore at the mouth of the Cum-shewa inlet. I immediately gave chase, but as they saw us at the same time as we sighted them, she at once ran in and picked up her dories and escaped before we could reach her; thus another valuable prize of $75,000 was lost for the want of a fast cruiser. This steamer proved to be the ' Manhattan,' owned by the New England Fish Company.
Again, in that same report, 1 find this statement:
I have the honour to submit the following prepared statement of the number of pounds of halibut caught in the waters of the coast of British Colombia by Canadian and United States fishing vessels, from January 1, 1907, up to and including the month of October, with comparative statement for the months of November and December, thus giving a statement of the total halibut catch in the above stated waters for the year 1907.
Total catch for year. Value.
Canadian	4,730,000 lbs.	$ 236,500United States	
30,854,164 "	1,542,820Total	
35,584,164 "	1,779,320
The fish above referred to were all practically caught in Canadian waters, or in other words, if there were cruisers enough to protect and keep foreign fishing vessels out of our harbours, and outside the 3-mile limit, said foreign vessels could not possibly have caught in the same time more than one-third of the above stated catch.
So that when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) or any other representative of the Canadian government says to the Colonial conference that Canada is doing her share of naval defence, by the maintenance of fisheries


Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE (Nicolet).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks on this resolution and to give my views on its intrinsic value and importance. The resolution brought before the House by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is drawn in a very able and insidious manner. It appeals to our national pride and sets forth the fact that our resources are diversified and abundant. This is a broad admission that the country is in a far better financial situation than it was when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had the management of the Finance Department, and I am led to presume that this is the reason why such a resolution as the present one was never brought to the attention of parliament during the Conservative regime.
I am thankful to the sub-leader of the opposition for this disinterested and sincere acknowledgement, which bears testimony to the prosperity of Canada under Liberal administration.

I fully recognize the immense progress which has been achieved in all branches of public service, under the wise and able rule of our Liberal administration. I realize with pride and admiration the great success with which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has administered the public money of this country, and I glory in the fact that with judicious economy he has had a considerable surplus over expenditure. I have no hesitation in saying that Canada has made a great step towards manhood and that the relations between our motherland and her greatest colony, are such as to let us anticipate, sooner or later, some change in the alliance between the two countries. I sincerely hope that a broad discussion of the most needed political changes will attract public attention to them and lend strength and importance to the movement in their favour because the political as well as the economical future of Canada must occupy a foremost place in the thoughts of those who have at heart the prosperity and greatness of our country.
What is the aim of the resolution now under consideration? Does it imply solely and directly the best interests of Canada or does it seek to afford military and naval help to England without any compensation? We have worked out, up to the present time, our own destiny and have enjoyed for many years past the utmost liberty, protected as we are by the British flag, I am happy to say. We have built up a great country and the energy and intelligence of the Canadian people have brought to completion gigantic enterprises which have evoked universal admiration. Our constitution, which derives its vitality from the fact that it is a shoot of British institutions grafted upon the federative form of the American constitution, gives us the utmost confidence in the final evolution of Canada into a great and prosperous country. I am an enthusiastic believer in the prophetic assertion of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who, in a patriotic utterance, exclaimed that the twentieth century would be the century of Canada, as the nineteenth has been that of the United States. But in the face of all this, are we prepared to affirm that our country has attained such a state of development, growth and wealth as to justify the hazardous policy which the present resolution calls for? No, I do not think so and I venture to say that Canada has now reached that period of evolution in which the whirling and acute activity of her citizens, the demands of her industries and commerce, the requirements of a more perfect state of civilization, ought to impress on the mind of the leaders that it is their duty to direct all their attention and all the power at their disposal to obtaining for the people of Canada a moral, intellectual and material bettering.
The immense area of our land, the vast resources which it contains and the diversity of wants demanding help and redress are so many reasons calling for the action of parliament and the influence of our capital. Canada's wants, at present, Sir, are too pressing to allow of the idea that we can afford to expend millions by assuming the responsibilities involved in the present resolution. Have we not our great northwest, to which every year thousands of immigrants aTe flocking, willing to add by their labour and their intelligence to the wealth of the country, if their products can easily and economically reach the great markets* of the world? It is true that immense sums of money have already been spent in the direction of securing a sure and direct transportation, in building our two transcontinental railways, but is this sufficient, is that all that is to be done towards giving to our northwestern population the facilities and accommodations to which they are entitled?
