1910-02-08

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make clear a statement in the report presented to the House in reference to the estimate of the Hudson Bay railway project. Hon. gentlemen will have noticed that although the amount for elevators, docks, &c., appears in the items, it does not appear in the totals. In order to make it clear I wish to put the following statement upon 'Hansard':

*5208
HUDSON BAY RAILWAY SURVEYS. Churchill Route.
Railway construction	$11,351,520
Railway shops and accessories.. ..	7,757,152
Port work	 6,675,000

Nelson Route.
Figures are shown as $16,426,340 and should
read:-
Railway construction	$ 8,981,800
Railway shops and accessories.. ..	7,444,540
Port work	 5,065,000



$21,491,340 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION RE COMPANIES.

Mr. MONK.: Is it the intention of the government to refer the Insurance Bill which is now being considered by the Senate to the Supreme Court in order to obtain a decision as to its constitutionality? There was a rumour to that effect when a judgment was rendered by Mr. Justice Leith at Montreal a couple of months ago in the case of King vs. Witlis, Fabre & Company to the effect that that legislation was unconstitutional. It seems that it would be an advantage to find out the opinion of the highest court on that subject before we go more fully into the study of the proposed Act.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.: Mr. Speaker, the interesting question to which the hon. member has called your attention is but one phase of a larger question as to the powers respectively of the Dominion parliament and of' the local legislatures in regard to the incorporation of companies. That question was not long since raised for the decision of the Supreme Court, and the members of that court differed among themselves very decidedly in the opinions they expressed. The question being of such large practical importance, communication was had from the department of which I am in charge with the Attorneys General of the various provinces with a view to arriving, if possible, at some means by which these difficult and very weighty questions of the construction of the British North America Act may be definitely settled. That correspondence has resulted in a proposition from several of the provinces that a conference on the subject be had between representatives of the provinces and representatives of the Dominion government and such a conference is being arranged for. Communications are now being addressed to the various lieutenant governors of the different provinces proposing a meeting of representatives of the provinces and of the Dominion government to discuss the -whole subject, not the mere question of in-Mr. GRAHAM.
surance legislation but the larger one as to the right to incorporate companies in the provinces and in the Dominion respectively.



THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.

Mr. BURRELL.: As the naval debate is to be resumed to-day I beg to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the following paragraph in the Toronto 'Globe' of February 4, referring to the Prime Minster's speech:
Its conclusion was marked by the inspiring spectacle of the whole House rising and singing the National Anthem.
The House knows that the inspiring spectacle referred to took place at the conclusion of the speech of my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I am not saying for one moment that this statement was sent out intentionally, but in view of the fact that it was given prominence not only in the recognized organization of the Liberal party but also in the Hamilton 'Times', the St. John 'Sun', the St. John 'Telegraph', the Halifax 'Chronicle', the Montreal 'Daily Herald', the Belleville 'Daily Ontario', the London 'Advertiser', the St. Thomas 'Journal' and the Winnipeg 'Free Press' and in view also of the fact that the Prime Minister was very severe last session on the immorality of false telegrams, I think I am voicing the sentiment of everybody on this side, and I am sure also of many on the other side, when I say we should be glad to have some little statement from the right hon. gentleman.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I do not understand what my hon. friend means. What have I to do with that?



TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

Mr. CROSBY.: I find in the Ottawa Evening 'Citizen' of February 5, a statement made, at Hamilton, Ontario, on the 4th of February, to the Trades and Labour Council.
A letter was read from Hon. Mackenzie King, stating that he had not moved postponement of government action in regard to technical education, but the protest came from the opposition.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) how that letter came to be put in that shape in view of what had taken place in that debate, and of the fact that he himself moved the adjournment of the debate on that occasion.


Mr. KING.: I have written no such letter. I should be pleased to lay before the House any letters I have sent to the Hamilton Trades and Labour Council. I take it that the hon. member (Mr. Crosby) is reading from a press report which does not

do justice to any communication I have sent.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is the report I have read wrong?


George Gerald King: YTes.



THE EDWARD MEDAL-HEROISM OF CONDUCTOR REYNOLDS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I desire to point out to the government that by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual of the 13th day of July, 1907, His Majesty created a new medal to be entitled the Edward medal to be awarded for heroic acts performed by miners, quarrymen and others who endanger their own lives in endeavouring to save the lives of others from perils in mines and quarries. And, by a further warrant, under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, on date of 1st of December, 1909, it is provided that this medal shall be awarded to those who, in the course of industrial employment, endanger their own lives in endeavouring to save the lives of others from perils incurred in connection with such industrial employment. I would ask the government whether this medal can be awarded to those who perform acts of heroism in saving the lives of others who are engandered in connection with the work of the railways of this country? The reason why I ask is that a very notable act of heroism has been performed by a conductor of the Canadian Pacific railway, Conductor Thomas Reynolds, who, at the risk of his own life and with unexampled courage, succeeded in saving the lives of nine others who had been imprisoned in the dining car which fell into the river and through the ice in the recent accident on the Sault line. If this medal could be awarded in connection with such acts of heroism, I earnestly hope that the government will bring Mr. Reynolds' signal heroism to the attention of the imperial authorities.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure that hon. members will agree that, if any are entitled to medals for heroism, Conductor Reynolds stands at the head of their number. There is a society which generally looks after these things, and calls the attention of the government to acts of heroism. As soon as we have received such recommendation, we shall be glad to call the matter to the attention of the proper authorities.



ALLAN STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

Adam Brown Crosby: On Friday last, I asked a question with reference to the line of Atlantic steamers running via Havre, calling at Halifax. The first minister promised me an answer on Monday. I desire to ask if he has that answer?
102 .


Wilfrid Laurier: I have the information for my hon. friend. I have to inform him that, under the contract with Messrs. H. & A. Allan for the Canada-France service, the call at Halifax or St. John is optional with the contractors. Recently, however, to meet the view of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Halifax Board of Trade, the Allans advertised calls at that port on eastbound voyages for the remainder of the winter season in order to carry forward lobsters and such other export traffic as might offer. Such call, however, is contingent on there being something to carry. With reference to westbound voyages, the Allans claim there is little or no westbound freight offering for Halifax; but they state that should there be a reasonable amount of westbound freight offering to at least pay the cost of such a call, they will make a call at that port; but that at other times, should they have any freight for Halifax but not sufficient to warrant a call at that port, such Halifax freight will be forwarded from St. John without further charge.



THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[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, and the amendment to the amednment of Mr. Monk thereto.
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: In rising to address the House on a subject of such vital importance to Canada, involving, as it does, not only our present status, but our future relation to the empire, I believe, upon the conclusion of this debate, we will have reached and passed an epoch marking mile-stone in the history, of the Dominion of Canada; and I believe that it is our bounden duty, our paramount duty, indeed, to consider not only whether the Bill before the House meets the requirement of the naval defence of Canada, but also whether it will tend to lead either to the consolidation or disintegration of the empire. A word or two first with reference to the question of militarism. I desire to place myself on record as not being in any manner a champion of the spirit of militarism. The question we are considering i3 simply a question of defence; it is not a question of aggression; it is not a question of doing anything towards the acquisition of territory; it is purely and simply a question of strengthening the central armament of the'empire, for the purpose of preserving peace as we have had it preserved during the last hundred years. And I make the statement that, the supremacy of the British navy, the unchallenged supremacy of that navy, has been the cause of our peace



for over a century. We know that peace has been the constant and devoted companion of Great Britain's supremacy on the sea of time for the greater part of a century; and we know that so soon as the supremacy of Britain upon the seas is menaced upon the international horizon appear war clouds and rumours of war. We know that because of the threatening of that supremacy through the naval progress of the greatest military power in Europe to-day, we have, for the first time, the threatened Armageddon. We have New Zealand making a magnificent offer of a Dreadnought ' ; we have Australia contributing to the empire a unit of the imperial navy. And it is because of these circumstances that we to-day are considering the question of naval defence. So, in speaking of this matter, in defending any form of naval defence, I am doing it because I believe that in strengthening, of the forces of the empire we are maintaining the peace not only of the colonies of Britain, but of the nations of the world. It has been the expressed policy of British statesmen, time and again, that the object of their navy is not for territorial aggression or anything of that kind, but simply for the preservation of peace. I would like to read to the House the words of the British Foreign Secretary, spoken last June before the imperial pres3 conference to show what the foreign policy of Great Britain is on this question. Sir Edward Grey said:
And I would say this: tile foreign policy of this country is to keep what we have got, to consolidate it, and develop it, to quarrel as little as possible with other people in doing so, and to uphold in the councils of the world in diplomacy those ideals in every part of the world by which we set so much store at home.
This is nothing more or less than the policy of, ' what we have we'll hold.' And I think we are quite justified in contributing in some measure to a policy of that kind.
The first question that occurs to one is what have we to hold? We have, I think I am safe in saying, an empire unrivalled in the history of the world. It is an empire of 400,000,000 souls, that is to say one-fifth the population of the globe; an empire that covers 12,000,000 square miles, or one-fifth the area of the globe. Of the entire population, 60,000,000 are Anglo-Saxon; 44,000,000 reside in the ' little isles in the foggy sea,' and 16,000,000 are scattered throughout the colonies of the empire. And, of the whole territory of 12,000,000 square miles, onlv 120,000 square miles are comprised within Great Britain itself. In that respect it is entirely different from all other empires of ancient or modern times. It is an empire of all climes, of all races, of all classes, of all creeds, of all longitudes, of all latitudes, of all sea3, and in that respect it is entirely different from any of the empires of ancient Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
or modern times. The Macedonian empire, the Assyrian empire, the Eoman empire, the Russian empire and all other gTeat empires were contiguous and continuous. Their geographical position was such that an army could be landed on one portion of the empire and could march to any other portion. How different it. is with the British empire to-day, which is divided by so many seas. But notwithstanding the fact that it is separated by these seas, there is no doubt that the various portions of the empire to-day are four or five times nearer to Great Britain than they were a hundred years ago, because time and distance have been almost annihilated by reason of present facilities of intercommunication in the shape of steamships, telegraphs, cables, wireless telegraphy, and probably in a short time, by reason of an aerial communication. For these reasons then we have the more cause for upholding that which is the all essential to the preservation of the empire, namely, naval supremacy upon the sea. Now, I make this formal statement that the existence of the British empire and of all her colonial dependencies depend upon the actual supremacy of the British navy upon the seas.
We ore apt to forget what it is costing Great Britain to maintain that supremacy, we forget it because we do not pay a single cent towards the maintenance of that supremacy, either on land or sea, although we obtain all the advantages, and all. the benefits and all the prestige and protection which we would obtain were we citizens of Great Britain herself. We are apt to forget, I say, what it is costing the mother country to-day in order to maintain that supremacy. Take the case of the British navy. What is Great Britain paying to-day for the maintenance of her navy? I think the annual naval estimate for 1910 is $75,000,000, that is $480,000 for every single day of the 365 days of the year. Now, I maintain that we, as a colony of Great Britain, are getting me advantage and protection of that expenditure of money just as fully and just as effectually as any citizen of Great Britain herself, and we are not contributing one cent thereto. In addition to that, she is maintaining a great standing army which is costing her $430,000 a day. It may be said, perhaps, that we do not get the same benefit from that army as do the citizens of Great Britain herself. But we must remember that it is the British navy that bears the British army upon its back; and if we were attacked in Canada by any great power, say that of the United States, for instance, we could depend upon the British navy to bear the British armies to our defence. So in that respect, without the supremacy of the British navy, the British army is of

no practical use to this country. With the supremacy of the British navy we receive the same benefit from her armv as any other portion of the empire or as Great Britain herself. Moreover, it is a matter of history that for the last 150 years, all the wars which Great Britain has fought have been fought across seas, and its troops have been borne across seas on the back of the navy, and all this money and treasure have been expended in fighting the battles
o.f distant portions of the empire.
We do not lack for illustrations of that. We have seen Great Britain send out into Persia an army for the purpose of relieving certain of her citizens who had been maltreated and imprisoned by the Persian emperer. When Canada herself was faced by the first rebellion in the Northwest, Great Britain sent out a body of troops wholly at her expense for the purpose of suppressing that rebellion. We know that when the rights and privileges of a certain number of citizens in South Africa were menaced, Great Britain did not hesitate at once to send out an army of 300,000 men from her shores; with the assistance and by means of British naval supremacy the navy was able to carry upon its back that army of 300,000 men, and to protect the ships and transports bearing provisions for them into South Africa. Of those troops,
18,000	never came back, and 65,000 or 70,000 bear to-day upon their persons the scars of that war; and not one cent was contributed before that time by South Africa tow'ards imperial defence. Now, Sir, we know that Great Britain would do exactly as she did in South Africa in case Canada were menaced in like manner; in other words, we would receive the benefit of the army and navy upon which she expends over $900,000 a day for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the empire of which Canada forms a part.
Now let me illustrate that in another way. Supposing you went into the office of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you wanted to know what that war in South Africa has cost. You look upon the credit side, and you see a precedent created that, no matter *where a British subject is found, once his rights have been invaded, Great Britain will at all costs fly to his rescue. On the debit side you will find 18,000 men -who have lost their lives, and you will find throughout Great Britain many a hearth and many a home that now
Long for the touch of the vanished hand,
Asd the sound of the voice that is still.
You will find in addition to that, 65,000 or 70,000 men who went out to fight the battles of the empire, bearing upon their person the imperial phylacteries of devotion and loyalty to the motherland. You will find in addition that, in the office of the 102J
Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the debit side, a war costing $1,000,000,000, and you will find the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising at three per cent $30,000,000 every year for the purpose of paying the interest on that part of the national debt incurred by the South African war. Is that not a proof that we would derive the same_ benefit, and would derive the same material assistance, were national complications to arise between Canada and any foreign nation? We have that precedent of British assistance in South Africa, and we have the right to assume that she -would do the same thing for Canada.
Then, if we consider the matter from a totally selfish and material standpoint as it affects our own country, what do we find? We have here a coast lying on the Atlantic and on the Pacific oceans wholly unprotected. We have a number of thriving cities upon those two coast lines, wholly unprotected except by virtue of the supremacy of the British navy to-day. We enjoy the advantage, the prestige and the protection of all the diplomatic and consular service throughout the world, and it is unnecessary to say that such service is the greatest in the world. We know that Great Britain is paying to-day over $3,000,000 a year for her diplomatic and consular service alone, and we are getting the benefit of that as effectually as any other citizen of the British empire, while not contributing one cent towards it. Now, I make this broad statement, that Canada is rapidly growing, and as the increase in her commerce is going to be to a large extent an increase in her natural products, and as in that respect Canada will have a surplus of agricultural products, and as that surplus would go, not to the United States, but to countries beyond the seas which cannot now raise enough agricultural products for their own needs, it follows that as our trade increases, and as our export of agricultural products increases, the surplus for export must cross the seas, and in order to protect that vast commerce, we must have the supremacy of the British navy. The whole question resolves itself into this, that an invincible imperial navy is nothing more or less than an insurance policy insuring every portion of the empire against the contingency and horrors of war, and is a guarantee to each part of the empire of its peace, progress and prosperity.
Now let me say a word or two in reference to the speeches of the Right Hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon.. Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux). As to the character of the speeches, were I to look upon them from the standpoint of eloquence and rhetoric, I would say that they were par excellence. Both of these hon. gentlemen read quotations and extracts from the speeches of many eminent politicians, statesmen and

