1910-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 157) for the relief of Cecelia Marie Pringle.-Mr. Price.
Bill (No. 155) to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908.-Mr. Fielding.
Bill (No. 156) to incorporate the Weyburn Security Bank.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 69) respecting the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Neely.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. GEORGE A. CLARE (South Waterloo).: Mr. Speaker, for reasons known to you and to many members of this House I have not for some time taken part in the discussion of any of the important questions which have come before us; I have contented myself on each occasion with giving a silent vote, so that at least-. I would be on record in reference to the-various matters dealt with by this House. I would prefer to do this even now, but the question before the House is so momentous, and so far reaching in its'effect that I consider it a duty to myself, to my-

constituents and to Canada to say a few words in it. I beg of you to bear with me for a few moments while I explain my position.
Before doing so I would like to say a few words of the people whom I have the honour to represent in this House, the people of South Waterloo. They are composed of many different nationalities, the English, the Scotch, the Irish, the German, the Hollander, the Russian, the Austrian, the Swiss, and many other different classes of Europeans. We have in the southern part of my riding, the intelligent and sturdy Scotchman, who has settled the township of North Dumfries, and made of that township a veritable garden of beautiful homes and beautiful farms. We have the tenacious, enterprising Englishman, we have the brave and open-hearted Irishman, we have the peace-loving, honest, and thrifty people who speak the German language, whether they be German proper, Pennsylvania Dutch, Amish, Mennonite, Hollander, or Bohemian, people who have asked no special privileges from the legislature of this country, who have adapted themselves to the conditions in this country, and who obey its laws. Besides all these people, we have the admirable young Canadian who can hold his own anywhere in the world. Through the assimilation of all these nationalities, there are to be found in the county of Waterloo-and I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) will pardon me if I speak of the county as a whole- a population unexcelled, yes, I believe, unequalled, in this Canada of ours. They work together, they are friendly with one another, they assist one another, and they have made Waterloo county a hive of industry. Their manufactured goods are to be found throughout the length and breadth of Canada, so that the name Waterloo is a household word with the people throughout this country. There are no better farmers, and no better tilled farms. But, above all, these people of different nationalities, who have made this country their home, are loyal Canadians, and, as such, proud of the great empire to which they owe allegiance.
Mr. Speaker, my parents were born in Germany. They were proud of the country from which they came, but I believe they were prouder of the country which they made their home. They instilled into me a feeling of love, affection and attachment for the great country of their birth. Forty years ago the German empire was a number of scattered provinces. By uniting, these became a great nation. Through its educational system, through its technical schools and through the policy of protection inaugurated years ago, Germany has become a great .manufacturing country. They are a business people and Mr. CLARE.
in their state-owned utilities they have shown what a nation can do. The state-owned utilities of Germany, run and managed by the civil service there, have brought in immense revenues to the country and have reduced taxation accordingly. The imperial government of Germany and the governments of the several states of that empire, through their various state-owned business, cleared for the people in 1908 no less a sum than $277,385,095. Here are some of the items:
The leased lands of Germany are worth $198,122,725, and they produced an income for the people of $7,925,309.
The forests of Germany, worth $730,898,200, brought in, over and above all expenses, $29,235,938.
The mines of Germany, worth $128,907,725 brought in $5,116,309.
The German state-owned railways, worth $4,706,904,750, have shown the enormous profit toi the people ol $189,916,190.
The state-owned telephones, telegraphs and express and mail services within the German empire worth $694,816,650, earned for the people $27,792,666.
Other state-owned utilities worth $435,184,900, showed profits of $17,407,476.
Bavaria, one of the provinces of the German empire, pays 39 per cent of the cost of administration from the profits of its state-owned utilities; Saxony, in the same way, pays 31 per cent; Wurtemburg pays 38-7 per cent; Prussia, which forms five-eights of the empire, pays 47 -36 per cent of its public expenses from the profits of state-owned utilities. The state . of Prussia enjoys an income from its state-owned utilities of no less than $176,000,000, which is more than twice the amount of all taxes of that state, amounting to only $85,000,000.
The German empire and its people, in the management of their public utilities, are an example to the people of Canada. They are, above all, an example to the Minister of Railways of this government who is managing a state-owned railway at an enormous loss. The German people excel in literature, in art and in science. The population of Germany is over 65,000,000, and, as has been stated before in this debate, it is increasing at the rate of over 1,000,000 people a year. They have a large and growing foreign trade. Their merchant vessels are seen on every sea. And, like the people of Great Britain- for they are in exactly the same position-the German people with this 1 immense foreign trade must have a navy to protect that trade. As the trade increases, the number of merchs&it vessels must increase, and as the merchant vessels grow in number so must the war vessels grow in number. But do the people of Germany want war? Do the people of

England want war? I. say, no. For these great business and manufacturing countries, these peoples who compete in the foreign market there is no danger of war except it be a commercial war, a war which might occur through competition. This might lead to .actual conflict. In the past, these two great nations, Germany and England, have never warred against each other; they have been firm allies in many wars for the upbuilding of humanity.
I have had the pleasure of visiting both Germany and England several times. As a public man I have tried to find out the views of those people upon the question of war between these two great countries. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the people of this country that as far as the educated and working classes go in Germany, they have a perfect respect and love for the English nation. This may not be universal, there may perhaps be exceptions in their army and navy of which I do not know. I say again and I cannot help it, I have a feeling of attachment to the great empire of my forefathers. If you do not love your country either you, or your country, are no good. You, Mr. Speaker, and your compatriots, have a feeling of love and veneration for the great country of your forefathers. You are interested in the traditions of France, you are proud of its marvellous people and the wonderful good that they have done in the world, but being proud of that country, being proud of the country of your forefathers, does not prevent you from being proud of your adopted country; in fact, I believe it makes you feel prouder of Canada, the country that you have made your home. The French and the Germans will always stand for Canada and its interests. The majority of the people of this country will do their duty to Canada, to the empire and to His Majesty King Edward VII. We are one people and one people only, and the only way in which we can differ is as to how we can best do our duty to the great empire to which we belong. The Prime Minister, when introducing this Bill, charged the opposition, and I was sorry to hear it, with having differences of opinion on this great question. He charged that in the ranks of the opposition there are differences of opinion. I want to say to him that there are. No great question has ever come before the two great parties in this country without differences of opinion. I am rather proud of the fact that in the Conservative party, amongst eighty loyal citizens of this country, there were differences of opinion as to how best we could serve our empire. On the other side of the House they have differences of opinion too. But they must-do as they are told, and I believe that when the vote is taken every hon. gentleman opposite will support the government in its policy.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Hear, hear.


George Adam Clare: Yes, you can cheer, but 1 believe what I tell you. While the Prime Minister can make you vote as he pleases, he cannot make you think as he please 3 There have been no two speeches delivered on the government side of the House which have not shown greater differences than have been shown on this side of the House. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) lias told the Prime Minister and his supporters what he thinks of England. He said that we owe them some respect, but we.owe them nothing else, because they have not paid us more for our grain or our produce than they have paid to the people of the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Huron says that we owe nothing to England. There is no loyalty in him. He says: I must say nothing for England, and then he tuirns around and says to the people of Canada: I will vote for a large expenditure for a navy which will be no good to this country, which will be no protection to this country and no protection to the British empire. What is this navy going to be for? Is it going to protect us against Patagonia or Uruguay? This navy will never protect us against any self-respecting nation. I have stated, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the majority of the people of this country are loyal citizens of Canada and the empire. I want to say the same thing about the members of this House. I believe as. a whole that the members of this House are loyal Canadians and if there is a doubt on this question, if there is a doubt that there may be a single man who may be disloyal to his country, that doubt has been forced upon me by the Prime Minister himself, in speeches in the United States in which he said he preferred the American dollar to the English shilling. I do not like to talk of these things and in spite of these statements I am ready to believe the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is an honest man, is loyal to this country and is loyal to the empire. While I admit that he is loyal, I claim that he has^ made many, many mistakes in his public career, and I wish to recite a few of them so that we can afterwards decide whether we are right-in accepting his judgment on the Navy Bill. When the "great statesman, Sir John Macdonald, introduced a Bill for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, providing for the building of a road from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where did we find the present Prime Minister? Why, Mr. Speaker, he was opposed to the policy, he did not believe in it. Pie and his party said the road was going through a sea of mountains. The Conservative party and Sir John Macdonald lived in hope and they believed that this enterprise .would be a good thing for this country. They carried it in spite of the opposition of the then

Where do we find the Prime Minister now? He is following in the footsteps of that great Conservative leader, and he is imitating him in the building of a railway across the continent. The right hon. gentleman had no opposition from this side of the House on the question of building that railway, but we differed with him as to the manner in which it should be built, and events have proved that the Prime Minister was all wrong, because we have all seen how woefully he was mistaken- in his prophecy as to what that railway would cost. Then, there was the movement for commercial union, and the right hon. the Prime Minister persuaded the greater part of his followers to support a policy of commercial union as between the United States and Canada and against the empire. I do not know whether that was disloyalty or not, but I do know that it was sailing mighty close to disloyalty. But, I thank God. and I believe the Prime Minister to-day thanks God, that his policy did not prevail.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am very sorry to have to point out any defects in the great leader of the Liberal party in this country, for no one admires him as a man more than I do. But, Sir, I feel it my duty to point out these defects and I cannot help saying further, that in this naval policy of his he has made the greatest error of all the errors in his political life. The navy which this government is going to build will not be effective, it will not protect our Canadian shores, and much less will it be of any assistance to the British empire. This navy will be no protection to Canada; it will be an expensive luxury. We have no guarantee from the right hon. gentleman and his eovernment as to what the navy will cost, because, judging by past experience, any estimate they may give is not reliable. In addition to all other defects in the policy, this navy may lead us into difficulties with countries nearer home in a way which we now do not foresee. I read in the newspapers since this Bill was introduced that an application had been made to the government by some of the states bordering on the great lakes to have the privilege of building warships, and the probability is that this is suggested by the example of Canada. I believe, Sir, that if the greatest care is not taken there may be danger of complications between these two nations, and in that way the navy proposed by the government is a menace to us. As to the cost of the navy, we have the statement of the government that in the initial stage it will amount to $15,000,000 for construction, and that the up-keep will cost us ,4,7,000,000 each year. Of course, this cost must increase enormously; Canada will have to keep on building snips and opening, shipyards, and there is no knowing


George Adam Clare: where our financial liability is going to end. We know that some fourteen years ago we expended on the militia of this country only one and a half million dollars a year, but to-day we are spending seven million dollars annually, so that for the up-keep of our militia and onr navy we will have an annual charge at the lowest calculation of $14,000,000, which, of course, is bound to increase as the years go on. I do not think there is any man on the government side of the House who will deny that in a very few years the expenditure of Canada for warfare will be at least $25,000,000 per annum. And, Mr. Speaker, what does $25,000,000 mean? It means that if we placed $25,000,000 per annum at the disposal of the Minister of Finance he could go to the money markets of England and borrow between $800,000,000 and $1,000,000,000, which would represent enough money to rebuild the whole British navy. That is what we are going to expend in this_ country. It would mean that the Minister of Finance could take that money and build the Georgian Bay canal, and deepen and extend the Welland canal, and buiid the Hudson Bay railway, and two or three transcontinental railways, and still have some money left in the treasury. I am opposed to this navy. As I have said, it will be no protection to Canada and no protection to the empire. And, Sir, the people of Canada, the voters of this country, the people who make and unmake governments, should be treated fairly in this matter and should be consulted. I appeal to the Prime Minister of this country that he should in all fairness withdraw this Bill and consult the people of Canada first, and if the people say: we want a navy


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


George Adam Clare: Yes.


Murdo Young McLean: Does the hon. gentleman propose to transmit $25,000,000 to Great Britain


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Adam Clare: The hon. gentleman cannot put words in my mouth that I did not utter.


Murdo Young McLean: I did not put words in the hon. member's mouth; I simply asked him a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Murdo Young McLean: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question?


George Adam Clare: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am entirely opposed to that enormous expenditure. Is that what the hon. gentleman wants to know; I could not hear his question?	.


Murdo Young McLean: Did I understand-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Clare) has the floor and cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Murdo Young McLean: I am simply asking a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Waterloo cannot be interrupted when he has the floor.


Murdo Young McLean: I simply wish to ask


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Mr. CONMEE.: The hon. member for Waterloo


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


George Adam Clare: Mr. Speaker, I would
have been pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member for South Huron if I could hear it, especially as it comes from a man who says that he knows of no duty that we owe to the empire, and who is prepared. Mr. Speaker, to vote $15,000,000 now and $7,000,000 a year for all time to come for a navy which is no good to the empire, but that does not matter much to him.


Murdo Young McLean: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. The hon. member for Waterloo cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Murdo Young McLean: Well, I am asking for his consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Murdo Young McLean: Mr. Speaker, I desire


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have already told the hon. member that the hon. member for Waterloo has the floor and cannot be interrupted.