We know that hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain are left in storage in the west each year owing to the lack of proper transportation capacity. This state of things cannot last and has to be remedied in the near future by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The northwestern settlers are clamouring for an adequate and economical transportation route and it is but fair to listen to their demands and to put them on an equal footing with their American northwestern competitors. The construction of the Georgian Bay Canal has occupied and occupies yet, I am proud to say, a prominent place in the Liberal programme, and I have such confidence and faith in the judgment and foresight of our leaders as to be firmly impressed with the idea that, instead of sacrificing millions in the construction of battleships and arming our coasts to flatter the imperialistic propensities of those whose erroneous patriotic ideas have misled them, provision will be made to ensure the construction of this great waterway. Millions will have to be spent for that purpose, it is true, but this expenditure is fully justified by the extraordinary results it will have in developing a vast area where flourishing cities will rise, giving life, comfort and happiness to millions of people.
Sir, Canada, it seems to me, has done something towards uniting the empire and in favour of imperialism, by the construction of our two transcontinental railways. The shortening of distances between England and her colonies beyond the seas, the great facilities offered to the mother land in giving her the benefit of using our railways to transport her troops and war material across America, on Canadian territory, in case of need, ought to be considered a generous contribution, on our part, to the building of the imperialistic edifice.

Sir, it is not, I humbly submit, by military strength alone that the English empire is to maintain its integrity, its high standing, its influence in the world and is to continue its glorious course, but it is also and mainly by giving to the people of the colonies that which is dearest to all, freer institutions and help in the great struggle for the general prosperity and comfort. Thus, England will be sure to find in a happy and contented population a true and strongly anchored loyalty. These are the stoutest links in the creation of a sound and high spirited imperialistic union. Have we not the experience of history to prove the truth of this? One of the most apparent'causes of the downfall of the great Roman empire and others was the inauspicious influence and hard ruling of militarism.
Sir, there are other battles to be fought than those carried on over land and sea by armed forces. The pacific war now going on amongst all civilized nations, or in other words the competition existing in commercial, industrial and educational matters is warning us to fully prepare ourselves by prompting public opinion with a proper policy if we wish to keep our place and rank in the present tremendous stress of human activity. ' The nation which is not progressing is retrograding ' says Lord Rosebery. If, sanguine in our adolescent capacity or erecting a false and tyrannical patriotism, we allow our national resources to be squandered, or our energy to be misused, we will have to bow down before the wisdom of really progressing nations, less endowed, may be, than we are, and confess our great error.
1 am in favour, Sir, of having a sufficient fleet for protecting our fisheries, and nothing more, and I am sure in saying this that I substantially reflect the opinion of my constituents.
We of the province of Quebec love the mother land and our loyalty cannot be questioned, I am sure, except perhaps by those who delight in high sounding formulas of patriotism and believe loyalty to consist merely in extravagant theories and unfair exigencies. We are, Sir, proud to be British subjects, always ready to fulfil our duties as such, but we are before all true and staunch Canadians.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: At this late hour I do not wish to prolong the debate by any lengthy remarks. It appears to me, however, that several important questions have developed during the course of the discussion, and that whilst the original motion w'as couched in the mildest form possible, and calculated to bring before the attention of the House the question of naval defence and the urgency of matters imperial, with the condition of our forces as they are at present, still developments in Europe have brought about a new condition of affairs, Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE.
and it is necessary for this House, if possible, to give a stated opinion at an early opportunity as to its position, not only with regard to its own defence, but with regard to imperial defence. Let me point out that the lines of argument diverge. While the question of our own defence, is necessarily a portion of the imperial defence, the matter of imperial defence alone affects the situation particularly at the present moment. Several hon. members have laid out a plan as to what we should do in the future in the way of imperial defence and they have commended to us the plan of local defence such as they have adopted in Australia, which is 'a programme that requires a number of years to carry it out. I think there is no one in this House who will dispute the advisability of carrying out some such programme. But we find that peculiar conditions have arisen in the world's situation at the present moment, and that the mother country is threatened. While we are talking here, I am reminded of that old saying of Cicero: ' Gentlemen we deliberate, and Catiline is at the gate.' We are deliberating a great deal to-night as to what we should do six or seven years hence, but what the whole world is waiting to hear from us is a definite statement of what we are going to do in the present circumstances which have arisen in Europe.
Now, carrying out the idea first involved in naval defence for Canada, I do not see any reasons why we should not immediately institute some system of naval defence along the lines of torpedo boats, or torpedo destroyers, and idestroyer cruisers, which would be invaluable to us in case of war. A great many members suggest or imply that it would be impossible for us to build these at home. Now I do not wish to be considered local in any way, I have always taken a national or Canadian view of every subject; nevertheless, I may be permitted to say that within the riding which I have the honour to represent there is a shipyard wherein they) have launched ships over 500 feet in length, which is said to be the length of the Dreadnought. They have built ships, and they laid down the keel of one ship on the 26th of June last and launched her on the 1st of November, all complete, 375 feet long, 7,000 horse power, a 22 knot ship, with complete equipment, in that short time. If it was necessary for this government in ask them to supply four speedy cruisers 250 feet long, which could go through the canal, with a speed of 26 knots, I can assure you that I have it on the word of the men who designed these ships, and have built 22 steel ships' in the last four years, that it would be only a small matter for them to as-

semble the material, provide four ships and have them in the water by the 1st of October. The dock they use is 550 feet long, and would accommodate the Dreadnought.