ecclesiastics. No douibt they did this for the purpose of suiting the political exigencies of these hon. gentlemen in various parts of the country. I do not know that it was necessary to go back and read these quotations from these gentlemen, many of whom had been dead for generations, some of whom have been dead for centuries, and I think it was rather a rude thing that they should go back and disturb Peter the Hermit from the peaceful hermitage where he has so long slumbered. What had all this to do with the question at issue? The question at issue is whether Canada, by reason of its position in the empire to-day, or by reason of the impending difficulties and necessities which beset the empire, _ is going to make a contribution to imperial defence, and, if so, what is to be the manner of making that contribution? Upon that aspect of the case I say that the precedents which the First Minister and the Postmaster General have quoted are wholly irrelevant to the matter at issue, because the matter at issue is simply the question of a voluntary gift by this government to the mother country for the purpose of assisting her in the difficulties which have beset her, and there is no constitutional authority which has anything to do with the question of whether we choose to make a gift to the mother country for the purpose of strengthening our national defence. I see upon the OTder paper a resolution authorizing the government to make a grant of $50,000 to the city of Paris for the purpose of aiding those who have suffered by reason of the recent flood which has taken place in that city. With that I am quite in accord, but why would it be necessary for any one to get up and cite constitutional authorities as to whether we should or should not grant to the city of Paris something to relieve the present situation? Yet, such an argument would be on all fours with the argument put up by these hon. gentlemen in regard to the navy.
But, I would not have found so much fault with the speeches of these hon. gentlemen, and especially with the speech of the right hon. the First Minister, if the right hon. gentleman had confined himself to what was the policy of his own party, though, no doubt, there was great reason to find fault with that. What did the First Minister say? He said:
This policy is in the best traditions of the Liberal party. This policy is the latest link in the long chain of events which followed from the principles laid down by the reformers of the old times, Baldwin and Lafontaine, which, step by step, stage by stage, have brought Canada to the position it now occupies, that is to say, the rank, dignity and status of a nation within the British empire.
He was not satisfied with that, but further he went on to say:


William Sora Middlebro: I am bound to say at the same time that it has been censured and criticised-severely censured and severely criticised-by those who within the party boast of their imperialism, who carry abroad upon their foreheads the imperial phylacteries, who boldly walk into the temple and there loudly thank the lord that they are not like other British subjects, that they give tithes of everything they possess, and that in them alone is to be found the true incense of loyalty.
The right hon. gentleman has been leading the Liberal party for about twenty years, and had the policy which he has advocated been canned into effect it would have led us, according to the right hon. gentleman, to the position we occupy to-day as the first colony in the British empire, the brightest jewel in the British Crown! Well, I think that the right hon. gentleman, having made this statement, it is only fair and just to this side of the House that I should see whether the policies which he heretofore advocated would have led us to'the position we occupy to-day. I do not need to go back a century, I do not need to go back more than twenty years, it is within the memory of the youngest member of this House, to compare the policies which the right hon. gentleman has enunciated within the last twenty years with the position we occupy to-day. Less than twenty years ago the right hon. gentleman advocated several distinct anti-British trade policies. The right hon. gentleman first advocated continental freedom of trade, then unrestricted reciprocity, and then commercial union. We all remember that upon the platforms of this country the right hon. gentleman said time and again: Place, me in power and I will give -you continental free trade, unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union. We know that if the country had taken him at his word and placed him in power we would have had either commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity. It goes without saying that had the right hon. gentleman thrown down the customs barriers which then existed and which exist now between this country and the great nation to the south of us, the first step would have been commercial union, and the next step would have been political union. During all that time, while these anti-British policies were being advocated by the right hon. gentleman and his followers, the Conservative party, led by that grand, old, patriotic, loyal chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, said: We will have none of it. Sir John Macdonald consistently and persistently argued and preached the gospel that the destiny of this country was inseparably bound up with that of the motherland. It was upon that policy, upon that issue that he uttered those famous words: A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. Imbued with these. anti-British policies the right hon. the leader of the government passed over to the