Murdo Young McLean: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Adam Clare: I have never yet, during the ten years that I have occupied a seat in this House, interrupted any gentleman, and if an hon. gentleman was not in good health, I would do my utmost to assist him. Mr. Speaker, how can we best do our duty to our empire? You know my position now with regard to the navy which is to he constructed in Canada. You know that I do not believe in it. You know that I do not believe that it will be a protection to Canada, or of any assistance to the people of this country. But we should consider and weigh carefully every step that we take in this important matter. The first step is to consult the people of our country; but there may be another duty that we owe before that, and I believe there is. A great many of the people from Europe who have come to this country appreciate the freedom they enjoy in this country from military restrictions and burdens which they experienced in their own countries, and their anxiety is that their adopted country may not repeat the mistakes that those European countries have made. This does not mean that they are not prepared to defend their homes and their country.
Now, is there a way to help the British empire, and do what she asks us to do without committing this country at this time to battleships and to war? I believe there is such a possibility.- The Finance Minister of this country should put into the estimates at once a sum sufficient to build on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, dry-docks for the accommodation of our own shipping trade and large enough to accommodate the largest warships of the British empire. That is what Lord Tweed-mouth at the colonial conference in 1907 asked the colonies to do. He spoke as follows:
Then I would like to say a single word on the further point of the provision of docks; and coaling facilities in the colonies. The enormous development of the modern warship entails important consequences. These great modern warships require large docks to contain them. I think we are getting on well with the provision of docks. At this moment in our own country and abroad, we have, I think, thirteen government docks which will take in our largest ship, the Dreadnought. I think in the course of the next two years, we shall have four more, which will make about seventeen altogether. But it is very desirable that we should have, in all parts of the world, docks which could take such great ships, supposing they were to meet with an accident or were to receive damage, in war.
I ask this government to provide sufficient funds to commence immediately the construction of these great docks, which will no doubt cost a good deal of money, but which will do more for the defence of the empire than the money which the government to-day propose to expend and will at the same time develop our own material resources.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would direct our energies in such a way as to secure for ourselves a foremost position amongst the nations of the world and build upon this half of the continent an active, manly, industrious, intelligent and progressive people, ready to protect their homes, and ready and willing to min with Britain

in the defence of the empire. I believe that the best way of preparing for our defence is by steadily, and rapidly, developing the arts of peace-by peopling the almost boundless virgin lands of Canada with a teeming population, of the best agricultural classes, ready at all times to defend their altars, their institutions, and their homes; to encourage and to build up immense manufacturing industries, which will not only supply the wants of our agricultural population, and afford them a profitable home market, but which will also use up our rich resources of raw material, and export abundant quantities of fully manufactured goods to every quarter of the globe. To this end would bring the wide borders of Canada into closer communication with each other, and with the world, by improving and multiplying our avenues of intercourse-our transportation facilities -by land and water, internally, and by the sea until we should have not only an unrivalled internal transportation system (for which nature has in such generous measure endowed us) but a merchant marine, as well, carrying the products of our farms, our fisheries, our mines, arid manufactures, to the markets of the nations, and successfully competing for a share, and a large share, of the carrying trade of the oceans. To this end, I would especially encourage the development of our mines and the industries incidental to mining, increase harbour and transhipment facilities, build dry-docks, and restore to Canada again in ships of steel, the ship-building industry she enjoyed in the days of wooden vessels. In a word, I would develop the material resources of Canada all along the line, maintaining as far as may be,
. peace within her borders, and food, and raiment, and contentment, within all her homes. Canada within the empire, and of the empire, pursuing peace and giving no ground of offence, but still ready to protect our homes, our country, and our empire.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House has listened with interest, if not with considerable surprise, to the new doctrine just laid down by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). That hon. gentleman, seems to consider it a crime for members on this side to express their united approval of the Naval Bill proposed by the right hon. the leader of the government. My hon. friend seems to consider the op-* position position a most happy and! fortunate one-a position in which every man thinks as he pleases, in which every one has a policy of his own, and the eonclusionj of which is anarchy. Well, if the position of members on this side, who are unanimous in their support of the government proposition, be slavery, then, I say, give me slavery.


George Adam Clare: *


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: And if the position in which hon. gentlemen on the opposite side find themselves be freedom, then, I say, I want no such freedom. It is rather singular to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite expressions of approval of their divided position on this question. They seem to think there is some merit in it. That certainly was not the stand they took a year ago when this matter was discussed on the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). It certainly was not the position held by the hon. the leader' of the opposition (Mr. Borden) at that time, for I have his words here as reported in ' Hansard ' of March 29 last:
I come now to a consideration of the resolution moved by the right hon. gentleman, and I will say that with many portions of it I am in entire sympathy. But I would like to make one or two suggestions to the right hon. gentleman, and I do not make them in any party or carping spirit, because if there is one thing more than another I would desire, it is that the policy of Canada on this great question and the resolution announcing it should meet with the absolute and unanimous approval of this parliament and country.
That is the position which the leader of the opposition took with reference to the necessity for unanimity, and that expressed apparently the general desire of the House last year when the question of defence was first introduced. The general opinion then appeared to be that the parliament of Canada should present a solid front on this question, not only to the people of Canada, but to all the nations of the world which might be interested in what Canada should do in this matter of imperial defence. I want to ask a question-and I think it is one we have the right to ask and demand an answer to-who is responsible for the receding from the position which the members of this House took last year on the resolution of March 29? Who is responsJ ible for the receding from the position of unanimity, which then seemed to be the desire of hon. members on both sides? I am sure that I am stating what cannot well be gainsaid, when I say that among hon. members on this side, when the House prorogued last year, as we wended our ways to our several homes, there was in our* hearts a feeling of contentment and satisfaction that on this great national question, this question as to what Canada should do in the way of assisting in imperial defence and towards maintaining her own integrity as a nation and defending her own coasts,1 both sides of the House had been unanimous in supporting the resolution we had adopted. Have the Liberal party in this House, have the members of the government receded from the position they took last year on this question? I say they have not. The right hon. the leader of the gov-

eminent has introduced a Bill exactly along the lines suggested by that resolu-. tion,


Six WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: And exactly in harmony with the conclusions arrived at by the delegates of this government who were sent to consult with the imperial authorities as a result of the passing of the resolution of March 29 last. Why, then, do we find this change of attitude on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite? What is the reason? Some of them tell us that the proposals of the government are not in harmony with the resolution passed on the 29th March of last year. But, Sir, the insurrection had begun, the defection from the resolution of March 29 had been completed, before the government brought down its Naval Bill.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: This House had hardly risen last year when from various political quarters there were murmurs of dissent, which gradually ro.se to clamour and then became a storm of disapproval on the part of certain political gentlemen who occupy seats opposite, against the resolution they had agreed to unanimously last year.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: Then, to crown it all, there came" the announcement from the hon, member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that, so far from continuing to support that resolution, he was opposed to Canada doing anything whatever towards the defence of Canada or the empire. That is the situation to-day, and it is one these hon. gentlemen cannot get out of. As I have listened to the debates in this House from day to, day, I have not yet heard any good or valid reason advanced for this political somersault which these hon. gentlemen have performed. So that, so fax as unanimity is concerned, I think that we on this side have decidedly the best of the argument. What was the position when this House rose last year? We had passed a resolution calling for the -speedy construction of a naval service for the defence of Canada and to aid in the defence of the empire; but certain gentlemen opposite, after they had taken a little further time to consider, evidently came to the conclusion that they had made a political mistake, or a mistake of some kind, and revised their views, and came out, in favour of another policy-the policy of a direct contribution to the British admiralty. It is useless for hon. gentlemen opposite to try to mislead the public as to what they understood by the terms of the resolution of March 29, 1909, because we have the statement of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) after the House rose, not on
one, but on many occasions, as to what he understood the terms of that resolution to be. On July 1, in London, the hon. the leader of the opposition, addressing the Colonial Club, used the following language:
Some feeling was created in the British islands owing to the fact that Canada had not by resolution or by speech from the Prime Minister vouchsafed the offer of one, two or three Dreadnoughts. He (Mr. Borden) thought the resolution in the form in which it was passed, while its terms might not upon their surface seem as significant at the moment as the offer of one or two Dreadnoughts would have been, laid down a permanent policy for the Dominion of Canada, upon which both parties united, and which would serve a more practical purpose than any such offer of Dreadnoughts.
That is the position taken after the House had risen last year by the leader of the opposition. But this was not the only occasion. Speaking at different places throughout this country the hon. gentleman, and also the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) took exactly the same stand. So I say that these hon. gentlemen must not attempt to lead the country to believe that they did not understand the effect or the intention of the terms of the resolution of 1909.
We all know the history of the question of defence in its relation to the resolution passed by this House last year. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) introduced a resolution relating to the defence of Canada. This was on the order paper month after month, and was finally brought to the point of. discussion, amended in a form that was finally agreed upon by the Prime Minister, and the leader of the opposition, and adopted by the members of this House unanimously. That is, briefly, the history of the introduction of the question to this House. There can be no question, but that the members of this House understood the purpose and intent of the resolution passed on March 29, last year. What is the position taken by these hon. gentlemen to-day? It was of great interest to members on this side of the House, and I am sure to the people of Canada generally, to watch the movement in the various political quarters, after the House adjourned last year, that movement which was ultimately to lead to an absolute reversal of policy on the part of the opposition. My personal sympathies were very largely with the leader of the opposition, because I could see the enormous pressure that was being brought to bear on him from various sections of his own political camp. The hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Molloy) in his speech last night, gave us an indication of where this insurrection in the ranks of the opposition party commenced, and the position of the leader of the opposition in this political

crisis in the history of his party was one that certainly commanded, I believe, the sympathy of every member on this side of the House. He was something like the leader of the Israelites in the days of old when he brought his people up to the banks of the Red Sea, hedged in by the terms of the resolution of 1909, confronted by a cold sea of dissent as represented by the attitude of his political allies in Quebec, and behind him, Sir, an insurrectionist horde, who shouted out at the tops of their voices:	Give us Dreadnoughts, or, as
patriots, we die. That was the position in which the leader of the opposition found himself a few months after the close of this House last year. That was a crucial moment in the political career of the hon. the leader of the opposition. The eyes of all Canada were attracted towards the hon. gentleman to see whether or not he had the strength and the stamina of the statesman, the strength necessary to resist this tide of insurrection. Sir, it seems apparent from the attitude he has taken on this question that those instruments of torture so feelingly and lovingly referred to by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), the rack, and the thumb-screw, and the composing-room were too much for the strength of the hon. gentleman, and I say it advisedly he was compelled to strike his colours. The result to-day is that we have two policies-shall I say two, more likely two dozen-because while we have on this side of the House one policy, and one policy alone, a Canadian navy, to be constructed in Canada, to he operated by Canadians as far as possible, to be under the control, and jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament, we have on the opposite side of the House almost as many different policies as there are members on that side. Is it a crime to be unanimous in support of the policy of the government on this question? Just consider what the position of the Dominion of Canada would be to-day with a great question of such vital moment to this country before the government for their decision if, instead of the present government, we had on the treasury benches the hon. gentlemen who are now sitting, to their very great regret, in the cold shades of opposition. Where would the country be, where would this House be on this great question of national defence? One policy by the leader of the opposition, another by his chief lieutenant in the province of Quebec, and still other policies from his- other lieutenants from the other provinces of Canada. I say, Sir, it would surely not be a happy position for this country or for this House if these gentlemen had the settling of the question of Canada's policy on this great subject of national and imperial defence.
The policy laid down by the House and Mr. NEELY.	!
the government last year was intended to be the permanent policy of the Dominion of Canada on the question of her contribution to her own and to the imperial defence. I submit that this new departure, the doctrine of a plebiscite, the doctrine of submitting this question to the people of Canada as to what shall be done, has no bearing whatever on the question now under our consideration. We did not hear a word about a plebiscite in March of last year-not a single word. Hon. members who spoke from the opposition benches seemed to consider it a national duty, seemed to consider it a responsibility of which we, as the parliament of Canada could not divest ourselves [DOT]-namely, the duty of policing the seas for the protection of our own marine, our sea commerce and the coast line of this Dominion. They then represented not a question for reference to the people but a question lying wholly within the authority and competency and responsibility of this parliament. In view of the attitude of the two parties on this question, in view of the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition and his followers, and the attitude of the government in support of the Bill which has been introduced let me ask the question: What good do hon. gentlemen opposite expect to result even supposing the question of defence were submitted to the people? Hon. gentlemen opposite have a policy of their own, a policy of contributing $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 at once to the British admiralty to be used in strengthening the British fleet. Surely, they do not expect us to take the position that, if the peope are not willing to support the proposition of a Canadian navy they are willing to support the proposition of a direct contribution. For, in one case, we are interpreting the national duty, or what this House last year unanimously declared to be the national duty. These hon. gentlemen propose to take $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 of Canada's money and send it across the sea where it shall be *spent absolutely regardless of the voice of the people who sent it. I say that is1 a new proposition-that there should be a plebiscite on the question of a Canadian navy and no plebiscite on the question! of a contribution. Now, if it be conceded that, if there is a plebiscite it should cover the whole ground of the question of what course this parliament should pursue on the question of defence, the ballot paper presented' to the people of Canada would certainly be a very complex document. We should have a series of questions :
1.	Are <you in. favour fof a Canadian navy, or are you opposed to a Canadian navy?