I regret very much that as Canadians we have not fostered more this spirit of shipbuilding on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. We are now manufacturing steel, the best steel in the world. We have two large steel plants. The steel plant at Sydney is a greater plant than any they have in Great Britain with larger and better furnaces, and in every respect a greater and larger steel plant. They have had there, for four or five years, a plate rolling plant to roll plates for ships, which they have housed away and never placed, on the foundation, because nothing has been done to encourage this most important industry. 1 feel that we should seriously, as a House of Commons, consider the advisability of adopting some system whereby shipbuilding would be encouraged in the maritime provinces, and also on the St. Lawrence and on the Pacific coast. We find that Germany, whom we have heard mentioned to-night, up till seven or eight years ago when she began to build her own ships, purchased her ships in England. Now there are in Germany eight ship yards where ships are built, and we are assured by a no less naval authority than the 'Naval Annual,' that they can lay the keels for 12 Dreadnoughts at once and complete them inside of 24 months if necessary. We find that Japan at one time purchased her warships from Great Britain, but she 'realized the importance of carrying on this industry in her own land and she has established shipbuilding yards in Japan 'where she buiids her own cruisers and her own commercial ships. Shipbuilding is a splendid enterprise, an enterprise that gives employment to a great number of men and it is the greatest national enterprise that a country can have; greater than the manufacture of guns and weapons of defence. We should undertake the work of building carriers because the money that is paid to foreign carriers to convey our products from Canada to Great Britain and other countries is a large sum which we should retain in our own country. As I pointed out we should immediately assume the position of establishing a local defence of our own. Our local defence 'should consist of torpedo boats and destroyers, and^ they could convoy our merchant ships, in case of war, to England and save them from the attacks of cruisers. I think we are all presumed to be at one upon that question. Now, let us come down to a more urgent matter, and that is the question of what we should do in the present situation to assist the motherland. We find that Great Britain at the present
moment is undergoing what some hon. gentlemen are pleased to call a music hall scare. I can assure hon. gentleman, from my knowledge of the facts and from the correspondence of business men in England who have a knowledge of the situation, that it is not a music hall scare. The fact is that the supremacy of Great Britain on the sea is challenged. Another nation has laid down within the last year, and will have laid down by April of this year, the keels of twelve Dreadnaughts. These Dreadnaughts will all be in commission by 1912 and Great Britain's supremacy as a world power will at that moment cease unless she can not only keep up with the naval programme of this rival nation but go farther. The burden of such an extensive enterprise as the building of so many warships at such an enormous cost has achieved such vast proportions that the English people, looking at it from purely a business standpoint, have said: ' It is cheaper for us to carry on a war now.' That is the position they have assumed. They have at the present time a naval preponderance over any other nation in Europe which they will lose in four or five years, and it is necessary for the national safety if they are going to have war that they shall have it now. They will have to spend a great deal of money in carrying on a war at a future date because war will be just as expensive then, if not more so, than it is now. They reason that if there is war now they will wipe the fleet of any nation that dares to challenge their supremacy off the sea and have peace again for the next twenty-five years. Those are sound logical reasons. We find that, following any great question of this kind we certainly have the music-hall element, but we have now the colonies making a response to the cry of war and offering aid to the empire. We know that this is an occasion for offering assistance to the empire. It is true that we offered the motherland the assistance of our men, and our rifles, and when we offered the services of our young men to the mother country we offered her a greater sacrifice, something that was even greater in monetary worth, if you like to put it in that way, than even the building of a Dreadnaught. We gave that freely at that time. We did not say that it was something that we would do only once or that we would continue from year to year, but we recognized the necessity of the situation and we rose to the occasion and offered our young men. They proved to the whole world that they were able to hold their own with the best troops in the world.
I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Cong-don) express the sentiments that he did.