most literary city upon the other side of the line, to the city of Boston, and he gave utterance to his opinion eighteen or twenty years ago. What was his opinion there? Were his opinions there such as, had they been carried out, would have led us to the position we occupy to-day as the brightest jewel in the British Crown, or were they such as, had they been carried out, would have made us an independent nation? I will quote what the right hon. gentleman said:
The conduct of England and Canada during the civil war of 1861-66 was a disgrace to the civilization of England and Canada. [DOT] t - It is a great, a fatal mistake to make allegiance, British allegiance, the basis of trade. . . The present position of Canada cannot last, even at this day England and Canada have interests totally apart, and that the time will come when in the very nature of things separation must take place. I am a subject oi the British Crown, but whenever I have to choose between the interests of England and of Canada, it is manifest to me that the interests of my country are identical with the interests of the United States of America.
Then, Sir, being subsequently tiwitted with these assertions by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on the floor of this House, being asked if he still maintained these views, because there are occasions sometimes when a man will say in the heat of the moment and before a public audience perhaps what he does not really mean; but, when these statements were cast up to the right hon. gentleman on the floor of this House did he repudiate them? I say: No, and we will see what he said on the floor of this House. He said:
He (Mr. Foster) speaks as if Canada were to remain for ever a colony. Light as our dependence may be on the mother country, that dependence is not to remain for ever. If we were to admit that, if we were to say that we were always to remain in a dependent condition we would be the scorn of the world and it would be scorn well deserved. . . It is the destiny of the colonies to become nations as it is the destinty of a child to become a man, and while no doubt the idea of separation from the motherland *causes a pang in the heart no doubt of every one, yet there is not a child who leaves his father's house who does not do so without a pang if his heart is in the proper place. .	. I have
again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada, to see Canada an independent nation in course of time. If we were true to our record we will again exhibit to the world, the unique, the unprecedented example of a nation achieving its own independence by slow degrees and as naturally as the severing of the ripe fruit from the parent tree. . . The Minister of Finance reproached me a moment ago, that I had stated at Boston that the Canadian people had commercial interests different from the British people. Sir, I said so in Boston and I say so now on the floor of this House.
That was. the policy advocated by the
right hon. gentleman away back in these days. Let us follow him down to the present day. The next instance that arose to elicit an expression of the right hon. gentleman's imperialism was the South African war. Remember, he has just a few days ago said on the floor pf the House:	'I do not pretend
to say that I am an imperialist,' and that is the frankest admission we have had from him so far. Now, when the trouble broke out in South Africa, when little New Zealand was the first to make her offer to send troops to assist the motherland, when Australia and all the other colonies followed suit, men were wondering what was the matter with Canada and the answer from the right hon. gentleman was:	'I do not
think I can send troops to South Africa, I do not think I have the power.' But, the . newspapers of this country reflected public opinion, and to them great credit is due, and I particularly mention the Montreal ' Star,' because the Montreal ' Star ' sent telegraphic despatchees to the mayors of every city and town in the Dominion with the purpose of ascertaining the true sentiment of the Dominion, and. the practically Unanimous answer was:	By all means
send troops to South Africa and assist the mother country for there may come a day when we ourselves will need just such assistance. From the confines of the two oceans there started a great wave of patriotic loyal sentiment gathering force as it went along, until finally it thundered against the doors of this parliament, and then and then only the right hon. gentleman awoke from his imperial slumber to find that he could do what he before said it was impossible to do under the constitution, namely send a contingent to South Africa. He realized then that the question was of such magnitude that if there was not a precedent, Canada was bound to create a precedent, and I say Sir, at the present time if there is no precedent for what the Conservative party propose should be done, we are bound to create a precedent. So that whatever credit or prestige and advantage which Canada obtained from her participation in the South African war is not due to the right hon. gentleman himself, but to the patriotism, loyalty and. devotion of the Canadian people, and to that irresistible wave of loyal sentiment which passed over this country and which forced the right hon. gentleman against his own convictions to send Canadian troops to South Africa. We now pass to the imperial conference of 1907. Up to that time the right hon. gentleman was free to act as he chose; if he were an imperialist and desired to do something which would show his practical interest in the motherland and his desire to contribute towards the deI fence of the empire he could have moved

in that direction at this conference. But, not only did he not move, but he took a step which clearly expresses the sentiment which he himself has stated a few days ago in this House, namely:	'I do
not prtetend to be ;an imperialist.' What occurred at that conference? Dr. Smart introduced a resolution. If that resolution had said that the overseas Dominions must contribute in a certain manner; if the resolution had said: You must give so much money, or you must build a local fleet, or you must give two ' Dreadnoughts ' to the British navy, there might be some excuse for the right hon. gentleman not agreeing with the resolution. But, the resolution was so fair and so reasonable that I shall read it:
_ That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to mainain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contributions towards the upkeep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-the contributions to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with varying circumstances.
That is the resolution and it says in effect, that it is the duty of the different portions of the empire to do what they may deem the best in the way of a contribution towards assisting the motherland in the imperial defence, and yet the right hon. gentleman dissented and said he would have nothing to do with it. It is in line with the sentiment he expressed in the House the other day when he said:	I am
not an imperialist. Well, matters remained in that position until something occurred and when that something occurred did the right hon. gentleman act on his own volition? No. The hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) put upon the order paper a resolution, which said in effect: it is time we should do something towards assisting the motherland in relieving her of the burden of defence. It was a move from this side of the House, and following it came the emergency and the pressure of public opinion again. The newspapers, reflecting public opinion, showed that Canadians believed that Canada must do something to assist the motherland in the crisis, and under pressure the right hon. gentleman consented to the adoption of a resolution having for its object the giving of a contribution to the motherland for the purpose of assisting in the defence of the empire. That resolution was passed in March, 1909, and the right hon. gentleman sent over delegates to the conference Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
in the old country and they' brought back the proposition which we have before the House. When he submitted that proposition to the parliament in the first place he said: This navy shall not go to the assistance of Great Britain until the parliament of Canada is called. Again public opinion as expressed in the press demonstrated that the people of Canada would not stand for that, and when the right hon. gentleman came before us next time his declaration was: This navy may go to war and parliament need not be called but it shall not go to war until this government says it shall, and if it does go to war then parliament shall be called. To that extent he receded from his former position, but he gave way mightly little, because it simply means that if the right hon. gentleman sits still, as he did in the South African war, if he does nothing, as he said he would have done in the case of the Crimean war, then nothing is done and parliament is not called and Canada does not .go to the assistance of the empire. I would like to put this proposition to the right hon. gentleman: Suppose Great Britain took the same stand he has taken; suppose Great Britain said to us exactly as he has said to Great Britain I do not'pretend to be an imperialist!, the inevitable conclusion is that if Canada should get into difficulties we would not or could not expect to receive one particle of assistance from the motherland. Now, what is the position of Australia? The other day when our honored leader was making some remarks, on the position Australia had taken with reference to her naval unit, the Minister of Militia rose in his seat and said, that from the report contained in the imperial conference it appeared that the Australian parliament had to consent to its fleet going to war before it could go to war. Am I right in that? At any rate while I do not pretend to be as familiar with this question as the hon. Minister of Militia is, I take it that the passage to which the Minister of Militia refers is that contained at page 57 of the imperial conference report:
In peace time and while on the Australian station this fleet unit would be under the exclusive control of the Commonwealth government as regards their movements and general administration, but officers and men should be governed bv regulations similar to the King's regulations, and be under naval discipline, and when with vessels of the Royal navy, the senior officer should take command of the whole. Further, when placed by the Commonwealth government at the disposal of the admiralty in war time, the vessels should be under the control of the naval commander-vn-chief.
Now, because this memorandum says that the Australian fleet unit may in war time be placed by the Australian Commonwealth at the disposal of the admiralty,