2.	Are you in favour of a direct contribution to the British admiralty for the strengthening of the British fleet, or are you opposed to such a direct contribution?
3.	Are you in favour, or are you against, both the establishment of a Canadian navy and the giving of a direct contribution?
4.	If in favour of a direct contribution, how often should we give it?
Then, we might throw in a question for the benefit of the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) who seems to have grave doubts as to the loyalty of a large section of the people of Canada: ,
5.	Are you in favour of the empire, or
are you against the empire?	'
That would settle in that hon. gentleman's mind the question whether a large section of the people of Canada are or are not loyal to the British flag and the British Crown.


Mr. EDWARDS.: The hon. member might submit that to the leaders of the Liberal party. That would answer my purpose.


David Bradley Neely: I have not heard the leaders of the Liberal party ever express any sentiments similar to those expressed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). And I want to say, as a Liberal, that I resent the imputation made in this House in a speech of that hon. member when he undertook to insinuate that the followers of the Prime Minister in this country in the province of Quebec were not loyal to the British Crown.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit do-wn.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule of the House is well known. No -hon. member can be required to answer any question. Nor can he be interrupted except to order, or for a personal explanation by his .consent. Otherwise, he has the floor.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker,-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member (Mr. Neely) consents to a question being put to him-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself to you.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) raises a question of order, he should be heard.


William Cameron Edwards: I am rising to a question of privilege. The -hon. gentleman has said that-*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Edwards) must be allowed to state his point of order.


Mr. CARVELL.: He does not say it is a point of order, but a question of privilege.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He must be allowed to speak.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member (Mr. Neely) has misrepresented me as stating that the people of a large section of this country are disloyal. There is nothing in my speech to justify that statement, and I have the right to ask the hon. member either to substantiate this charge by quoting the words I used, or else withdraw his charge.


David Bradley Neely: I think I have a fair un derstanding of the ordinary words of the English language. I have listened to the hon. member's words, and I have read and re-read his words in ' Hansard,' and I cannot come to any other conclusion than that I have stated. If the hon. member states that he did not mean that, that he was not trying to cast a reflection on the loyalty of a large section of our French Canadian people, I shall be compelled by the rules of the House to accept his explanation.


William Cameron Edwards: I would simply refer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) to my own remarks in answer to the statement he has made-
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) refers to his own words, he must be allowed to state his own interpretation of them. If he wishes to give his words a meaning, he must state what that meaning is.


William Cameron Edwards: I emphatically declare
Some hon. MEAIBERS. Order.


David Bradley Neely: Air. Speaker

Some hon. MEAIBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for Frontenac (Air. Edwards) has risen to a point of order.


William Cameron Edwards: I have asked the hon. member (Mr. Neely) to withdraw his statement to the effect that I charged the people of a large section of this country with disloyalty. I never made such a charge, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.
Some hon. MEAIBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Air. Edwards) says that he has made no sucli statement. His statement must be accepted


David Bradley Neely: I said, before the hon. gentleman rose, on this question of privilege, that if he repented of the apparent meaning of his words-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Bradley Neely: I was perfectly willing to accept his statement.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you. I contend that the hon. gentleman must withdraw his statement, and I ask your ruling.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Bradley Neely: Well, when I was interrupted-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Withdraw first.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask your ruling?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I presume the House wishes the rules to be observed. I have tried this afternoon to have them enforced. When a statement is made by an hon. member that a certain meaning was attached to his words, his statement must be accepted. The hon. member for Humboldt will have to submit to the rule.


David Bradley Neely: With all deference to youT ruling, Mr. Speaker, I do not see in what respect or particular I came under the rule df the House which you have quoted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


David Bradley Neely: As far as the hon. gentle* man is concerned, I made the statement that if I understand the ordinary meaning' of the English language, and I think I do,' my interpretation of the hon. member's words, and the hon. gentleman's words as recorded in ' Hansard,' is that they impute disloyalty to a large section of the people of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask your ruling again.	-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. I have stated what the rule of the House is, and I presume the House wants the rule observed'. The moment an hon. member states that he meant or did not mean a certain thing, the interpretation placed upon his own words by himself must be accepted. That is the rule of the House. The moment the hon. member for Frontenac has made that statement, his statement must be accepted.


David Bradley Neely: I stated before-Mr. SPEAKER.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The only thing is to accept the statement.


David Bradley Neely: I stated I was quite willing to accept the hon. gentleman's interpretation. I am still free to take the position that the hon. gentleman chose the wrong words and the wrong phraseology altogether to express his intention.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker, I submit that I have the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member for
Humboldt has accepted the hon. gentleman's statement. I understand.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not so understand it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He certainly can proceed to discuss the speech of the hon. member.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not so understand him.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. member for Humboldt to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac.


William Cameron Edwards: Very well, if you so understand it, I will accept your interpretation.	,


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not think that the hon. gentleman has accepted it. He accepted it in the first place and then immediately afterwards reiterated his first statement. I do not regard that as-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: I was stating


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker has decided the question.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman will take his seat until the point of order has been discussed and settled-


David Bradley Neely: It has been discussed and settled.


Robert Laird Borden: No, it has not. I was raising a point of order to this effect, that although the hon. gentleman did make a pretense of accepting, he, nevertheless, immediately afterwards reiterated his first statement, and I do not think, with all deference, that that is the way in which an hon. member's statement in this House with regard to the meaning of his words ought to be accepted.


David Bradley Neely: Where is the point of order? The hon. leader of the opposition insinuates

that I made a pretense of accepting the statement of the hon. member for Fronte-nac. I submit that his words are out of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is no use of trying to evade the rule of the House. A statement of the meaning or intent of his own words made by an hon. gentleman must be accepted.


David Bradley Neely: Mr. Speaker, having got round this somewhat difficult point of order-


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Bradley Neely: If the hon. member for Frontenac expects me to make any further statement on this question he has my statement now, and that is the only one that I shall make with respect to the matter. I have told him that I am perfectly willing to accept his interpretation of his own remarks. I also make the statement that that was not the interpretation put upon his words by myself and a large majority of the members of this House.


William Cameron Edwards: You dare not quote my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


David Bradley Neely: When I was interrupted by the hon. member, I was referring to the complex situation that would be brought about in this country, if we submit the many policies which have been propounded in this House to the people of Canada for their decision, and I was proceeding to mention that one of the questions that would have to be inserted would be the question as to whether or not we were against the empire, to meet the point raised in this discussion as to the interpretation to be placed upon the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac. I submit that it is a fair proposition that if anything is to be submitted to the people of Canada every phase of this question ought to be submitted, and how much further ahead would this House or this country be by a referendum of the whole question of imperial defence? The only reason at all that I have heard from the benches of the opposition as to their complete reversal of policy on this question was the somewhat novel statement made by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) who told the House, as his speech was interpreted to me, as I unfortunately do not understand French, that he voted last year for the resolution passed by the House because the Prime Minister said that there was a German peril. But this year he would vote against the establishment of a Canadian navy because he understood that the German peril was
over. While that may be a very novel explanation for the hon. gentleman to make to this House, it does not meet the case as far as other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are concerned, because the only reason that has been advanced by the opposition why they have made this right about face on the question of Canada's defence is that they claim there is an emergency in the affairs of the empire, and that Great Britain is subject to imminent peril by the construction of an enormous fleet of battleships by the people of Germany. Suppose we take the position of the hon. gentleman for granted, that there is an emergency, that there is a crisis in the affairs of the empire? Do these hon. gentlemen undertake to tell us that a contribution of $20,000,000 is going to materially affect that crisis or that emergency? Do they mean to tell us that a single gift of $20,000,000 is the margin of safety between the British empire and the power of the German navy? It seems to be the position taken by these hon. gentlemen that the margin of safety for the empire is a gift by Canada of $20,000,000.
If they do not hold to that position they must take the other, viz.: that if $20,000,000 is not a margin of safety we must continue this contribution periodically. I submit that not a single member of the opposition has answered the question asked by the member for Red Deer early in this debate:	What is their future policy
on the question of Canada's part in the defence of the empire? The other day the member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) told us that we on this side were raising a fictitious objection to a contribution when we said that a contribution savoured of tribute to Great Britain. Now, I want to press home this question to hon. gentlemen opposite: if the policy of a direct contribution is adopted as the permanent policy of this country, then these contributions must become periodic, and in that light I do say that they become a tribute on the people of Canada for the support of the British navy. We will either make this contribution as a duty, or as a matter of charity, and I do not think any man in this House will say we are doing it as a matter of charity. Then, if we do it as a matter of duty it certainly becomes a tribute from the people of Canada, and as such it is a case of taxation without representation. Now, suppose for argument sake we take it for granted there is an emergency as hon. gentlemen opposite have told, us, where was that emergency in March, 1909? Were there not the same conditions existing in the affairs of the empire in March, 1909, as at the present time? And, if there is a peril, or a menace from the growth of the German navy, and if that peril becomes greater as the years go by shall Canada be called upon next year, and the year

after to furnish further sums of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 by way of contribution to the British fleet? My very strong objection to the policy laid -down by the leader of the opposition is that in order to be effective- and these hon. gentlemen are very handy with the word ' effective ' in declaring that the Canadian navy cannot be made effective-my objection to the policy of the leader of the opposition is that if a contribution is to be made effective it must become the permanent policy of the country to contribute periodically a certain sum. Mr. Speaker, my very strongest objections to the policy of direct contribution have already been stated and restated to the House, but I may say that the very strongest arguments advanced against the policy of contribution have come from hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. When the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) introduced his resolution last year he took very strong ground against the policy of direct contribution by Canada to Great Britain, and I shall quote from his speech one or two brief sentences merely to emphasize the position I now take. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) in discussing the policy of a contribution said:
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 wC 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.
Further on he said:
The interest that we take in a contribution spent by another is not the interest that I desire for Canada.
And Sir, I want to say that the last objection taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) against the policy of contribution appeals very strongly to me. The member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) at the conclusion of an able address on this question expressed very eloquently his feelings of loyalty and patriotism towards the motherland, and he said: I
I have unbounded faith in my King and country, and undying belief in the empire to which I belong. Let the British navy continue to be the floating bulwark of our land and her parliament our guiding star. The most effective contribution we co-uld make, and one which may never need to be repeated, would be to give to England's navy two Dreadnoughts. Then if you must build a navy, submit the whole question to the Canadian people. I am prepared to assist in maintaining the splendid inheritance received from our forefathers. I love my country, I believe in her, I honour her, I am prepared to work for her, to live for her, and, if needs be, die for her.


David Bradley Neely: 

products of western Canada can be shipped to the British market. On behalf of the people I represent, I shall support the policy of the government, which means the development of Canada's own resources by Canadian money, and the giving of an opportunity to the young men of this country to follow a career on the sea in the defence of Canada and the empire.


Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville).: 

COMMON c

[Stage Direction]
ask them to protect us. I am, therefore, proud to be able to support the amendment of the lion, the leader of the opposition, because that resolution states that we are willing to do something right now, we are willing to say that we will have in that great navy two Dreadnoughts, and that as soon as we can get the young men trained we will man those Dreadnoughts with Canadians who will take their place in the front ranks of the great battle, should war occur. It is my hope and wish, as it is that of every Canadian and of every man in the British empire, that war should not come. But the very fact of having a great navy will preserve peace in the future as the navy has preserved peace in the past. I shall not take up more time; I simply rose to make these few remarks and to explain why I did not wish to give a silent vote on this question.
Mr. HONORE GERVAIS (St. James, Montreal).: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the many services which have been render-ered to Canada by Great Britain, some of which have been mentioned by .the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid), I shall not say much, as I agree with that member on that point. I agree also that Canada owes a debt of gratitude to England for these services that have been rendered her in the last hundred years. With regard to the third question which has been raised by the hon. member, the question of the kind of contribution that Canada should give to England, I ask the hon. member for Grenville to agree with me in the position I take and which I shall explain as I proceed. Canada, as I shall show, is ready to grant to England the kind of aid that has been, agreed upon between Canada and England. With these few remarks, I proceed to explain the vote that I intend to give on this Bill (No. 95).
Mr. Speaker. I took a great deal of interest, in the debate which took place in this House in March last, upon the resolution concerning the aid to be given to Great Britain for the strengthening of the British navy. It is now proposed that Canada should take a step further in that direction, and the government asks parliament to crystallize that resolution, and give it effect by the passage of this legislation entitled 'an Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada'; and a subsequent resolution providing for the expenditure necessary for the establishment of that service. By the 53rd clause of this Bill, the government will be empowered to organize a permanent volunteer naval force, at its expense, the ships to be built in Canada, manned and commanded by Canadians, or commanded by officers appointed by Canada, to defend Canada, first, and.assist England in its defr in Mr. J. D. REHX
case of need, under the command in chief of the King, as is required by the political status of this Dominion.
Sir, let me explain some of the many reasons for which this Bill should be passed:
During the recess of parliament a rather lengthy conference between the representatives of the British government, and of the self-governing colonies was held in London to determine the kind of aid that should be given to England. This conference was the natural outcome of previous meetings held between some of the British ministers and the representatives of the most important of the three classes which we find amongst the 80 colonies or possessions under the sovereigntv of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The universal policy of the world is shaping itself towards the supplant ing of territorial, or local, or internal trade, by a general or universal trade, or in other words a maritime commerce.
The government is to-day, asking the representatives of this country in this House assembled, to declare themselves on the programme which they are presenting for the creation of a naval defence in connection with the large maritime trade which Canadian merchants are building up. As a representative of the most important city of Canada, the commercial metropolis, and the greatest national port of the Dominion, I cannot give a silent vote upon this great issue.
I owe it to my constituents of the city of Montreal, and I owe it to myself to explain, through what process of personal reflection, through what conception and reasoning, I have, freely, independently from all passing pressure and unlinked to any superior influence, formed my opinion upon the plan which the government has submitted to us.
I do not expect to satisfy the expectations of everybody with my declarations and my vote, but, I at least, hope that, those who after mature reasoning, while not thinking as I do, will feel bound to admit that, in so doing, I have nothing in view but the welfare and greatness of my country.	*
Allow me then, Sir, to indulge in a brief retrospect of the work and progress of some of the great empires of the past, and the greatness of which was based on their maritime trade. Some of my hon. friends have already quoted from the lessons of the past, and I have listened to their statements with great pleasure; because the past will always be for mankind the best teacher. In anything we do, whatever may be our differences, divisions and strifes, we are nevertheless bound to seek, in the past, for our safest methods to solve the problems of the present. History

there teaches us that the greatest and the richest and the happiest nations have been those which gave the bes% of their energies and wealth to the building and maintenance of a great maritime commerce, through the equipment of both a merchant fleet and a war fleet. Allow me to remind you briefly of the best illustrations, which occur to me, of the soundness of my views, Athens, Lacedaemon, Crete, Lesbos, Chios, and all the Greek cities and colonies, were nonentities in the political world until, through a skilful and costly combination of forces, money and ships, and under the guidance of an Athenian admiral (if I am permitted to use a modern term to designate its commander) they put to sea a fleet, powerful enough to repulse Asiatic barbarians and other foes. So long as, but not one minute longer, than they had the most powerful fleet, the Greeks were the governing political leaders of the ancient world. Greece was at its political zenith between the time of the battle of Salamis, and that of Aegos-Potamos, which are the Alpha and Omega of their political and commercial pre-eminence. Rome was a second-class power before the battle of Antium, or, so long as the Romans could not send vessels to conquer Carthage and Asia Minor, and could not rule on the sea a3 they did on land. During the feudal ages, Venice and Genoa were the supreme arbiters of politics in Europe, just because they were the undisputed masters of the Mediterranean. The most prosperous cities of Europe, during the 400 years from the 12th to the 16th century,^ were the eighty free towns, holding meetings of their delegates, every three years, either at Lubeck, or Cologne, or Hamburg, for the purpose of assessing the contribution of each town, of securing new trading privileges, and of better defending both old and new ones. Neither a mon-archial state, nor a polyarchial state ever enjoyed a greater amount of respect, of prestige from the other monarchies or republics, than those eighty cities composing that quasi-state known, as the Hanseatic League. I contemplate with wonder the enormous waste of human energies and wealth which went to create, upon the ruins of the empire of Venice, that other great Portuguese empire, which was the ruler of the world during the 15th century, just after the discovery of the route to the orient via the Cape of the Tempests, to use the description of Camoens. And then, upon the partition of the unknown world by Pope Nicholas V, in 1454, and Alexander VI in 1493, Spain reached out for America, and astonished Europe by the vastness and richness of her new discoveries. Spain reigned supreme in Europe, during the 16th century. The Netherlands got the monopoly of the trade of the world, during the 17th century, through the audacity, activity
and devotion of its mariners. France, during the 18th century, was the arbiter of the maritime destinies of the world, and it was not until then that she was recognized as the dominating political power in Europe.
England came, after Trafalgar, to become as she remains to-day, the ruling state of the world, just because of the indisputable supremacy of her fleet. But, to-day, other states are organizing merchant fleets, and as a direct consequence, war fleets. Our age will witness the competition of a number of maritime states for the trade supremacy of the world. There are to-day thirty states out of forty-eight going into the maritime trade, and the destinies of the world can no longer rest under the power of a single state. The world's richness is no more to be the easy field of exploitation by a nation having a few thousand daring mariners protecting a great many more thousands of thrifty factors, merchants, traders and shippers. Every state seems ready to send its young men and even its older citizens to conquer the wealth of the unexplored, or undeveloped countries. A universal thirst for business and its profits, for gold, is manifest in every quarter. And in every state there is-and" it is quite natural-a tendency to equip on the seas, a fleet of both merchantmen and warships to defend its interests; the one cannot go without the other. States of to-day are getting more and more commercialized and are preparing themselves to compete for the partition of the universal wealth of the world. But such competition, while it may be friendly at the start, must prove eventually hostile. After the tariff wars, one may easily foresee the wars in which predominance is to be determined by the guns of warships. England is confronted to-day with such a condition of affairs, and Canada cannot longer ignore the situation. The so-called German war scare is but one of them, though I must remind you, Sir, that amongst German officers to-day it is customary to offer a toast to ' The Next Meeting,' meaning on board of the first captured English battleship.
It is at this turning point in the life of England and Canada, that we are invited to consider the possibility of future political difficulties. To make Canada ready for any emergency, several policies are proposed. What are they? The first is: the presentation of two Dreadnoughts now, and then, resting on our oars to await adequate results from an unknown policy of defence. The exponent of the policy is the honourable the leader of the opposition. The second is:	Canada is to play
the 'manly part,' and very naturally its sponsor is the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The third proposed is to do nothing until a plebiscite is had, with 1 a declaration of unalterable devotion to the

British Crown as an assurance policy; and, according to the words of that official publication of the late Mr. Hansard, its father is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who, after a six months' canvass, has found a few thousand persons, mostly youths, out of 2,000,000 in the province of Quebec, to support his views. Under the fourth head may be classified ten or twelve other varied and variable policies, that I beg leave not to expound, as they are mostly founded upon newspaper quotations, poetical recitations, and historical misapplication. Are all those plans as clear and terse and patriotic as that of the government? I venture to say, Sir, they are not. The first two policies are undefinable, impractical and, therefore, negligible. The third one is illogical and illegal, as it is a denial to this House, acting upon a five-years' mandate, of the right to spend one-thirtieth of the revenues of Canada for its defence, when this House might if it chose waste the whole revenue in buying peanuts. The cabinet, in order to meet the wishes of England, now proposes to this parliament to vote an expenditure of $12,000,000 to build ships once and for all, and to pay for their maintenance yearly, something less than $4,500,000. This, therefore, means a yearly expenditure of one and one third million dollars for maintaining and manning ships, the construction of which has cost $4,000,000.
The purpose of the government plan is obviously to provide a plan of defence for Canada and of help to England, according to the wishes, amounting almost to demands of the latter, which I take to be expressed, conclusively, in the reports of the Naval Defence Conference of 1909, and the circumstances surrounding the same.
Now. Sir, should we resist these desires of England? I have waited, a long time, before giving my very modest view about the solution of this problem, for a great political and economical problem it undeniably is. I say at once, that it is a question to be decided, not according to race, nor religion, nor historical prejudices, but according purely and simply to the teaching of reason, of law, and of devotion to the best interests of our dear country. To begin with, I must, according to my mind, explain the political status of Canada. in relation to the foreign states of the world, and to England, and the definition of that status will go a great way to show that Canada is not free to reject the requests of England. I must say, that I do not agree with most of the speeches, writings and editorials, which have been written, during the last half century about the great amount of independence enjoyed by Canada. I admit that England has been good enough, during that long period, to let our authors, newspapermen, and orators, fell the people of Canada that they were Mr. GEEVAIS.
perfectly free and independent of England, and that they were their own masters, both in regard to England, and the other states. This, according to my mind, has been a rather equivocal statement of the position which Canada occupies to-day, both in relation to England, and to the other states.
I know it is rather hard and humiliating to say those things to my fellow-citizens, but just the same I feel bound to say it for the purpose of pointing out what is the duty of Canada to-day with regard to the request which is being made upon her by England to assist her in the coming commercial battle. I venture to state that Canada, in this year of 1910, according to the teaching of international law, is simply a province of the British empire, having no status whatever with regard to foreign states. Our country does not possess any of the characteristics (which number eight or ten altogether), of what is called state, and which make an aggregation of people irresponsible to any human power, but-to use a phrase of the fifteenth century-' Responsible only to God.' If I examine the classification of states, I am forced to admit that our country is neither a sovereign state, like England; nor a semisovereign state, like Bulgaria was; nor a neutral state, like Belgium, nor a state under protectorate like Tunis; nor even a tributary state like Egypt. Comparison of conditions is here of a great benefit to teach our citizens the truth about their reduced political rank in the eyes of the world. With a political organism subject to the caprices of the parliament at Westminster; without power to make its territories productive by foreign trade; without jurisdiction to pass undefeasible laws; unable to protect its citizens abroad before judicial or administrative authorities; unable to ask for marks of respect; unable to send diplomatic agents; unentitled to foreign recognition; incapable of making treaties, unable, unless authorized to do so, to issue letters patent of command either to army officers or to navy officers even to defend her own territory; here stands Canada to-day, calling herself a nation. By telling my fellow-citizens what we really are, I hope I may convey to them the aspiration of being what they might be. While I am making a rather poor picture of the personality of Canada to-day, I am bound to think that this naval move will tend to increase tremendously the importance of our country, and that is why I am in favour of the passing of this Bill. .
Canada to-day has not even the right to speak to a minister of foreign affairs, even through her Prime Minister, unless the latter has been clothed with a letter patent issued by the British Minister of Foreign Affairs. So much so, is this, that during the negotiations of the Franco-Canadian

treaty, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, and the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, had to be authorized very minutely by England to speak to the Minister ot Trade and Commerce of France, and had to be introduced to the latter by the British Ambassador, in Paris. Let me cite, as the only fact which gives to Canada, what may be styled a recognition by a foreign power, that clause of the Franeo-Canadian treaty which allows an employee appointed by Canada to certify bills of lading, or certificates of origin of goods, which may have a legal value. That is about the limit of the action of our country in relation to foreign countries.
I apologize for reminding the House that but a few weeks ago, the Canadian agent-in Antwerp had to haul down his sign marked ' Canadian Agency ' at the request of the British consul in that city, under the pretense that such action on behalf of the Canadian agent would create possible confusion in the minds of the citizens of Belgium a.s to the political status of Canada. Canada has no flag, if we do not accept as such the emblem which our merchantmen were some years ago empowered to unfurl at their mastheads. And I do not need to argue very long to show that of international status Canada has none, because the very name of -our country ' Dominion,' which our French translators have very proudly, but improperly, translated into the word ' puissance,' should remind us that we are but a domain of the Crown; to use the language of the Act of 1834, defining the powers of the Privy Council of England, and giving to that final tribunal an unlimited jurisdiction over any judgment given by any court in any colony, ' Dominion,' or plantation of His Majesty. In a general way, I could point out many other cases of deception arising out -of our political and administrative terminology.
If vre examine now the status of Canada under the light of the public law of England, what do we discover? One finds that, though a delegation of powers, a federal legislative body, and nine provincial legislatures are supervising private intercourse between our citizens, the application of the civil laws of France, or the common law of England, the appointment of judges to decide litigations arising out of about 20 contracts, and finally looking over the administration, of municipal affairs. No constitutional guarantee, in the constitutional Act of 1867, is to be found limiting the power of Great Britain to impose taxes upon its citizens in Canada. If we look at sections 91 and 92 of that Act, wre find that even our power to naturalize British subjects is very limited, because our natural* ized British subjects_are considered as such exclusively within the territory of Canada, and they are not British subjects within the British Isles, nor even in any British
colony outside of Canada. If we examine the statutes of England, we find quite a number of Acts applicable to Canada, and no concern is taken whether they be repugnant or not to the wording of our Canadian statutes. Let me quote, for example, the Colonial Prison Act, the Colonial Offenders' Act, the Colonial Marriage Act, the Colonial Fortification Act, the Colonial Courts Act, the Colonial Clergy Act, the Colonial Attorney' Act, the Colonial Law's Act, the Naturalization Act, the Merchant Shipping Act, the Bills of Exchange Act, and last but not least, the Colonial Laws 'Validity Act, 1865, 28-29 Victoria, chapter 63, which declares that any law passed by any legislature which is repugnant to the interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is ipso facto, null and void. It is to comply with the requirements of that. Act, that clause 18 of the Bill be* fore the House has been inserted. Our fleet must remain at the disposal of England in case of emergency or otherwise this Bill will be ultra vires and null and void. Let me quote from the Act of 1865;
The term ' colony ' shall in this Act. include all of Her Majesty's possessions abroad in which there shall exist a legislature. . - . The term ' legislature ' and ' colonial legislature ' shall severally signify the authority other than the imperial parliament on His Majesty in Council, competent to make laws for any colony. Any colonial law which is or shall lie in any resjject repugnant to the provisions of any Act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate, or repugnant to any law, order or regulation made under authority of such Act of parliament, or having in the colony the force and effect of such Act, shall he read subject to such Act, order or regulation, and shall to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely null and void.
Let me quote section 15 of the British North America Act;
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
After reading this Bill and the Acts of 1867 and 1661, every one must admit that this extends rather than restricts the autonomy of Canada. The famous question about the meaning of 'shall' or 'may' in this legislative enactment is reduced to naught.
Let me quote also clause 18 of Bill (No. 95) in which the interpretation of the word 'may' has given rise to such debate:
18. In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.