I have had the opportunity of reading books about the Yukon, although I have never been there, and I had thought that

the men of the Yukon were men with red blood in their veins, men who were prepared to defend their country and to protect her soil. Instead of that the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman sounded very much as if the men in the Yukon, who sent him here, would be prepared, when war raised its horrid front to dash under the barn or take to the tall timbers. Now, we have discussed this question and a resolution has been presented by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I trust that he will see his way clear to amend that resolution and I would ask if there is any self-respecting member of this House who is prepared to assert that we should only do a certain thing and go no farther. I feel satisfied that if war were declared the people of this country would be prepared to go to almost any length to maintain the integrity of the empire. Some of us realize that war is a terrible thing and my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has told us today that peace is almost impossible if England is in danger. If that great mother of nations,, the cradle of liberty, were threatened what would happen to us? Where would Canada be if England lost the command of the sea, if England's liberty were lost and if England became the colony of another nation? What would happen to Canada? Would not we also be penalized? If England lost the command of the sea and an indemnity were demanded would it not be the most natural thing in the world that the conquering nation would demand an indemnity in the shape of a colony? If, in the bargaining that goes on in the chancellories of Europe-and history tells us of many such bargains in the past in which colonies have been turned over to foreign nations-how would we look, having contributed nothing.to the common defence, if we found ourselves the colony of a European country? Whilst I agree with the right hon. First Minister that it is not necessary for us to enter into any obligations to contribute an annual sum, it is necessary for us to realize our duty to the country to which we belong and be prepared to offer not only men but money if necessary.


Mr. ERNEST ROY (Dorchester).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the speeches delivered this afternoon and evening on the important subject matter of the resolution submitted by the hon. member for North Toronto. I should also say, as a new member of this House, that the manner in which the debate has been conducted, has exalted in my eyes the action of parliament, and that I am happy to form part of a body in which Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
subjects of such high importance are so treated.
I find that all the members who have spoken on the question have come to the identical conclusion that Canada should contribute to the defence of the Empire.
The latter portion of the resolution submitted by the hon. member for North Toronto reads as follows:
Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
The hon. member's speech differs somewhat from his motion. He declared that not only should Canada have a navy to protect her shores and her large seaports, but that she should also help the empire in her wars with other countries. Should we. Sir, endorse such an expression of opinion? '
I love my country, Canada, and I know all she owes to Great Britain, but in such matters sentimental considerations may not be without danger. Before acting it is necessary to take into consideration the situation of Canada and all the special circumstances which surround the question.
It is said that Canada owes much to England. In what does the obligation consist? Especially in this, that England has granted us liberties which have enabled us to attain among the nations a position which is now beginning to be recognized as of importance.
It is also said that Canada owes much to England because the latter opens to us a very important market. True, but in this respect other considerations besides those of gratitude should be taken into account. When England first cast her eyes towards Canada it was not in a spirit of sacrifice but in a spirit of conquest, the object being to extend her commerce, her power, and her influence. It must not be forgotten that if the English market is open to Canada it is because England finds an advantage in purchasing Canadian goods. The advantage in this respect, being mutual there is cause for gratitude on both sides and the sentiment should be reciprocal.
It is said again that England has furnished us with millions which have helped to build our railways, to develop our territory, to excavate our canals and extend navigation to the interior of the continent. That is also true, but on the other hand Canada has proved a good field for the investment of English capital seeking dividends, and in this also we should be mutually grateful.
It is further contended that Canada should be grateful to England because of that military strength which has enabled us to develop in peace our natural wealth.

True again. But let us remember for what purpose England has sought to extend her influence to every part of the world. From east to west; it was because she desired to open to her sons-whose energy and gifts as a colonizing people cannot be denied-new fields in which those talents might be freely exercised and their rights undisputed. They have given to several countries of the world a progressive civilization and ideas of practical liberty, together with the advantages resulting from skilful administration and active trade. India, the Australian continent, New Zealand and several other countries are the living proofs of this. Thousands of England's sons come to Canada every year. We generously give them a peaceful home on the fertile western plains: they become sharers in our happiness and our wealth. And if on one hand we owe gratitude to England for the protection which has enabled us to develop our wealth, does not England also owe us some gratitude for the prosperity which her sons are to-day invited to share with us. It is right to place on each side of the balance that which pertains to each; doing that it will then be found that if England has done much for Canada, Canada, on the other hand, has done something for England.
All this leads me to say that it is not right to contend that Canada in the past has not done enough for Great Britain from a military point of view. The soldier who leaves his home and marches against the enemy offering his life for for his country, is a patriot whose heroism is highly praised. But what of the tiller of the soil whose corn feeds the armies and whose money supports them: is not his work at least as patriotic and as useful to his country? When we expended millions for the purpose of opening to agriculture the western fertile plains now becoming the granaries of the universe, were we dome nothing for the empire?
It has also been said that the amendment offered by the hon. the Prime Minister of Canada to the motion of the member for North Toronto, does not enunciate a well-defined policy nor entail prompt action in the creation of a navy. It is necessary in such a matter to act with great prudence and deliberation and to carefully consider all the circumstances surrounding us, before giving any exact and detailed statement of the policy which Canada should adopt.