the hon. Minister of Militia -says that the parliament of the Commonwealth must first consent to its being placed on actual war service, if I may so put it. What I say is that that meanis when so placed in the manner mentioned in paragraph 8 of the memorandum submitted by Australia to the conference, which paragraph is to be found at .page 5, and reads thus:
8. In time of war or emergency or upon a declaration by the senior naval officer representing British government, that a condition of emergency exists, all the vessels of the naval force of the Commonwealth shall be placed by the Commonwealth government under the orders of Lords ComAissioners of the admiralty. Tne method by which the vessels shall come under the orders of the senior naval officer would be by furnishing each commander of an Australian vessel with sealed orders and instructions (to) the effect that upon the declaration to him by the senior naval officer representing British government that a state of war or emergency exists, such sealed orders shall thereupon be opened, and, in pursuance of their provisions, he shall thereupon immediately place himself under the orders of the senior naval officer representing the British government.
Now, to prove that that is correct, I read the next paragraph, which states the only exception made to that provision:
It is, however, to be understood that if the services of any of the coast defence vessels be desired in seas remote from Australia, the approval of the Commonwealth government shall first be obtained to their removal.
In other words, the approval of the Commonwealth government is not to be first obtained for the service of any vessels except coast defence vessels. An armoured cruiser is not a coast defence vessel, it is intended to go on the high seas and make an aggressive movement. Therefore, the hon. gentleman is not right in his contention that the -assent of the_ Commonwealth government is to be obtained^ before the Australian unit can be used in the defence of the empire, because the memorandum which was placed before the conference by Australia says that in case of war it shall be immediately placed under the command of the senior officer of the admiralty.
I sometimes wonder whether hon. gentlemen on the other -side of the House really understand the meaning of this Bill. As I understand, the right hon. leader the government's position is that this is purely a voluntary gift on the part of this country, and that we may accompany it with any conditions we choose. The right hon. gentleman says, I will not now agree to trust to Great Britain for one hour as to whether or not we shall assist her in case of war; I reserve to myself the absolute right and privilege of saying, after the war has commenced, whether it is such a war as I can countenance, and whether, in view_ of the circumstances, I can come to the assistance of the mother country. I say that that position taken by the right hon. gentleman is a less loyal and less patriotic position, and displays less trust and confidence in the motherland, than the position of an ordinary independent ally, who says:	In
case of war I will trust you and come to your assistance. Here is the position of Japan in the treaty made^ with Great Britain five years ago and which is in force to-day:
The governments of Great Britain and Japan, being desirous of replacing the agree-meut concluded between them on the 30tli of January, 1902, bv fresh stipulations, have agreed upon the following articles, which have for their object-
If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any other power or powers, either contracting party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this agreement, the other contracting party wTill at once come to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct the war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it. .
Here is Japan, on the 12th of August, 1905, going to Great Britain and saying: I have enough trust and confidence in you now, that for the period of ten years I am going to bind myself, if you become involved in war at any time during that period, to come to your assistance. In that respect I say the proposition of the Prime Minister is less loyal and less patriotic than the position of Japan in that treaty. The right hon. gentleman charges us with bearing imperial phylacteries on our hrows^ and walking boldly into the temple and there proclaiming that we are not as other British subjects are. I can only say that we are willing to go into the temple and proclaim that we are not as other British subjects are if that is the kind of imperialism with which right hon. gentleman is imbued.
Now, let us come to the question of emergency; and I want to point out that in the Bill before the House, and in the speech he made on that Bill, the right hon. the Prime Minister has entirely overlooked the circumstances which have brought that Bill to this House. That Bill would not have been before this House to-day, I venture to say, unless a condition of emergency had existed in Europe; and yet the right hon. gentleman, in bringing the Bill into the House, totally disregards the very reason for that Bill, by failing to make any provision whatever for the emergency which has caused it. He admits himself that it will be five years-I venture to say that it will be- ten years before a single ship of the Canadian navy will be completed, equipped, manned and ready to do her part in active service. According to the best experts in Europe the crisis is going to come within the next ten years, and we are making no provision to meet

it, although it is the very reason for this Bill being before this House. By an emergency I do not mean a present actual, crisis. I mean a condition of things which, if allowed to proceed in the manner determined upon, will eventually and inevitably lead to the destruction of that which is allessential, both to ourselves and to the British empire, the supremacy of the British navy at sea. If we find a condition of things existing to-day which, if allowed to continue, will bring us to that culmination, I call that an emergency, and it is upon that I propose to make my argument now. Let me point first of ail to this fact, that ten years ago the German nation decided that they should have a very power-M navy. A Bill was brought into the Eeichstag appropriating $l,uu0,000,000 for the purpose of starting their naval programme. Since that time they have not only kept up that programme, but have accelerated it by increasing the appropriation by $500,000,000, part of it in 1906 and part in 1908. Since that time there has arisen in the Eeichstag what is known as the 'Expansionist party,' who are in favour of increasing German armaments. We know they are increasing German armaments. We know that the German nation is to-day increasing in population at the rate of about 900,000 every year. I do not mean to say that the German people are not right in taking the stand they do. If by their sacrifice, their perseverance and their energy they are able to place the German fleet on a par with the British fleet, they have a perfect right to do so, and looking at the matter from their standpoint, it is a credit to them that they do so. At the same time the same reasoning applies to us, and if we are weak enough to allow them to do that we have nobody to thank but ourselves.
Now take the German construction; compare the German construction to-day with the German construction ten years ago, and what do we find? We find that- the German construction to-day is $36,000,000 more than it was ten years ago. The British con struction to-day is only ten millions more than it was ten years ago. The total annual naval expenditure of Germany has increased in the last five years by $47,000,000. The total annual naval expenditure of Great Britain has increased only _ $10,000,000. Then we have this very significant fact that by reason of the advent of the Dreadnought type of armoured cruiser, all types prior to that have been practically relegated to the scrap heap. We have the authority of the Et. Hon. Eeginald McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, for that statement. He said in the imperial House of Commons:
There will come a day when, by an almost automatic process, all ships of an earlier type Mr. MIDDLEBEO.
than the Dreadnought will be relegated to the scrap heap. The maintenance of our superiority then will depend upon our superiority in Dreadnoughts alone. The German power of constructing this particular type of vessel is at this time almost if not fully equal to our own, owing to their rapid development within the past eighteen months.
If that is the case, it means that the greater part of the German navy will be' essentially more powerful than the British navy, because the greater part of the German navy not being as old as the British navy will be constructed of the modern type. _
I wish to refer to a speech made by the right hon. the Prime Minister in Toronto not long ago, I think on the 6th of January 1910. He said:
However, in the province of Ontario another position is taken-I will not say by the whole of the Conservative party-that we should make at once a contribution to the British navy, that we should contribute at once, one to three Dreadnoughts, that we should contribute at once thirty million dollars. The cause, they say, for this urgency is that danger is imminent for Britain. Danger? Where is it coming from? They tell us from Germany Let us look at this. We know that the displacement of the British navy is nearly two million tons, and that of the German navy is_ six hundred thousand tons. In 1912 the British navy will have a displacement oi more than two million tons, and the German navy one of about a million tons. So that the disparity is too great to say that danger is imminent.
The right hon. gentleman brushes aside the question of emergency with the statement that because in 1912 the German navy will have a tonnage of only 1,000,000 tons, whereas the British navy will have a tonnage of 2,000,000 tons, therefore, the question of emergency cannot arise. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that according to his own statement there will be a difference of 400,000 tons between the German navy now, and the German navy in 1912. That means that in the space of two years Germany will have added to her navy
400,000	tons. Divide that into Dreadnoughts, that is by 20,000 tons, and it means 20 Dreadnoughts. Now, supposing I cut off 25 per cent of that and make it 15, it will mean that Germany will have 15 Dreadnoughts built in the next two years. Then I take the statements of the Et. Hon. Mr. McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Et. Hon. Sir Edward Grey, who say that if you build 15 Dreadnoughts you must relegate to the scrap heap all of the preDreadnought type, and so the 400,000 tons which the Germans will add to their navy in the next few years will be worth four or five times the same tonnage of the old obsolete British warship. It is not tonnage that counts, it is the class of vessel, the range of guns, the protection of the cruiser,