Should this Bill now before us be passed *without clause 18 it would be repugnant to section 15 of that imperial statute, the British North America Act, 1867, conforming to chapter 6, statute 1, Charles II, 1661, intituled, 'An Act declaring the sole right of the militia to be in the King and for the present ordering and disposing the same,' and also to the regulations made there-i-.nder, and for that very reason our Bill would be null and void. It is not also the proper time to remind this House that nobody but a pirate, and with all the due consequences thereof, can run a warship unless her commander is the bearer of a state patent since the declaration of Paris in 1856. Bill (No. 95) without its clause 18 would be enacted in violation of international law.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: cur help towards England to-day go to secure for us the appointment of Anglo-Canadian consuls, I would be ready to ask this House to vote per year, not ten, or twenty cents, but $10 per head, for the establishment of such a system as _ would undoubtedly improve the commercial relations of Canada, and I would venture to state that as a result the trade of Canada would be three times larger than it is today. I speak of this important question of Anglo-Canadian consuls because it is very closely linked to that other question of extension of our external or maritime trade, which will be a new impetus under the escort of our fleet.
But there are many other advantages to Canada in the building of a fleet. It is undeniable that at one time Canada was the greatest ship-building country of America. The maritime trade spirit was alive and progressive. It was natural, because most of its inhabitants are descendants of mariners, they are the offspring of those marvellous sailors, the Norsemen, who discovered America, and started establishments on this continent about sixty years before Christopher Columbus secured for Spain the official paraphernalia necessary to grant her .so-called discovery rights. We all come, the most of us at least, from those Norsemen, from the stock of Normandy or the British Isles, who have braved the perils of the sea for at least ten centuries. Most of our immediate forefathers have been farming and trading in small towns for a couple of centuries, but, without claiming to be a prophet, I may assure the House that it will not take many years before the sons of farmers and traders and professional men can qualify for the re-conquest of thb great seas, the legacy one may say, by the law of nature, of the brave Norsemen of yore. Let us revive the industries of our ancestors.
Let me remind hon. gentlemen of somo of the many other advantages to be derived from the building of a fleet. Marine engineering, and the art of navigation, will receive a very great impetus from the adoption of the proposed plan.
Let me say, Sir, a few words to our students about the advantages they will reap from the building of our navy. The art and science of ship-building will go to a great extent to open new callings in life for the students in our special schools. With regard to those schools, allow me to give a few words of explanation. Let me open a very short chapter about the school system of Quebec that, will have some direct connection with the execution of the plan of the government. The students of our schools will have much to do with the construction, the manning, and the maintenance of our merchant and war fleet, for both will have to develop simultaneously.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: And what about our academy of marine, or naval college, to complete the system of our special schools? Montreal, with its two universities, would be the ideal place to locate a naval college. In no place else in Canada can there be found a better place for a naval college, better professors, more modern laboratories, more valuable libraries and general educational equipment. I must tell the Quebec students, even those who have signed petitions against the passing of this Bill, just four things: That marine engineers occupy the first rank in the engineering world; that marine officers are the most learned and cultured men; that amongst their many intellectual gifts, they must speak many languages, and in every case the French language, which is the language of diplomacy, is that which is spoken by the marine officers of every state of the five continents, so that the building of our navy is a good means of making our French language honoured. While speaking of our Quebec students protesting against the passing of Bill 95, let me ask the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to present to them a few copies of that new book of Mr. Emile Foguet, ' Le Culte de lTncompe-tence,' or lecture them about experimental superiority of older men over young men. It is one of the many good maxims of Mietzche which he expresses in saying very properly:
A sign of nobility, a sign of aristocracy, such is the respect of youths for older men.
The other day I listened to a lengthy debate in this House about technical schools in Canada. Many things were said about foreign technical schools, but not one word to explain the tremendous progress which has been made in the province of Quebec for the establishment, side by side with its classical schools with their three degrees of efficiency, of a whole set of special schools, which I style a higher commercial school, where the science and art of foreign languages, of precis writing, commercial geography, state finance and industrial chemistry, and physics, are taught for the purpose of making men able) to manage commercial houses, and to pros mote commerical relations abroad. Wd have, in the province of Quebec, also established colleges of technology, or technical schools, where the theory of every art, from that of the plumber to that of the jeweller, will be taught by book and labora-i tory, and where also the practice of each such art will be impressed on the minds of the students by designs, tools, and hand! work. Alongside of these, schools of agri-t culture are "already established. At St. Ann's, and at Oka, agricultural experts will' be very shortly graduated for the purpose1 of establishing in nearly every county of the province of Quebec, agricultural labora-1

tories where inspection, examination and analysis of grain can be taught to the; farmers; all of which must eventually conduce to the benefit of our export trade. A>
school of forestry has also been established. The graduates of the school of forestry of Nancy, France, and Harvard, will teach the people of the province of Quebec how to preserve their natural resources and reafforest their woodland, thus securing the proper amount of moisture necessary to successful agriculture. In addition to these, McGill College and the Polytechnic school, in the teaching of civil engineering and the art of architecture, are ready to provide for our country, skilful engineers of all kinds, to wrest honourable profit from Canada's natural resources. I say this, in passing, for the purpose of show ing our students that something is in store for them out-of the building of our navy; and also for the purpose of telling the Minister of Labour and the members of the Technical School Commission when they come to inquire into the conditions of technical schools, that if they wish to be properly informed, they would do well to go to Quebec and stop there for a little while, before going elsewhere. It is to the everlasting glory of Sir Lomer Gouin, the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, that he has built up a complete system of special schools alongside of the classical schools of that province, which will make of it before twenty years, one of the most learned centres in America.
I have been calling the attention of the House to our educational system, just to show that our would-be gunless and shipless defenders in Quebec are, after all, very neglectful of the interests of our students when they fail to see for all of them numerous advantages in the realization of the shipbuilding programme. Our graduates are perhaps the best equipped to benefit from the new policy. The construction of a fleet should also be approved of for the sake of our many special school students, who will therein find many and varied employments and callings. Quite a number of good positions surely will be secured for those students by the establishment of the new marine equipment. Our special school graduates will contribute in some way or other to the construction of the new fleet., and thereby contribute to th^ enhanced prosperity and greatness of Canada.
There are many other reasons for which I am ready to vote for the passing of this Bill. I will vote for the Bill, because:
1.	It will cost but a trifle per head of our population to build a few ships which will help England, satisfy our obligations towards her, and gratify our national pride;
2.	The expenditure of a few cents per year may go to secure for Canada the concession from England of the power of making treaties, of the power to appoint Anglo-
Canadian consuls, thereby securing for us benefits which will be a hundredfold greater to Canada than the total of our expenditure today;
3.	I would rather stand by our parent state than depend upon American protection, I prefer British protection.
4.	The building of a fleet will to a great extent help our classical and special school graduates;
5.	It is in acordance with the dictum of the public law of England towards Canada, for it is not within the province of the latter to refuse any contribution to help England;
6.	The creation of a Canadian navy will to a large extent tend to create for Canada new openings of trade, the establishment of new commercial agencies and negotiations of commercial treaties-three keys to the treasuries of the world;
7.	This possession of a fleet is the best and only way to secure progress in peace for our country and to assure its everlasting prosperity.
For all these reasons, and many others, I appeal to this House, and to my constituents of St. James, not to begrudge a shilling a year for the maintenance of the prestige of England, and the enlargement of our national life.
And now, to those unthoughtful enough to close their eyes and stop their ears to the great lessons of history; to those who shout aloud that nothing should be done to defend Canada, to those who are continuously, dangerously, creating agitation, to all those who do not wish to give any kind of aid to England, whether they be representatives of the western grain growers, or agriculturists of Quebec, I would say this: You do not want any naval defence for Canada, you prefer to remain in statu quo, you are afraid of military and naval expenditure, let me remind you of a past which is still the present for us. If Canada, when she was a weak colony under the French monarchy, had followed the_ advice, the admonitions and prayers of that incomparable and immortal American statesman of the seventeenth century (though not born in America) Governor Frontenac, who implored France not to reconstruct the marvellous palace of Versailles, but to build a navy, to send soldiers to Nouvelle France, and to equip an army to protect its territory and the entrance of its Gulf of St. Lawrence, never would Wolfe have defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, and never would it have been possible for England to conquer Canada.
Yes, Mr, Speaker, should we have no navy, what Wolfe was able to do, one Von der Goltz or one Henri de Hohenzollhern, may try to repeat. Canada, being without 'naval defence, without coast protection, should ever a European conflict hold back

the English fleet in the North sea, the entrance of the St. Lawrence would he left undefended against a hostile fleet which would be able to anchor before Montreal with much less risk than in the Baltic sea. Sir, such a possibility should awake in the people of Canada, and more especially in my fellow citizens of Quebec, a strong desire to grant what is asked from them to secure both a defence of our coasts, and a compliance with the wishes of England. My fellow citizens of Quebec, I am sure-and here, 1 believe, I am expressing their inner sentiments-are ready to stand by England to-day, for we are indebted to England for the fairness with which England has treated us. Should I speak tonight in my own mother language, it vrould *be due to the liberality of England. The French and English languages -were for hundreds of years spoken in the mother parliament on the banks of the Thames, in the same way that Greek and Latin had been the official languages of the parliament of Rome. I beg leave to convey to the English speaking citizens of Canada tonight, the assurance that their French speaking friends will stand shoulder to shoulder with them for the maintenance of British institutions in Canada, as did, twenty centuries ago, our ancestors, the Gaelic senators when they joined the Roman senators in the defence of the state of Rome.
While I am saying all this, I cannot forbear from denouncing as infamous, the veiled charges of disloyalty which have been and are still being hurled agginst my compatriots. Sir, Quebec will always remember that beautiful sentiment enunciated by the distinguished Prime Minister of Canada at a Paris banquet in 1905: * To France, we owe our origin; to England, our liberty.'