We belong to the American continent over which prevails a principle called the Monroe doctrine. If I am not mistaken, that doctrine, much modified since its first enunciation, proclaims that no foreign power shall establish any new state nor make any new conquest on the American continent. Pre-existing colonies are allowed to remain
in the statu quo. Now, if we undertake today the creation of a navy in Canada and assume the risk of forcing this country into the militarist movement, it is to be feared that complications will naturally ensue. Our population is now seven millions, in twenty or forty years it may reach thirty or forty millions if the present rate of immigration is maintained. In a few years we will be a nation of some importance. Before entering into the military movement, we should weigh the inherent risks. Will other nations view our armaments with equanimity or indifference? Will the United States, ifor instance, witness without anxiety the growth, beside the vast power of England, of the military and naval establishments of Canada? Will Germany beheld without emotion the military organization of Canada upon the lines of an old time European power? I do not think so, for whenever a European state increases its means-of attack or defence, the diplomatic body becomes visibly perturbed, and cabinets study that important event which is invariably regarded as an act of aggression towards other countries.
What I have said does not imply that Canada should not adopt military measures for the defence of her coast and of her territory.
I may, with the hon. member for North Toronto, deplore that in the 20th century, and in our advanced stage of civilization, we should still be face to face with the military problem and obliged to expend such large sums of money for warlike "purposes. It is true that for two thousand years Europe has accepted the Christian rule and that the Decalogue proclaims to the nations 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.' Yet it cannot be denied that Christian nations who confess that creed still spend the greater part of their revenues and of their time in preparing for wars of defence or of aggression, for among them the idea of conquest still obtains. Defence naturally implies the idea of conquest on the part of the enemy. We must no doubt regret that in spite of civilization, nations cannot live in a manner more perfect and practice without fear of violence those principles of justice and equity which the Decalogue teaches, but Canada being a nation surrounded by other nations whose interests may conflict with her own, is bound to provide means of defence.
How should this be done? I say that the matter should be very carefully considered. The pretext of defence should not induce us to exhaust the sources of our energy. The expenditures must not be so great as to place us in the dilemma on the horns of which the European nations now find themselves. We must not for that purpose so

deplete our budget that nothing will remain to favour the emigration from Europe of those who might find here bread that is difficult to come by in their own overpopulated fatherlands. We must, therefore, act with prudence.
I question whether it would be wise to declare that Canada is ready to commence the immediate organization of a navy and to enter at one into the military movement.
Should Canada assert her intention to take immediate action on this matter, is it not to be feared that certain European consular bodies might take umbrage at this move of ours and should deem it advisable to rush conclusions in order to thwart this new element of contract ? Much could be said on this point. Let Canada organize a naval force to protect her coast line and her sea ports both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific; no one objects. But there is more to be be considered. If we say, in addition to the policy already laid down, that this force not only shall defend Canada, but must also take a part in Britain's wars, even those wars in which we are not concerned at all, then I say, Sir, that we are assuming much of a risk. My words are here nothing but the expression of many another one's opinion. When the day comes that we shall undertake all of Britain's wars, we shall incur the hostilities of other nations and open ourselves to their attacks. Their first care will be of course to neutralize our means of action by destroying our fleet, which we will be unable for many years to come to put on a sufficiently powerful footing to meet their attacks.
The attention of certain European countries might also be drawn upon us by this policy, and they might find it advantageous to set all possible means at play in order to keep our country from enlarging the scope of her influence, or to seize her, or to parcel her up in some way, before she has become too strong. Mr. Speaker, the bearing of the decision which we are called upon to take on the resolution of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is all the more apparent that Canada is not at present threatened with war and in fact has none to fear, because, as I said before, we are protected by the Munroe doctrine. I admit, however, that this is not sufficient to allow us to sit down quietly. We are compelled by self-respect to do something to protect ourselves. Nevertheless, the Munroe doctrine imposes upon the United States the obligation of protecting us against the attacks of conquering spirit either from the east ot from the west. Is it in the interest of the United States to seize Canada ? I hardly believe it. Why should it ? Is it not getting along or. friendly terms with Great Britain ? Does not the occupation of Canada by Great Britain make it sure for them that Mr. EOT.
she would defend her colony against any foe from the east ?
I will not keep up this debate any longer by my observations. I say in short that I don't believe it is necessary that we should state in the resolution that such action must be immediate. The important point to assert is that everything which will be attempted in that way will be undertaken only after formal understanding with the British military authorities, in order that means of defence will be designed, which at the critical moment will offer adequate co-operation to the mother country. I do not think it is fair either to say that Canada has done nothing so far tc, help the mother country. If she did not contribute directly by her money, she did it in another way by the wohderful development she gave to her territory.