and last but not least, the efficiency of officers and men. We have abundant illustrations of that. It was not because the Russian fleet in the Japanese sea was so inferior in tonnage, it was not inferior, but it was that the Japanese fleet was modern, up to date and equipped with modern guns. That battle as we know lasted only forty minutes. It was not that the tonnage _ of Spain was so inferior, it was the superior guns and arms and the efficiency of the officers and men of iflie United States navy that sent the Spanish fleet to the bottom of the sea in a few minutes. So it is no argument to say that because the tonnage of the British fleet is greater than the tonnage of the German fleet there is no danger of war. The tonnage of the German fleet may be only half that of the British fleet, and still it may be a more eective fighting force than the whole British fleet.
Let us see what authority there is for the statement that there is an emergency. I do not think it is fair to the people of Canada for the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General to brush aside in a light manner, and with the levity displayed by them on this occasion, the question of emergency. Let us see what the greatest authorities in England themselves think of the emergency, let us take the opinion of men who know what they are talking about and who have given this matter serious consideration. You have heard our leader, in his speech on the second reading, state that Mr. McKenna had said in the House of Commons that all vessels prior to _ the Dreadnought type would be obsolete in a very short space of time and would have to be relegated to the scrap heap, and that Germany's power of construction is almost equal to our own. You have heard it stated that when the German programme is carried out she will have 33 Dreadnoughts, the most powerful fleet in the world, and as to the necessity of the entire rebuilding of preDreadnought fleets. You have heard the Liberal Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) admit that by 1912 Germany would have at least 13 Dreadnoughts ready for service^ I propose now to give you some information given prior to the British elections. I do not propose to read, as the Postmaster General did, any utterance of the statesmen of Great Britain during the elections. Three months after the British House of Commons closed, at the Imperial Press Conference in June last, Lord Rosebery said: '
Now gentlemen, you will forgive me if I come next and at once to wliat is by far the most vital topic that you will have to discuss at this conference, or which concerns our empire as a whole-I means that of imperial defence. (Cheers.) I do not know that in some ways I have ever seen a condition of things in Europe so remarkable, so peaceful, and in some respects so ominous, as the condition which exists at this moment. There is a hush in Europe, a hush in which one might almost hear a leaf fall to the ground. There is an absolute absence of any questions which ordinarily lead to war. One of the great empires which is sometimes supposed to menace peace is entirely engrossed with its domestic affairs. Another great eastern empire which has furnished a perpetual problem for European statesmen has taken a new lease of life and youth in searching for liberty and constitutional reform. All, then, forbodes peace, and yet, at the same time, combined with this total absence of all question of friction, there never was, in the history of the world, so threatening and overpowering a preparation for war. That is the sign which I regard as most ominous. For forty years it has been a platitude to say that all Europe is an armed camp, and for forty years it has been true that all the nations have been facing each other armed to the teeth, and that has been, in some respects, a guarantee of peace. And now what do we see? And now, without any tangible reason, we see the nations preparing new armaments. They cannot, indeed, arm any more men upon land, so they have to seek new armaments upon the sea, piling up this enormous preparation, as if for some approaching Armageddon. And yet this is in the time of the profoundest peace. We live in the midst of what I think was called by Petrarch a ' latens helium '-a silent warfare, in which not a drop of blood is shed in anger, but in which the very last drop is extracted from the body by the lancets of the European statesmen. I admit there are features of this general preparation for war which must cause special anxiety to the friends of Great Britain and of the British empire.
When 1 see one country alone asking for Zt>
millions of extra taxation for warlike preparations ; when I see the unprecedented sacrifices which are asked from us on the same grounds, I do begin to feel uneasy as to the outcome of it all, and to wonder where it will stop. .	.	. Gentlemen, we can and we
will build ' Dreadnoughts ' or whatever the newest type of ship may be as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them. All that we can and will do, but I am not sure that even that will be enough, and I think it may be your duty to take back to your young dominions across the seas this message and this impression: that some personal dutv and responsibility for national defence rests on every man and citizen of the empire. Yes, gentlemen, take that message back with you. Tell your peoples - if they can believe it - the deplorable wav in which Europe is relapsing into militarism and the pressure that is put upon this little England, to defend itself, its liberties-and yours! But take this message also back with you-that the old country is right at heart; that there is no failing or weakness in her; and that she rejoices in renewing her youth in her giant dominions beyond the seas. For her own salvation, she must look to herself, and chat failing her she must look to you.
I cannot add anything to that. But I will quote now the opinion of Sir Edward Grey, who, as you know, is foreign secre-