Mr. WILLIAM R. SMYTH (East Algo-ma).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you must be wearied of this debate, and I am Sure that this afternoon must have made you more wearied still. The hon. member for St. James, Montreal, (Mr. Gervais), has taken up nearly three hours of the time of this House, and I am sure that very few members of the House are much enlightened by what he has said. He started in with an argument against the Bill from a legal standpoint. But, like an old steeple-chase horse, -when he comes to the bank he is afraid to go over, and so lie turns and supports the Bill after all, though it is not just to his mind from a legal point of view. Some of the remarks of the hon. gentleman call to my memory something that happened in connection with our first attempt -I think it was our first-at what might he called Canadian diplomacy. The hon. member (Mr. Gervais) scored British diplomats in their efforts to settle the Mr. GERVAIS.
great questions between Canada, and the United States, and other countries. We all remember the commission that was appointed by this government, composed of the hon. member for North York (Mr. Aylesworth), Sir Louis Jette, and another whose name I have at the moment forgotten. These gentlemen did not bring such great results to Canada in connection with the Alaska boundary question with which they had to deal. Did not they allow a great deal of our territory to be taken away and given to the United States? So, I do not think we have much to complain of in British diplomacy in view of what our own representatives have done.
I do not purpose taking up much time, in fact, I should like to confine myself to within ten minutes. But, before entering into the question as to what my views are on the navy question, I must- first express my regret that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), took occasion to prove his loyalty to the British Crown -in fact, about three-quarters of the time of his speech was devoted to that purpose. If I ever felt proud of my leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) it was when he spoke in answer to the Prime Minister. It was not necessary for him to -waste one minute in proving,that he was loyal to the British Crown; every one knew where he stood.
I must also say something on behalf of my French Canadian friends, of whom I have a great many in my riding. In fact, I think that perhaps one-third of the electors in my riding are of French Canadian origin. I have no hesitation in saying that every one of them, so far as I know, is true and loyal to the core. But I think if the right hon. Prime Minister should go up into that country, and say some of the things he has said in this House, and on many an occasion outside, he would not be very welcome for those utterances. But the French Canadians of my constituency are true Canadians, and true British subjects. I almost wonder that they are in view of the statements made by the leaders of the French Canadian people in this Canada of ours. We have heard the Prime Minister himself declare his independence, and we have heard other hon. members giving us lectures on independence. I wish to call attention to some of the utterances of certain leaders of the French Canadian people in thik respect. I am proud to say that notwithstanding all that the leaders in this House can say, the French Canadian settler in the northern part of New Ontario-and, I think, all over the Dominion of Canada-are true and loyal. But one would wonder why gentlemen who occupy seats in this House, from the First Minister to the lowest back bencher among his followers, should endeavour to mislead the ideas and views of the French Canad-

ian people. We find, Sir, the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), saying something in connection with independence. This is part of what he said, and I take it that this is a proper translation of the hon. gentleman's statement:
Independence appears in certain quarters to be a monster and a nightmare to those whose interest in Canada is small and secondary, and who have only the love and loyalty of the empire in their hearts. But I ask of these men, shall not Canada sooner or later have to choose between annexation and independence? Are we destined to remain a colony, and are not true Canadians who love their country before all others to have in their hearts a very legitimate ambition to see it free and independent? It suits badly those politicians who have a great many years' experience, who have seen unrolled great events and political changes which are to-day included in the history of our country, who have seen the nation grow, and who realize its possibilities and its resources. It is neither patriotic nor loyal on the part of these men to put obstacles in the way of the complete development of our political organization and to pretend that we ought always to dwell under the protection of the British flag. But, thank God, I am convinced that this will not be the case, and the creation of this naval fleet in my humble opinion is the last step towards independence.
Is that not preaching independence? Is that not a true expression of the opinions of many hon. gentlemen who sit on thq other side of the House? I take it that this voices the opinion of a great many hon. gentlemen opposite. He was greatly applauded when he made this statement. Further he says:
It is from this point of view particularly, and I might say exclusively, that I at the present time give my adhesion to the Liberal policy. I speak from a Canadian point of view, and I believe this view of the question is that of the majority of the electors of my county; indeed, I do not believe that it would be too much to affirm that it is that of the majority of the people of the province of Quebec.
There is something which is addressed to the French Canadian electors, and I


Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE.: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question? Did he remark in my speech a sentence in which I said that i would never consent to independence unless England would consent to it and that it would come through good will and not otherwise?


William Ross Smyth: I will answer by asking my hon. friend another question-if he denies that he made the statement that I have just read.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I do not deny it at all.


William Ross Smyth: Well, that is the answer. We have another hon. gentleman who has, 158
during his life time, spoken of independence. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) once gave utterance to something of this nature. I must confess that he is very eloquent and ready to do as he is bidden. I do not know whether he has been whipped into line or not. I am going to read an extract from a paper called ' L'Evenement,' published at Quebec. It states that:
Postmaster General Lemieux moved at the Club Rationale, some years ago, the following
resolution:-
That while admiring the English constitutional system the members of this club are in favour of obtaining by constitutional means the independence of our country and its complete emancipation from all European alliances.
I would like to ask the Postmaster General if that is correct?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I am glad that my hon. friend has put that question straight to me. I read that statement this morning in ' L'Evenement ' of Quebec. I never moved that resolution, and ' L'Evenement' does not say that I moved it. Once in my life I did speak on that question. That was, I think, in 1893. I am surprised that that fact was not mentioned during this debate. In 1893, there was in Montreal a gentleman who was connected with the construction of the Monument National, where the meetings of the St. Jean Baptiste Society, the national society of French Canadians, take place every week. In order to obtain the necessary funds to build that monument he organized a large meeting at Sohmer park, Montreal. There was to be an academic debate on the four following questions:	Annexation to the United
States, the statu quo, imperial federation and the independence of Canada. I was then a young, budding lawyer, and I was asked by the organizers of the meeting to take part in the debate. I was assigned the role of advocate of the independence of Canada, which I accepted.


Mr. BARKER.: And you accepted it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. A gentleman from the province of Ontario-I forget his name, but I think it was Mr. Elgin Myers-spoke in favour of annexation to the United States. A friend of mine, Mr. McGoun a very distinguished lawyer of Montreal and a Liberal, spoke in favour of imperial federation, and a young friend of mine who was a very active member of the Conservative party, Mr. Cardinal, pow dead, I am sorry to say, spoke in favour of the statu quo. There was a vote taken and there was an entrance fee of, I think, 25 cents paid by all those who were present. It was an academic debate. I do not deny that I took part in that debate, stood to my guns and advocated the independence of



Canada, but it was a purely academic subject. I am surprised that the fact was not mentioned in this debate. But as to_ the resolution, I never moved it, and this is the first time I heard of it. That is my .explanation.


William Ross Smyth: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that chickens come home to roost sometimes. Always be sure that your sins will be found out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Club Nationale exchicken now.


William Ross Smyth: I am sure you are not. Do you still belong to that club?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Independence club?


William Ross Smyth: The Club Nationale?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Club Nationale exists. but I never moved that resolution.


William Ross Smyth: I accept the hon. gentleman's denial. I was just going to remark that I have the utmost confidence that the great mass of the French Canadian people take no stock in any such utterances as that anyway. They are too intelligent, notwithstanding that sometimes around election time especially some of their leaders would like to agitate them and ask them to do things that are not perhaps quite along the lines that they otherwise would follow on those occasions. I know that I have suffered a great deal from that myself; I know that while my French Canadian friends in my riding stood loyally and true by me when I was their candidate for the local legislature, they deserted me and deserted me very greatly indeed during the campaign of 1908. And, Sir, that was because of the pamphlets and the literature that were sent out


An hon. MEMBER.: 'The duty of the hour.'


William Ross Smyth: Yes, 'The duty of the hour,' that was published ana paid for by the Liberal party and circulated by the Liberal party in wagon loads all over the northern part of Ontario. We on this side of the House have been twitted by gentlemen opposite who claim that we are very much divided on this question; but when it comes to the vote perhaps they will better understand just how much divided we are. But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a sign of life in any political party when its members do take issue one with the other on such a great question as this, and when they think for themselves and are not led by the nose by any leader or any number of leaders. Sir, we stand each thinking for himself and each acting for himself, and I am doubtful whether hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House can say the same thing. Indeed I have been astonished at the utterances of some Mr. LEMIEUX.
of the Liberal members who have spoken in this House, because I have heard these very same gentlemen speaking outside on this same Bill and they played a very different tune. I am inclined to think that the 'composing room' and the gag and the thumb-screw and the offers of graft


An hon. MEMBER.: And straight jackets.


William Ross Smyth: Yes, and straight jackets and everything else have been applied to some members on the other side of the House. The hon. member tor Laval (Mr. Wilson) also said something about independence, and he told us that the navy is a preparation for the change in our national condition for which we ought to be ready. Well, were the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) in his seat I would like him to explain what he meant when he said we had to be prepared for a change, because I hope, Mr. Speaker, the day will never come when there will be any change or any attempt at a change which will sever Canada from the British empire. _ But all the sentiments in connection with independence and ingratitude to England do not come from the French Canadian members on the other side of the House. 1 was sorry indeed to hear the other day a member of the great family of Scotchmen to which I belong -giving utterances to certain statements, and I recommend that hon. gentleman to read the statements made by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais) to-night, who told us that we did owe a debt of gratitude to the motherland. But my Scotch friend from South Huron (Mr. McLean) thinks we do not owe the motherland anything. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a difierent song sung by his forefathers when the British empire required assistance and help. In those days the McLeans went not only with a wave of enthusiasm, but they took off their coats and buckled on their swords and fought for the empire. And, Sir, it amazed me to hear the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) declare that instead of taking off his coat and putting on his kilts and buckling on -his sword for the empire he would send over his love, for that was all he could afford to give them. Well, I don't think that this is very Scotchlike. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, some members on this side of the House have been twitted with having accused the French Canadian people of disloyalty, and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) _ this afternoon made certain statements which I was very pleased to see that you, Mr. Speaker, made him withdraw. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) told us over and over again that he had read the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) from end to end and backwards and forwards and crosswise, and he could

not find any other meaning in it than that which he gave to the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read what the member for Frontenac did say, because I must confess that when I heard the construction that was put on his utterances I was very much grieved to think he would so far forget himself as to cast any reflection on our French Canadian people, which, of course, as a matter of fact he did not do. I did not have to read the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac very far to find him using this language:
I am not charging, and I have not said one word to charge the mass of the people of the province of Quebec with disloyalty; I have not said anything that could be construed into such a charge. On the contrary, I have said that the people of the province of Quebec have shown a more than ordinary intelligence in resisting the political leaders who for political purposes essayed to lead them from their allegiance.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) dwelt a long time on this incident, but I would ask any fair minded man: Where can you find anything said by the member for Frontenac that any French Canadian or any one else could take offence at?


Mr. MOLLOY.: Read further.


William Ross Smyth: You can read it yourself; you have more time than I have. Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of the navy, and I must say that I was very much disappointed at the lack of information which the right hon. Prime Minister had when he presented this Bill. I have been a business man the greater part of my life, and as a business man I have never entered into anything that I did not first study out what it was going to cost as nearly as I possibly could. If I were building a house I would first get an estimate from a man properly qualified to give it, and although it might cost a little more than the estimate, I would know approximately what my responsibility was. But, when the right hon. the Prime Minister was asked several questions in regard to the cost of this navy he could not answer them when he introduced the Bill, and he said he would give the details when the Bill got into committee. Well, Sir, I do not believe in going into it blind, and I would like to know here and now before committing my constituents, and the people of the Dominion to the principle of this Bill, what will this Canadian navy approximately cost? That information we are entitled to have from the Ministers of the Crown, who are supposed to know it. The ministers who have charge of this Bill should have been able to announce to the House as nearly as possible what will be the cost of this tin-pot navy of theirs which they are going to construct. I may say in the first place 158}
that I do not think that the navy which the right hon. gentleman is going to build is any good as a fighting force, or of any value whatever in the defence of the empire. I am certain that no sane being at this present date would build such a class of ships for defensive or offensive purposes in any part of the British empire or any other empire except the party that is in power to-day in Canada. I am not willing to entrust the building of even this tin-pot navy to the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches. In the face of the charges against them more than ten-yes, more than twenty-that I have heard since I have come to this House, and that we have been trying to investigate-charges of the misappropriation of moneys, the spending of moneys foolishly, the wasting of the people's resources in various ways- they should not be allowed to enter into this great work which is goirfg to entail such enormous expense on the country. For that reason alone, if for no other, I would be inclined to vote against the building of this navy. I am not opposed to our Canadian people getting all the benefits that might accrue from the building of a navy in Canada; but such a navy is not going to be built in three years or five years, or even in ten years, if it is to be efficient; and before the last ship is completed, the first will probably be out of commission, and in the bottom of the sea or on the scrap-heap. The right hon. the First Minister should have laid before this House an approximate estimate at least of what this navy was going to cost Canada. Now, I want to say that during all the campaigns in which I have taken part in the last ten or twelve years, I have never heard the question of a Canadian navy, or a navy of any sort, brought before the electors, and I am not going to commit the people that I have the honour to represent to any such scheme without first having their authority to do so. I am not going to commit them to anything that I have not myself some idea of the cost of; and I am not going to commit them to any such expenditure especially when it is to be handled by the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches at the present time. I feel that there is a responsibility on me to ask the people of the district I have the honour to represent whether they are in favour of a Canadian navy or not. That is one of the reasons why I will vote against the proposal of a Canadian navy at the present stage. By giving a direct contribution, even if it is $20,000,000, or $25,000,000, I know that it is no more, and no less, and I know that it is not going to be called for year after year, but that is the end of it. We are told by the First Minister that the government purpose building the Georgian Bay canal, which is a much more important project than a Canadian navy. They

are going to build the Hudson Bay railway. They have now under construction the Grand Trunk Pacific. All these are about as much as Canada can bear at the present time. I have taken up more time than I should, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that it was my duty to my constituents to place myself on record as against the construction of a Canadian navy at the present time. I also wish to place myself right as not being in sympathy with any sentiment that might lead our French Canadian people to believe that we accuse them of disloyalty; but we do accuse some of the leaders of the French Canadian people in this House of making statements that I would very much rather they had not made, in the interests of this great Canada of ours.
I hope the gentlemen on the other side of the House will all balk when they come to the fence, and will not go over.