There is no immediate danger of hostilities. It is true that in the past few years, the leading nations of Europe have made what may be termed extraordinary expenditure towards the defence of their respective possessions. It is true that Britain who has so far held the undisputed supremacy of the seas, might be led to think at times, owing to the stand taken by other nations, that this supremacy is attempted to be wrested from her, but it must not be forgotten that Britain's superiority is acknowledged not only in her military force, but also in the strength of her diplomatic corps. She has been seen for a great many years to have nothing but internal wars to fight, such as that for instance, which she fought lately in South Africa. She has rather acted as a charming mediator between nations which did not always agree and which have waged war against each other. After all why be "more pessimist than Britain herself, when she does not foresee any immediate danger. What she wishes us to do, is to get up a naval force, which will be in a position to defend Canada when attacked.
Britain sticks to the policy which she formerly laid down towards her colonies. She says :	I give you full power of governing yourselves ; now that you are a nation, do as a free nation would.
This House is no doubt unanimous in its opinion that Canada should get up a naval force which will enable her to rank first among the nations, and thus command that respect which otherwise she would not command from those nations having hostile intentions against her. This unanimous feeling is the best evidence of the enlightened patriotism with which we are actuated.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
and Canada had made the same assertion. I pointed out that this allegation was erroneous and that Canada had relieved England of certain naval expenditures which England formerly bore. By the treaty of 1818 it was stipulated that the Americans would have the right to take fish within the three mile limit in Newfoundland and the Canadian Labrador. This was a treaty which had been made by the mother country without the consent of Canada, because in those days the consent pf Canada was not asked to such a treaty. From 1818 to 1873, except during the years the reciprocity treaty was in force, the duty of the protection of our fisheries and the enforcement cf the regulations was assumed entirely by ihe British fleet. That was a duty which would have entailed on the British treasury the expenditure of a large sum of money. At one time not simply one vessel but several were assigned to the protection of our fisheries. In 1870 we established a marine police as an auxiliary to the British vessels engaged in that service. But after the denunciation of the treaty of Washington, from 1886 until to-day Canada has assumed alone all the responsibility of protecting her fisheries, not only on the Atlantic coast, but also on the Pacific coast; and since that time we have spent for the protection of our fisheries, on our hydrographic survey, which also was formerly carried on entirely by the British fleet, and for our wireless telegraphy service, which of course did not exist before, no less a sum than $5,186,701.16.	.
Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman, for information, whether expenditures of this character, if there be such expenditures in Great Britain, are included in the sum mentioned as the total naval expenditure of Great Britain?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Mr. COWAN.: Is it not a fact that since thenl these items have been excluded from the naval expenditure?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not say whether these items have been excluded or not from the naval expenditure of Great Britain. I am speaking of what happened at the imperial conference. It was stated that Canada was not expending anything on the fisheries protection service, and I thought it my duty to call the attention of the members of the conference to the fact that that



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
statement did not represent the situation exactly as it was. I do not know whether any change has been made since, but I am convinced that the naval expenditure of Great Britain to-day includes not only the construction of ships, but also the fisheries protection service, the hydrographic survey and the establishment of wireless telegraphic stations.
There are some other services which have been taken over by Canada. Reference has been made to the stations of Esquimalt and Halifax. It is true that the transfer of Esquimalt has not yet been completed; but I expect to be able to report in a very few days that the matter has been entirely closed up, and that the expenditure on that port will in future be carried on by the Canadian government. The Halifax station has been handed over to us temporarily for a special purpose. The understanding or contract between the imperial government and the Canadian government with reference to that station has not yet been signed, as it will require legislation by the imperial parliament; but I understand that this legislation will probably be passed at the present session of that parliament. Lord Tweed-mouth stated on the 30th of July, 1907, that the cost of the establishment at Halifax had been £31,600 and that at Esquimalt £27,300, or a total of £58,900, or about $300,000. Provided the Canadians kept up those two docks and harbours in proper condition, he said, they would be doing a very great service to the empire at large.
Mr. SPROULE.: Was that the ground on which wei were to take them over-simply that we were to keep the docks and shipyards in an efficient condition?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Mr. BARNARD.: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
George Henry Barnard: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: vast resources and vast wealth to co-operate with the empire in order to maintain forever the supremacy of Great Britain at sea.


Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT (St. Hya cinthe).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, in introducing his resolution, the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) laid down the principle that the physical or material power of a nation is the basic principle and the means by which it secures its development and its civilization, while preserving thereby its acquired wealth.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that such a principle will prevail so long as the present method of settling international disputes obtains.
But he will agree, I hope, that such is not the rule of equity applicable to conflicts arising between private individuals, between groups of population, or between cities and provinces.
He will agree that, because a man is endowed with greater physical strength than his neighbour, he is not entitled to claim larger rights before the courts of the country, or under the laws which govern the home administration in all civilized countries at least, and to the framing of which the hon. gentleman has himself contributed, in his capacity of an old parliamentarian, inspired no doubt by that pre-mordial and true feeling of wisdom and equity which governs all right-minded men.
I shall revert later on to this aspect of the question. Let us for a moment review the question, from the standpoint of the existing relations between the various nations.