tary. He spoke at this same conference. This was after the British parliament rose last March, and I may say that all these speeches were revised by the speakers themselves, except that of Bight Hon. Arthur J. Balfour, as stated in the preface of this Imperial Press Conference report itself, so that these are matured and clear expressed opinions of these eminent gentlemen :
Take the question of expenditure upon armaments. The other day, when we expressed our views of how serious the expenditure on armaments was becoming, there came at once, and in a way which admitted of no mistake, a response from other parts of the empire which made us feel that the empire beat with one heart. I would refer for a moment-merely to emphasize it-to the serious way in which Lord Bosebery spoke the other evening on this subject. I endorse every word he said. We are in comparatively calm weather, not in stormy weather, in foreign politics at the present moment, but the excessive expenditure on armaments makes the weather sultry. And the seriousness of that expenditure cannot be over-rated; but you should know to-day how conscious we are at home that we have far too much at stake to allow our naval expenditure to fall behind, however great the burden, and you from beyond the seas have made it clear to us 'how great the resources of the empire are. In upholding the empire surely we are going more and more towards the ideal to which Mr. Kirwan referred in his speech yesterday -of a union of allies-of self-governing dominions.
Then, Bight Hon. Beginald McKenna, First Ix>rd of the Admiralty, speaking at the same conference, said:
We look to the future and we see growing difficulties surrounding our empire. We foresee possibilities in which we should he called upon to unite our whole strength in a common defence.
Bight Hon. Alfred Lyttleton, who was colonial secretary in the previous government, said:
Well, my belief is, the actual position, the actual situation * of affairs at this moment is different from that which it has been since the battle of Trafalgar. We are in the presence for the first time of powers equal to ourselves in wealth, equal to ourselves in mechanical skill and efficiency, equal to ourselves in national self-consciousness and aspiration, unhappily superior to ourselves in population. As these things stand, unless fortune takes some unusual turn, I believe that Lord Rosebery spoke the absolute truth, and I was delighted to hear Sir Edward Grey on this occasion endorse what he said-that this country may always be relied upon to spend her last shilling if it is necessary for her own defence and for the defence of the empire, hut that a time might come when it would he necessary for her own safety and for their own safety that the dominions over seas should assist her in a tremendous struggle.
I firmly believe myself that the ultimate destiny and fate of this empire will depend-
* Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
must depend-upon the achievement of a really closer and more consolidated unity and a more perfect organization of defence.
Now, I will take the speech of the Bight Hon. Mr. Balfour, which appears at page 170 of the report of this Press Conference:
The fate of Australia, the fate of New Zealand, of Canada, South Africa, India, that is not going to he decided in the Pacific; it is not going to he decided in the Indian ocean; it is going to be decided here-and everybody who attempts to read the signs of the times will, I think, agree with the weighty words which fell from Lord Rosebery less than a week ago, and from Sir Edward Grey yesterday, and will recognize that no man can now speak on this subject of imperial defence without some note of anxiety in his voice. Not panic! There is no question, gentlemen, of panic, but we all have to look around us at the gathering forces, the arrangement of possible foes, the strategic import of possible combinations-we have got to look at them, not with a frightened but with a careful eye and, so looking at them, everybody, I think, will be impelled to recognize that the language of the foreign secretary-unusual, let me say, in the months of foreign secretaries-does not go beyond the necessities of the situation.
Now, take the great military authority, Lord Roberts, who is reported at page 179 of the report of this conference as saying:
Recent events, however, prove conclusively that a new era has commenced, and that our whole empire may again have to fight for its own, as the people of these islands have many times had to do in the past. The question is : Are we prepared to do this? Fleets and effective armies cannot be improvised to meet the rapid movements of modern times. Nothing but forethought and preparation, extending over years, can give us a naval or military strength which may be relied on in any great emergency, and which is in itself the greatest guarantee of that peace which we desire and need more than any other nation. I think I know what your main difficulty will be. It is not easy to convince the mass of the people in this country of the existence of real danger. It may be even less easy to convince the populace of colonies that have enjoyed for a century protection, which has given them security from attack, that real dangers threaten them also. . . The growth of the colonies in wealth makes them more and more objects of envy to nations which do not possess such valuable areas of the world. So, if we are to be secure, we must stand side by side in common effort and common sacrifice.
I will give only one more authority. I quote from the speech of Admiral Beres-ford, delivered in July last:
The first grave warnings that came before the public came from the lips of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and those of the foreign secretary were even more serious than the Prime Minister. These warnings were often repeated by those respected and esteemed statesmen, Mr. Balfour and Sir Edward Grey. Sir Edward Grey considered the situation so grave and serious that

we must rebuild the whole fleet. In those words 1 agree, and I will endeavour to prove the Foreign Secretary was right.
And, after all this, we have the word of the right hon. Reginald McKenna, the Foreign Secretary Sir Ed. Grey and the Premier Mr. Asquith spoken in the House of Commons itself. After all these opinions, we come back again to the First Lord of the Admiralty speaking on July 26, 1909 in the House of Commons:
After very anxious careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries, the government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all necessary steps to ensure that the second four ships referred to in the programme shall be completed by March, 1912.
Now, I do not ask you to accept my word, but I say that we are bound to take the opinion of these gentlemen who know what they are talking about in preference to the opinion of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) and the right hon. leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). We find the Postmaster General stating this in his speech the other evening:
But we all know that this German scare exists only in the imagination of party politicians. It was started by the party press of Great Britain, controlled by Lord Northeliffe, and was written up during the elections by the well-known Socialist, Mr. Blatchford, in the pay of a certain party in Great Britain.
Well, does the Postmaster General honestly think that Sir Edward Grey, Lord Roseberry, Right Hon. Mr. Balfour, Prime Minister Asquith, Right Hon. Mr. McKenna, the first Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Roberts, probably the greatest military authority in the world, and Lord Charles Beresford, the greatest naval authority in Great Britain-does the Postmaster General really say now, after hearing the words of these gentlemen, that this scare was started for party purposes? But, in order to justify himself the Postmaster General goes on to say that the result of the British elections has answered the war scare.
By what manner of mathematical computation does the Postmaster General conclude that the British elections have answered the war scare, that the British elections do not show a popular belief in the existence of an emergency to-day? Take it any way the hon. gentleman chooses and he cannot show that. According to the press reports that have come back to this country, within the last few days his contention is not correct. Now, what do we find? The latest cable reports disclose that, excluding only those Irish constituencies in which a Nationalist was running against a Nationalist, or a Nationalist against a Unionist, the result of the polling in Great Britain shows that the Socialists, the Liberals and
the Labourites and Nationalists together obtained 2,847,893 votes, and the Unionists 3,080,072. So the whole electorate of Great Britain voted by a majority of 235,000 that there is something wrong with the administration of the admiralty of Great Britain. They have said bv a majority of 230,000 that there is an emergency. But I will take as further proof the candidature of Lord.*Char-les Beresford himself, and every body knows that he was and is a very vigorous exponent of the defects in the government s navy policy. It- was in consequence of his advocacy that the British government accelerated its naval programme. Lord Charles Beresford condemned the government for the inaction they had taken, as I have before pointed out and further, he said: We should spend $275,000,000 to $300,000,000 to increase the navy, and he went to the country upon that platform, and what was the result? He went to the constituency of Portsmouth where he and his running mate advocated the policy I have outlined, and what was the result? Not only in Portsmouth, but in the surrounding British cities on the coast opposite the continent of Europe the electors spoke. In Portsmouth they converted a government majority of 4,796 into an opposition majority of 7,575. The Postmaster General must not forget that the issue which Lord Charles Beresford presented to his constituents was the naval question almost exclusively, and upon that issue the people said by a turn over of 12,000 votes, we agree with him. In the two Davenport seats there was a reversal of 3,722 votes. In the three Bristol seats a former Liberal majority of 10,440 wa3 changed to a minority of 3,338. In West Bristol the Unionist majority of 365 was increased to 1,278. In Plymouth a Liberal majority of 2,857 was pulled down to 311. The government's majority in Southampton was curtailed, while the Unionist vote in Dover was increased. So wherever the test was applied upon the naval question, and the necessity of maintaining naval supremacy, the British electorate said in an unmistakable manner: We believe there is a crisis, and we believe the navy of Great Britain ought to be strengthened.
Now, what is the best means of strengthening the navy of Great Britain? I think I have proved that there is an emergency, I think I have shown a condition of things which, if not remedied, will culminate in the overthrow of British supremacy at sea. That being the case, what is the best means of meeting that emergency? Let me quote what Mr. Balfour says upon that question. On page 167 of the proceedings of the imperial press conference, 1909, Mr. Balfour expressed himself in this manner:
I think it is desirable and necessary that each of the self-governing constituents of the empire should consider whether it ought not, whether it must not, provide both land and sea forces to prevent raids, to prevent insult?