Mr J. E. O. GLADU.: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the Tories, I say it with all due respect

Borne hon. MEMBERS. (Text.) Speak .English.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: (Text.) I shall speak in 'French, as it is my own language and, as you are aware, I have a right to do so.
' ((Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the Tories, I say it will all due respect, are the same the whole world over, and are not capable of improvement, not any more in Canada >than elsewhere. When a few years ago the ; hon. Finance Minister was about negotiating an important loan in England, these [DOT] same Tories of Canada thought the best they could do was to depreciate Canadas * financial standing, and thereby endeavour to prevent the floatation of the loan. _
While the British Tories were engaged in the last general election, they thought similarly that the best they could do would be to discredit the King's navy, with the object of forwarding their political aims, <earing verv little what would be the results, or whether their country would suffer from it or not, exactly in the same way [DOT]that the Canadian Tories had shown that they did not care a snap for the good name of Canada.
I do not propose speaking at great length, but before taking up the main question, there are several statements made in the course of this debate by hon. gentlemen on the other side who have preceded me, to which I would like to refer. I will not take up any of the time of the House answering the taunts which have been directed at the right hon. Prime Minister. Thank heaven, that mud, as we ail know, has been slung from depths too great to ever reach the man at whom it was aimed. Thank heaven, I repeat it, the right hon. gentleman's loftiness of mind, loyalty, and force of character are too well known, and Mr. WM. R. SMYTF
such insults cannot possibly sully his good name even in the slightest degree.
Let me call the attention of the House to some of the charges made by hon. gentlemen on the other side in the course of their remarks of recent date. The hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) found fault with us for being too docile, for blindly following, and witn servility-to use an expression of the Nationalist leader of the province of Quebec-the leader of the government, in a word for not having sufficient individuality. The member for North Toronto, of course, is an authority on questions of breach of discipline. He will need to go back only a few years, in company with some of his friends who still occupy seats not far distant from his own, to live again those glorious days when he was charged with being a traitor, with being one of the nest of traitors, by the then leader of the government. Thereby will he realize what is meant by a lack of discipline.	.
In that same speech he characterized us as silent dogs. I regret that, for his own sake, he did not hold his tongue when that Naval Bill was up for discussion, and that he allowed to go forth-the expression I am about to use may not be parliamentary-the infamous words which he thrust at the heads of the Prime Minister, the Catholics and the French Canadians of this country.
The hon. member stated also that there were in our midst a few dogs which were beginning to bark. If I may be allowed to refresh his memory, he also has on previous occasions given proof of his ability to bark, and if he will only come with me to the Senate with six of his friends-he knows who I mean-to offer a fair shake hand to Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the latter will let him know what is meant by * a dog who can bark.'
The hon. member stated also that the Prime Minister had a policy for the province of Quebec and another for the province of Ontario. I take such charges to be not only an insult, but an imputation of dishonesty against the Prime Minister. And remember "that the hon. member for North Toronto bears on his forehead a stigma impressed on it two or three years age by the hand of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylsworth), who, in the course of a terrific denunciation, dealing with that question of the Union Trust, compared him to the unfortunate McGill, defaulting manager of the Bank of Ontario, and declared, aifter looking into the matter of the Independent Order of Foresters, that he might not have fared any better.


Mr. G. M. CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: (Text.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.	The hon. gentleman has no right
to discus that question until after the findings of the judges in Toronto.	_
' Wk >-T.	' [DOT]I
'[DOT]Sj	'	*	-


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: (Text.) I have the right to recall a speech that was made two years ago in this House by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. H. LENNOX (Sirncoe South).: (Text.) It is true, as the hon. gentleman says, that the hon. Minister of Justice, upon the floor of this House, did most ungenerously and. improperly impute criminal conduct to the hon. member for North Toronto, but does not the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Justice Magee, in dismissing the action for slander, utterly refute and overturn the statements of the Minister of Justice to that regard.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: (Translation.) I say that there is a man occunying a seat here who has not been acquitted of a charge laid against him in this House, and of which he has not cleared himself. I say I have the right to refer to these facts, though the case may still be before the courts. Besides, we are acquainted with the recent findings of the courts.
The hon. member has also taunted the right hon. leader of the government for having two policies, and for being disloyal t >
the empire. Let me, Mr. Speaker, recall a fact which seems to have slipped from the minds of a great many people here. Mho is prouder of the friendship of France than the British people and their Sovereign? The latter has shown himself greater even than the British empire, by securing to that same empire the noble and beneficient friendship of France through the ' entente cordiale.' Well, at that time the President of the French Republic, Mr. Lcubet, stated that it was in the course of a conversation he had had with the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada that the idea had been suggested to him of negotiating an ' entente cordiale ' between the two countries, in the same way that it existed betwen the two races in Canada.
Now, let us concern ourselves with another very interesting bird, which I am sorry not to see in his seat just now. I refer to the member for Victoria and Hali-burt-on (Mr. Hughes). That hon. gentleman has thought fit in a speech which he delivered on the question of the Naval Bill to state that the leaders of the rebellion of 1837 were nothing but cowards. I shall quote the very words which he used on that occasion:
In the speeches of the First Minister, and of the Postmaster General, and of the member for Picton-I do not see how the member for the Yukon happend to miss it- they all eulogized the heroes of 1837, and by heroes they mean the cowardly men who went in for misleading the poor innocent habitant in the province of Quebec, and the innocent men in Ontario, and inciting them to commit crimes which led to loss of life and destruction of property.
I have only one word to say in answer to that: These men died in defending a cause which was dear and sacred to them,, and I say that a soldier, or one parading as such, like the hon. member for Victorias and Halihurton, who insults the memory of those who died in defending a cause which was dear to them, is only a plumed bully, and cannot be anything else but the hero of a striking hovel


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that expression is not parliamentary.


Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu: I withdraw anything that is not parliamentary, but if you allow what is parliamentary to remain there will still be enough of it left.
I shall now deal with a man who cannot he said to be in sympathy with the French Canadians and the Catholics, but who, nevertheless, solemnly quotes the writings of Father Hamon, a Jesuit, who is not known to him, hut with wdiom I have the honour of being acquainted. 'I give you my word of honour that this gentleman has always had enough dignity and discrimination to avoid the expressions which are attributed to him in a translation, the exactness of which is doubtful.
The House I hope will pardon me this rather long preamble, but I was anxious to point out these insults which may not have the importance I attach to them. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has thought proper to speak with contempt of the memory of a man whom the province of Quebec honours and respects; whom she has represented in his lifetime, and whom she has honoured for years and years by an annual pilgrimage to his tomb. I refer to Honore Mercier.
I shall not say anything of the aspersions he has deemed proper to cast on the Prime Minister of this country. But I shall tell him as well as to the hon. members for Victoria and North Toronto that to my regret, I will have to recall what I said last year: that in every grave there is room only for the corpse; there is noplace for anything else, not even for the poisonous breath of the serpent. In the province of Quebec, we are disgusted with those desecrators of tombs, these gnawers of the dead; we are disgusted with those who thus take pleasure in wrenching open the lid of our great men's coffins and turn over their ashes in the hope of securing thereby some political capital. I road in the memoirs of Mr. Claude, chief of police of Paris, that human vampires repaired at night to the Pere Lachaise cementry and desecrated the graves of virgins who had been inhumed in the course of the day. I say that such men play the part of vampires as regards political celebrities in the same way as these others are the ravishers of dead virgins.

I now come to the question of the Naval Bill. I sh^ll not dilate very long on the proposal emanating from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I regret to say that in all earnestness it looks to be as a deliberate attempt at stirring up sectional feeling. I cannot admit that there should be a distinct policy for the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, and still another for the Conservative party in the province of Ontario and the English-speaking provinces, and the province of Quebec will not be misled by such a ludicrous farce.
Now let us take up the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition. I am forced to the conclusion that it is unfair as regards a large section of our people. What right have you, ask, in a country such as ours, made up of heterogenous groups of population, of various nationalities, of Italians. Germans, Frenchmen, Russians, &c., what right have you, 1 say, of taking the money contributed by these taxpayers and producers and make a free gift of! it to Great Britain, who will apply it to building Dreadnoughts, with which <she may start out to cripple the navies of the mother countries of these people, sweep over their sea coasts and send broadsides furrowing those lands still moist with the sweat and blood of their forefathers?
I now take up the plan submitted by the right hon. Prime Minister, and I find it acceptable to those who make up the people of Canada, to those who supply the funds, who pay the taxes, towards our progress and our development. They cannot" take exception to the building of a fleet which will remain our property. I find it acceptable, because under it our money will not be handed over to a nation who, 'though at peace to-day, may at any time be at war_with the mother country of any of the peoples I! have just mentioned. The moneys appropriated by us towards that object, will be spent right here, and since we are entitled to make whatever use we think proper of the public revenue, nobody will have reason to complain. These moneys will be spent in Canada and for the benefit of Canadians.
There is a matter, Mr. Speaker, which seems to have made a vivid impression on the minds of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, it is the question of loyalty. There is no need for me of referring to it once more; the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) dealt with it the other day in a masterly way, pointing out the various circumstances in our history when that loyalty asserted itself. I shall be content with recalling what Frechette said one day; appealing to the English speaking population of this country and pointing to the British flag which floated over the citadel of Quebec, in a stanza which will live forever, he exclaimed: Mr. GLAD!'.
'Had it not been for us, it would be there r.o more.' Should I recall also the memorable dates of 1775 and 1812. If Salaberry and his three hundred Canadian voltigeurs had not fought at Chateauguay, what would have become of the British flag? In 1870, have we not also generously contributed our share to the defence of the country? And what shall I say of 1885? The hon. member for Victoria stated the other day that we had approved of the rebellion of 1885. Does he not know that in 1885 the 65th battation, under the command of the French Canadians, ex-Justice Ouimet, vigorously took a hand in the defence of that same flag and in quelling the Northwest uprising. The same may be said of the 9th battalion of Quebec. Has the hon. member for Victoria forgotten that in 1899 my countrymen have generously given of their blood for the defence of that same British flag on the African veldt? I challenge him to mention a single instance in which our people refused to generously fight and work for the upholding of the British flag. We are taunted with being disloyal because the Prime Minister of Canada, on a certain occasion, stated, it appears, that possibly some day independence might be our lot. Well, in this connection, I shall quote the opinion of a man whom nobody, I am satisfied, will think of charging with disloyalty. Lord Milner, in the course of a speech at a banquet in Montreal, stated that fifty years hence, Canada would have to choose between imperial federation and independence.
We are taunted with being disloyal; but should not such a charge be brought forward rather against those who, in England, from day to day, add to our political freedom, who of their own accord, sever the ties binding us to Great Britain. Disloyal you say? Who can be more disloyal than the men who, occupying seats on the other side of the House, make it their special duty to sow discord and strife between the various races, by charging us with fanaticism and disloyalty, and most unfairly, as we have shown in the past.
There is all the difference in the world between the line of conduct of these men and that followed by the_builder of this country, the peace-maker between its various races, of that man who appealing to the good will of Canadians of all origins, urges them to work in harmony, at any rate whenever the interests of Canada are at stake? What marked contrast there is between the policy of the man who made this country what it is to-day, great and prosperous, and those who in order to subserve their political aims, have been content purely and simply with running down the country, injuring its good name and doing their best to nullify it in the eyes

of the world. I shall not delay the House any longer, since I promised to be short. For the reasons I have mentioned I shall vote with pleasure in favour of the government's proposal; I shall do so without fear, without weakness, and I even say, without hesitation.