Now, from that latter standpoint, I see no more immediate danger than opportunity, which should induce us to subordinate to that principle the national undertakings now under way.
Without stating it in explicit terms, the mover of the resolution before the House wishes to make a direct offer to the British Admiralty. His position in this regard coincides with that taken by a good Toronto paper, the ' News.'
That newspaper recently published two articles, one of which relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the other bearing on the question which is before us.
As a heading to the first of these two articles, there was a cartoon representing our Finance Minister extracting from the pocket of another individual representing Canada, certain sums of money intended ffjr a third individual personifying the Grand Trunk Pacific. The conclusion of tliat article as also that of the cartoon used as a heading was a blame directed to the Canadian government, on account of the expenditure incurred for an undertaking which, however, is of a national character. The second article had as a heading a cartoon representing New Zealand and Australia eager to bring to Great Mr. BRODEUR .
Britain those pretty boats called ' Dreadnoughts.' Then, in the background stood an individual representing Canada, viewing that spectacle, motionless and impassive.
The conclusion of that second article and the accompanying cartoon was a blame inflicted to Canada for hesitating to incur the necessary expenditure so gratifying to Great Britain.
Now, without applying too strictly the principle that ' well-ordained charity begins at home,' which savours of egotism, I disapprove of this newspaper who shares in the opinion of the member from North Toronto trying to subordinate our own national undertakings to an undertaking which is to be carried on a territory altogether different from our own.
And should some overzealous minds be scandalized at my statement, let me remind them that the first Lord of the British Admiralty, Sir Reginald McKenna, has himself recently stated that the British navy was so far ahead of its rivals that there was no immediate danger. Closer to us, one of the leading minds in this House, the member for South York, made from his seat in this House, on the 11th of February, 1907, the following statement:
' I am one of those who believe in Canada first and empire next.' With the exception of the member for the Yukon, no member of this House has made a more categorical statement.
The ' Saturday Review,' of London, stated at the same date, that it was high time for Canada to think of using her own treaty-making power.
Therefore, I do not stand alone here in protesting against imperialism and militarism. As to us, French Canadians, our adherence to British interests is grounded on reason, which is more lasting than mere sentiment, as may be gathered from the history of the American colonies. Those who would rather make a gift to Great Britain than coming to her assistance in time of need, evidently abdicate the faculty of discussing certain events which have arisen in the past history of other nations and may arise here in the future, and I for one do not wish to divest myself of that privilege.
Our sympathies are grounded on the proverbial British fair play, evidences of which Great Britain has given us in the parliamentary system granted to us under the successive Acts passed in 1774, 1791, 1840, and 1867.
Perhaps the most regrettable event which has ever marred our relations with Great Britain was the violent character of the means resorted to in order to quell the insurrection of 1837, at a time when Great Britain had in her power and at her mercy a few powerless insurgents. Even from the standpoint of British diplomacy, toleration

and humanity would have been the wiser course to follow; and one would have first to eradicate from the hearts of the Canadian people an inborn feeling, should one expect these events to be mentioned without stirring up some painful recollections.
But between Great Britain and us there has been laid the foundation of generous compensations. We have learned how to forget, in view of the liberal treatment above alluded to.
Such adhesion on my part, however, restricted it may be, but resting on the above stated grounds, may perhaps carry more weight with and be more acceptable to those who hear me, than a sweeping and unqualified approval, the grounds of which would be likely to breed suspicion or could not be accounted for.
With the above qualifications thus frankly stated, I may now examine the question before the House.
One of the first points that call our attention in the resolution before us is the financial liability involved in the application of the principle extolled therein.
The combined cost of the British Army and Navy is in round numbers $400,000,000 every year. .
Is Canada prepared and willing to contribute her proportionate share to such an expenditure to be incurred every year?
The surpluses accumulated within the last few years are no longer sufficient to meet our national undertakings. While in England, recently, our Minister of Finance had to negotiate a loan for the purposes of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Georgian Bay Canal, a scheme which is perfectly practicable in a near future, may probably call for further loans.
I am far from posing as a financial expert, but I may state here that I do not see any other means of meeting the foreshadowed expenditures than by adding to our Customs Tariff, at least the 3:07 per cent taken off, within the last twelve years, a reduction which I think has benefited the whole people of Canada, or else by raising some special taxation.
Is the contribution to the Imperial Navy of such an opportunity that the Liberal Government of Canada should believe themselves justified in changing their fiscal policy, approved of by the electors of this country at the polls at four general elections, and on grounds whiqh have not been submitted to the consideration of the Canadian electorate?
On the other hand, are the citizens of Toronto, Hamilton, London or Sarnia more willing than the citizens of Montreal, St. Hyacinthe, Three Rivers or Quebec to submit to that special taxation or to borrow from Great Britain in order to make a gift to Great Britain.
Still, I for one am willing to make all those sacrifices, but only for the purposes of the creation of a navy to remain under our own exclusive control and for us alone, and by means of which we may, when opportunity offers, lend our help to Great Britain whose prestige is for us a guarantee of security.
Coming in such a way to the assistance of England would be more useful and more satisfactory to us, the more so as we should then avoid pledging our future.
Although in principle I am disinclined to give my support to any expenditure of a military character, still one must take into consideration the conditions of equilibrium between the different nations, and so long as those conditions are not settled in a more desirable way I am willing to give my consent to any necessary sacrifices for the protection of the country.
Without entering here into the question of universal peace, a system which is by no means impracticable, but which may for a long time remain a speculative question, one may at least express the opinion that, should the different nations devote to that purpose one half of the sacrifices made and efforts put forth to secure the triumph of their respective claims without always inquiring as to the proportion of equity they contain, they would secure greater advantages and more wealth than are reaped by the victorious nations themselves from present conditions. I am far from pretending to be familiar with universal history, but I am free to confess that should anyone be able to single out even among the most powerful nations one solitary example of a people for which war has not proved the worst of evils, he would reveal to me a fact, the existence of which, as a modest student of history, I have never had the least suspicion. Victory and even conquest which is sometimes the sequel of victory, constitute but a partial compensation for losses resulting from the clashing of navies and armies.
England and France are the two countries which have played the most prominent part during our era. Stupendous as has been the work of England, as we all readily admit, I do not think that a single decade has elapsed in her history without her having had a war to sustain.
As to France, after so many quarrels and struggles, she does not own to-day a single square meter of territory more than she possessed 1,400 years ago, under her fourth king.
But such is not the question we have to examine now, at a time when some feverish individuals seem to hear rumours of conflicts, which is always an opportunity for starting a movement of a similar nature to the one which is now in full swing. One must take into consideration the pre-

sent conditions of settling conflicts between nations.
So long as powerful nations shall not take a serious and effective lead in compulsory national arbitration; so long as it shall be considered proper to submit to a disinterested third party and to no other the dispute arising between two private individuals, while refusing to apply the same measure of justice to the quarrels between nations; so long as governments whether democratic or autocratic, shall bind their subjects by laws to which they themselves refuse to submit; so long as it is conceded that there is more of right and justice in a fourteen-inch gun than in an eight-inch gun; so long as right shall be might in international matters, we are bound to make the sacrifices necessary for our own protection, but let the fruits of those sacrifices remain under our own control. That is the most rational method we can adopt of helping Great Britain and it is in the interest of both parties that we, a nation in course of formation, should avoid the less reasonable method of offering sums of money to the British nation whose energetic efforts have been accumulating for centuries such colossal wealth.
My conception of patriotism may differ from that of several members of this House. There enters a good deal of narrow egotism in the ordinary feeling called by that name. It consists in a sort of nepotism of family preference applying to the nation and which, it seems to me, should make way for the far more attractive humanitarian concept. After such a declaration on my part, which, I hope, will be considered sincere, I will not, I suppose be accused of national prejudice.
On the contrary, I am desirous, in all loyalty and with the assurance that my action will not be misconstrued, to offer friendly co-operation to the sons of that British race who in two leading events of their history and in the evolution of their nation, have secured political and civil liberty at less heavy a price than another great nation in an identical attempt made later on.
The Anglo-Saxon in Canada is the equal of those of his race, both in England and in the United States; he is proud of his past and desirous of casting aside all that may impede his progress; there is nothing to prevent our working together, our interests and aims being in the main identical.
It has often been pointed out that there are between us differences of language, creed and tradition, but with similar differences of race, small countries such as Switzerland and Belgium, who have neither our great rivers or extensive plains, have secured the respect of the world at large and a prominent position in industrial, mental and moral development.
The present question has no reference to matters of language, creed or tradition, it Mr. BEAUPAELANT.
refers exclusively to the nature, conditions and advantages of our political relations, and to the control to be exercised over any given portion of the empire. In this I feel sure that my opinion will be shared by the majority of English-speaking members in th is House. A people numbering among its leaders such men as Gladstone and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, who so ably advocated the cause of home rule for others, cannot object to the principle of home rule when applied to ourselves.


Wilfrid Laurier: The suggestions which have been made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition are such as can be accepted by this side of the House, and I have no objection to adding the words, so that the resolution will read as follows:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service.
With regard to the paragraph stating what we have already done in alleviating the burden of the British taxpayer, there is no objection at all to striking that out. I therefore move the amendment in the following form:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted thereto:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial n^vy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the ad, journment of the House.

35G6
Robert Laird Borden: I suppose to-moT-row we take up the Grand Trunk Pacific proposals?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 30, 1909.