Mr. THOMAS BEATTIE (London).: I shall not, Mr. Speaker, offer any apology for taking up the time of the House for a short while because I believe that every member of this House should pronounce himself on this most important question; and in giving expression to my views, I trust that I shall not utter one word which may offend any hon. gentleman. The question of loyalty, I am sorry to say, has been brought up several times in this debate. To my mind it would have been better for this Dominion had that question not been raised, but, of course, I am simply giving my opinion and others may differ. But, >t seems to me that after the generous manner in which Canada has been treated by Great Britain during the past half century there ought not to be one man in this House or out of it-be he Scotch, French, Irish, English, or born Canadian-who would stand up and say that he would be anything else than a good, loyal, British Canadian.
Were it not for the remarks that fell from the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean), I would not have taken part in this debate. In his speech that hon. gentleman said that we owe nothing to Great Britain but good-will and respect. I can only compare my hon. friend with that celebrated old character, Rip Van Winkle- I hope, Mr. Speaker, this remark is not unparliamentary. I am very much afraid that he has been asleep during the past half century, unconscious who was protecting him, or he would not have made the statement he did. Or he must have forgotten that there is such a place as Great Britain. But, of course, we all know that the clan McLean, during the flood, was said to have been quite independent of Noah and the ark, because they had a boat of their own; and by a similar flight of the imagination my hon. friend probably convinced himself that he wa3 perfectly safe under the protection of the old family shot gun. I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that our forefathers were not driven from Great Britain. They had not to leave Great Britain, because the people who had to leave were generally sent to Botany bay. They did not come to Canada for Canada's good, but because they were under the impression that by so doing they could improve their position, both socially and financially, and in my opinion ninety-five per cent of them did so benefit. But had Great Britain not sent her army and navy to Canada and planted the-Union Jack on
our shores, our people would not have had this Dominion to come to; and for that alone we owe more than good-will and respect to the mother country.
If Canada expects to continue within the British empire-and I believe that we all do wish and intend to remain under her benign sway-we should not expect to live like drones in the bee hive, receiving all the protection, honour and benefit the em pire can give us while refusing to assist in adding any honey to the hive. The question before this country and parliament is: Shall we give Great Britain for the British navy a present of two of the best battleships that can be built, or shall Canada build a so-called navy, which has been very aptly described by my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Doherty) as a stay at home navy? Two battleships would cost about $18,000,000, and not $25,000,000, as stated by hon. members opposite. But what would the contemplated government navy cost? I am informed that the annual expenditure on the maintenance of that navy would be alpout $7,000,000 and that amount would be expended on a navy which would have nothing to do, and would be compelled to remain idle in our harbours of Esquimalt and Halifax and others. The crews would have no other occupation but to paint the ships, scrub the decks and eat three good meals a day, to which they would, of course, be entitled. And the officers,, no doubt, would fill in their time giving pink teas occasionally to their friends on shore at the expense of the people of this country.
Let me now recall some of the many favours which Great Britain has bestowed on Canada in the past few years, and I shall only mention those which are fresh in our memory and for which we have never paid or were asked to pay one dollar. Take the first trouble that occurred in our great northwest-that great heritage of which we are all so proud and boast so much. Did Great Britain not send us out General Wolesley, one of her best generals, who took charge of the Red River expedition, restored that country t-o peace and quietness, and handed it over to this Dominion. Then look back to the civil war in the United States, what did Great Britain do when there was danger of trouble along our borders? What did she then do for Canada? Did she not send us 10,000 of her best troops, composed of her best regiments, and several of her most efficient batteries of artillery, landing them at Halifax and marching them a thousand miles overland through ice and snow to the western part of Ontario? Well do I remember, as a small lad, the arrival of the 63rd regiment in London one midwinter midnight in the sixties. After that came the 53rd regiment and the 47th and the 60th rifles,

one of the best rifle regiments in England. There also came Major Balfour's Grey battery of artillery-one of the best in the service. These troops were kept in Canada many years, at the imperial expense, until all danger of trouble was over. That expedition alone must have cost Great Britain much more than the price of the two Dreadnoughts we propose to give. And yet, although those troops were all stationed within gunshot of the door of my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McLean) that hon. gentleman says we owe Britain nothing but respect and good will. Did we ever pay one cent for that expedition? No, we did not. Were we ever asked to pay a cent for it? No.
Hon. gentlemen opposite keep telling us, over and over again, that two Dreadnoughts would cost $25,000,000, but I have it- on the best authority that two of the best battleships can be built at a cost of $18,000,000 at the outside. Would it not be better to pay that amount and be done with the matter than to go on with the proposed navy, the cost of which, when completed, no one can foresee, and which, when completed, will be of no earthly use to Canada, but be simply a stay-in-the-harbour navy. And I am informed on undoubted authority that the upkeep of that navy will amount to $7,000,000 per year. Our militia, which in 1896 cost us but $1,000,000 per year, is now, thanks to the right hon. the Prime Minister and his sunny ways, costing us over $7,000,000 annually. Add these two annual expenditures, and you have $14,000,000 for the yearly upkeep of the navy and militia, or $2 per head-for every man, woman and child in this country, babies included.
During this debate I have heard some hon. gentlemen describe Canada as a nation within the empire. Would not the terms ' Dominion within the empire ' sound just as well? For my part, I do not care for that word nation. To me, it has a tingle of separation, and I trust that we shall continue, as I believe we shall, to remain under the good old Union Jack, because I believe that five years of separation would inevitably land us under the wing of the American eagle. Let me say in conclusion, that I trust no member sitting in this House to-day will live to see this Dominion separated from the British empire.


Mr.  P. A.@: SEGUIN (L'Assomption.) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, in order not to take too much of the precious time of this hon. House, I intend to offer but a few remarks. Still, I deem it my duty to express my views on the important question which has been under discussion for several weeks, namely, the creation of a navy for our national defence.
I have carefully listened to the speeches delivered from the very inception of this debate, and with a few exceptions I have Mr. BEATTIE.
found that most of the violent objections raised against the proposed navy are based on the fact that the measure introduced by thct government does not go far enough..
Even the disloyalty of the French Canadians has been referred to, and the Prime Minister himself has not been spared the most outrageous attacks, on account of his attitude on this question. I am surprised that neither the leader of the opposition nor the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who know how to wave, each to his own way, the opposition flag, have deemed it their duty to protest against those violent expressions directed against the government by hon. members opposite.
But violent as the debate has been, it has served a useful purpose in enlightening the minds, and I am free to say, Sir, that I am satisfied from what I heard of this debate that the government, in seizing the House with this Bill for the creation of a navy, has thoroughly mastered the question, having considered it from every standpoint, and that they have viewed it from the standpoint of the general interest of the country, irrespective of any party or racial consideration, or any local or private interest.
T may say that at first glance, prior to the debate and before I had examined the matter, the statu quo seemed to me an ideal state of things, and along with others, I was inclined to think that, the country having so far done without a navy, might very well do without it for a good many years, but I have since found out that it was a falacy.
The nations are groups of individuals, therefore, like the individuals, they grow in order to reach adolescence and then mature age.
Canada is still in its period of adoles-cense but without being disloyal to the mother country, we are quite free to think, in looking into a more or lesa remote future, that the time will come when our country will have, to shape its own course; in short, Canada will do like the grown up boy who leaves the paternal roof in order to create a home for himself..
If we may have an insight into the future of our country, is it not desirable that we should, from this moment, begin to prepare ourselves for the struggle for life in the future?
There is not a single country, however small it may be, in Europe and in the rest of the civilized world, anxious for its future destiny, which has not its nucleus of a navy for national defence.
Although a mere colony, Canada, owing to the vast extent of her territory, her immense natural resources, her population growing yearly by leaps and bounds, is much ahead of those countries I have just referred to, and yet, she would remain indifferent to the fate which the future keeps

in store for her. That would be, to say the least, imprudent.	*
Looking at the question from the standpoint of our relations with the mother country, I find also that it is hut fair that w'e should contribute in some way and help to preserve the supremacy of the empire. The other colonies have responded to that very natural feeling; will Canada alone lag and stay behind? Np, Sir, the political genius of the Prime Minister has devised the means of saving our autonomy and has succeeded in making the best of that scheme of national defence.
While allowing us to freely discharge our duties as colonists towards England, the government Bill provides first for our national defence, and it may well be said once more, on the present occasion, that the Liberal party has adopted the policy of ' Canada for the Canadians.'
The creation of a navy is calculated not only to give satisfaction to the just pride of a whole people, but moreover, to give the country the benefit of a new industry; the establishment of several navy yards for the construction of those warships will materially contribute to the prosperity of a portion of the population, and then, the building of those warships will be followed by the construction of merchant ships; now, everybody knows that for a country like Canada a merchant marine is the thermometer of its prosperity. Moreover, as we have in Canada the advantage over other countries of possessing enormous deposits of iron and nickel and everything that enters into the construction of ships, we may hope that this new industry will take an enormous development and even allow us to build ships for other countries, to the great benefit of our country. This new ship-building industry in Canada is going to procure work to thousands of heads of families and secure an inexhaustible source of'revenue for them. Besides, this national navy will open to our young men an honourable career well worthy of their best aspirations. In short, Mr. Speaker, I consider that we have in that policy a new and considerable element of national prosperity.
As against the policy enunciated by the government, the hon. gentlemen opposite present two policies, quite indefinite and diametrically opposed; first, the hon. leader of the opposition wishes to place at the disposal of the Imperial authorities two Dreadnoughts, that is to say, all at once a sum of from twenty to twenty-five million dollars, even if we have later on to decide whether it is desirable or not to build a navy. I should not like to use here any offensive language, for I am loath to follow the hon, gentlemen opposite on that ground, but I wonder if the leader of
the opposition, in formulating his proposal, has duly taken into consideration the interests of our country and its future destiny? Should it become urgent, in a more or less remote future, to build a navy for the defence of our country and the experience of other countries shows that such urgency will soon be felt-of what use will those twenty-five million dollars have been which Canada, at one blow, would have given to the mother country? Would not that void produced all at once in the public exchequer be calculated to retard the creation of our navy, and who knows what would result from such delay? It seems to me that the policy of the leader of the opposition on that point is disastrous., and it does not require much musings on the matter to come to such a conclusion.
Then comes the proposal of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who says that the question ought to be submitted to the people to obtain at once the nation's opinion; but I ask, what is the use of an expenditure of two or three hundred thousand dollars when the nature of the result of that plebiscite is known beforehand?
I consider that the newspapers of Canada reflect public opinion; then, all you have to is to consult them, if you want to be well posted in that regard. I did very carefully consult those papers and I find that for the most part they are in favour of a contribution of Canada for the defence of the empire, and I infer therefron^ ^Sir. that the project of contribution devised by the Canadian government is the one which tallies best with the aspirations of our people. A few newspapers are more noisy than serious in their opposition to the government measure; but in their case it is easily seen that they aim more at stirring up popular prejudices against the government, the creator of this marine scheme, than against the scheme itself; in short, it is but a pretext and nothing else. I should not like to insinuate that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in advocating a plebiscite, is only aiming at setting up for a champion of the rights of the people. I am quite ready to believe in his sincerity, but undoubtedly one of the reproaches he will incur later on will be that of having used a subterfuge in order to avoid pronouncing himself, by his vote, on the merit of the policy of both parties on the issue now under discussion.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the attitude assumed by the hon. memoer for Jacques Cartier and some of his friends seems to show that the policy of the government, in this matter is absolutely fair and in full accord with the best interests of the country. Having realized the extravagant character of the policy advocated by the leader of the opposition and by his sup-

porters, they cannot give it their support; but as they should think they were failing in their duty of blindly approving, in any and every case, the measures brought down by the government, they fall back upon a policy of plebiscite which, after all, means nothing and would have no results.
Personally, Sir, exclusive of the powerful voice of the press, I find that the opinion of nearly all the representatives of the Canadian people assembled in this legislative hall, with a view to working in the best interests of this country, is unquestionably the sound opinion of the whole people of Canada. Now, the nature of this opinion is well known, and with the exception of a small group of seven or eight members, the whole deputation- even should there eixst some difference of opinion as to the mode of contributing to the defence of the empire-none the less admits that it is desirable to do something in that direction.
Therefore, Sir, I infer therefrom that the well-understood interest of the country, our trade relations with the mother country and our future destiny are so many reasons which militate in favour of the creation of a navy for the national defence.
Therefore, I will vote in favour of the Bill, because I am satisfied that the revenues of the country are amply sufficient to meet the expenditure involved in the creation of such navy, without it being necessary to increase taxation; and, moreover, because it cannot affect the national works under construction, as well as the works that are now contemplated. It would be idle, and I should take without any necessity the time of the House were I to give a statement of the revenues of the country and of our national wealth; just as it would be an unnecessary repetition of former statements to give the figures showing the increase in population; and to compare the present position of Canada with what it will be in a few years.
It is quite easy to agitate public opinion, to go through the country as some one is now doing in the county of L'Assomp-tion, which I have the honour of repre-presenting, trying to rouse prejudices by means of sonorious words, more or less devoid of sense. They talk about militarism, they refer to imperialism, they talk of millions of dollars; but, Sir, I should like to know if such verbiage is suggested by a sound and enlightened patriotism. Does that verbiage, on the contrary, not betray an ill-disguised ambition, a certain personal interest which seems, so to say, to silence the voice of reason and of public interest? But the electors of my county, as well as the electorate of the whole country, far from listening to those interested clamours, will realize that their mandatories had something else to do besides play-


Mr. SEGUIN.: ing the part of a demagogue. That mandate, Sir, I did accept with all the responsibilities involved, and the oath I have taken as a representative of the people makes it incumbent upon me, under the circumstances, to give my most loyal support to the Bill providing for the creation of a navy for the national defence, and so doing, I think I have well deserved of my country.
On motion of Mr. Loggie, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Wednesday, March 9, 1910.