to their ports, and to see that they do not fall an easy prey to the first comer. But after all, gentlemen, local defence, though it be necessary, is really subordinate to imperial defence, and it is subordinate from the point of view of the localities themselves, not merely from the point of view of the empire as a whole. The individual constituents of the empire never can be safe, never can be powerful enough, never can be strong, whatever their local defence be, if that defence is only local. On the other hand, a serious menace to their independence is, I believe, quite impossible as long as the imperial system of defence is adequate, as long as we retain, as 1 hope we shall ever retain, that maritime predominance which is the very condition of our being.
Again at page 169:
The fate of the empire is not going to depend on that. The fate of the empire is going to depend upon the fleet power that we can bring against other fleet power, and that gives, if I may say so, to this country and to this quarter of the world, a strategic importance which otherwise it might not possess. We must-we inhabitants of these islands- we must for many years to come bear the main burden of imperial defence, because we are the largest population at present, and at present the wealthiest portion of the empire. We shall bear that burden cheerfully. But in addition to that reason for our special and peculiar position in the system of imperial defence, there is another depending on purely strategical and geographical considerations. If I am right-and I think all will agree I am right-that the fate of the empire depends on fleet superiority, that superiority must be shown in home waters. The German ocean, the channel, the neighbourhood of these islands, possibly the Mediterranean-those are the places at which, if there is to be an Armageddon, the Armageddon will take place, and it is folly for us to attempt, to dare, to dissipate these fleet constituents, so that when the time of crisis arises we shall not be able to have that concentration upon which our whole imperial destinies, and the destinies of each separate portion of the empire, really and substantially depend.
Now let us see what Mr. McKenna the First Lord of the British Admiralty, says upon this question of concentration. He says:
Tou will have your own views as to the proper development of defensive forces in your dominions. It is only by your working out your problems for yourselves that you can ever gain the experience which we have had to gain, and lessons that were told you from the experience of others would never come home to you with the same force as lessons that can be learned for yourselves, even though you have learned them through your own mistakes. We will assist in every way in our power, and whatever be the method by which we are asked to assist. And we are sure that in the long run out of this process of self-development every dominion will come ultimately to the same conclusion, that the naval problem of defence is one and the same the whole world over, and that the maintenance of supremacy in all seas alike.


William Sora Middlebro: Now let us see what Sir Edward Grey, Britain's Foreign Secretary, says:
The navy is the common security of the whole empire. If it ever fails to be that it will be of no use for us to discuss any other subjects, and the maintenance of the navy in that position, therefore, must be the first care, not only of us at home, but of the selfgoverning dominions beyond the seas.
Can there be any doubt then as to the opinion of these eminent gentlemen upon that point? But, because the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day quoted the opinion of Lord Milner with respect to the question of local defence, I will now quote from a later speech made by Lord Milner on the 20tli of April, 1909:
It is a real imperial navy, a navy constituted by the combination of the forces of the self-governing colonies, forces organized at the outset on a common pattern and controlled ultimately, as I hope, by a common authority. That is the goal towards which we should ultimately strive.
That being a later speech than the Prime Minister quoted, I think it would carry greater weight. Now let us see what the British admiralty themselves suggest as to the best means of meeting the emergency. Take first what is contained in the report of the imperial conference last July and I will read from page 23 to see whether this government have followed the suggestions of the admiralty:
In the opinion of the admiralty, a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts in time of war. Under certain conditions the establishment of local defence flotillas, consisting of torpedo craft and submarines, might be of assistance in time of war to the operations of the fleet, but such flotillas cannot co-operate on the high seas in the wider duties of protection of trade and preventing attacks from hostile cruisers and squadrons. . . . The fleet unit to be aimed at should, therefore, in the opinion of the admiralty, consist at lease of the following: 1 armoured cruiser (new ' Indomitable ' class, which is of the ' Dtead-nought ' type), 3 unarmoured cruisers (' Bristol ' class), 6 destroyers, 3 submarines.
Then at page 25:
As the armoured cruiser is the essential part of the fleet unit, it is important that an ' Indomitable ' of the ' Dreadnought ' type' should be the first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a fleet unit.
In not one single one of these respects have the government followed the suggestions of the admiralty. They have not followed the suggestions of the admiralty as to a contribution which, if they were looking at the matter from a purely strategical standpoint, would be the best way of assisting to imperial defence. I do not blame

the government for not doing that, because I am not in favour of a fixed and stated compulsory contribution towards the maintenance of the British fleet. The next request is: If you will not do that, give us a fleet unit having at its head one of the most modern armoured cruisers of the Invincible and Dreadnought type. Have they done that? No, they have shorn the fleet unit of that which gives it its imperial aspect and that is the armoured Dreadnought. The little colony of New Zealand did follow the advice of the admiralty; she did give a Dreadnought. The Commonwealth of Australia did follow the advice of the admiralty, and she did give a fleet unit. Canada is the only colony that did not follow the advice of the admiralty. We gave neither a contribution, nor a fleet unit, nor a Dreadnought. In that respect we have neither followed the advice of the admiralty, nor that of the best men in the motherland who know what they are talking about and who say that we should at least contribute a fleet unit. Now, what have we got? We have got, or we are going to get, or it looks as if we were going to get, four Bristols, a Boadicea and some destroyers and submarines. The four Bristols that we are going to provide do not equal in tonnage, the one Dreadnought which we should have given. The four Bristols are not equal in lighting capacity to the one Dreadnought that New Zealand is giving, because the Bristols have only a tonnage of 4,800 tons as compared with one Dreadnought with a tonnage of 20,000 tons. There is no comparison between the guns of a Dreadnought and the guns of a Bristol. A Dreadnought will stand out there in the ocean while the four Bristols dare not go within firing distance. She is absolutely impregnable to the attack of a vessel of the Bristol class. Practically the only thing that the Bristol is good for is to act as a scout and see that the enemy is coming, and, if the enemy is coming, get out of her way as quickly as she can. Let us see exactly where we are. The minute that this fleet proposed by the right hon. gentleman comes into view the absence of an armoured head in the shape of a Dreadnought means: ' I do not pretend to be an imperialist.' 'Res ipse dixit.' The thing itself speaks. It says in effect: I do not pretend to be an imperialist, because the head and shoulders and fighting qualities of an imperial fleet have been lopped off by the right hon. gentleman. Notwithstanding this though the idea of the right hon. gentleman, according to his speech, was that in case of danger, from all points of the earth, the fleets of the colonies would rush upon the common enemy. We will suppose that the Armageddon has arrived. The call goes to Australia and up comes her fighting fleet unit with its armoured
head; the call goes to New Zealand and up comes its Dreadnought with its 20,000 tons armoured Dreadnought capable of putting our four Bristols out of commission. Then the call comes to Canada and up slinks her four unarmoured cruisers of the Bristol type to take their places in the battle line. We see Australia and New Zealand in the fore front, but where do we see Canada? We hear the officer in command of the naval squadron saying: Where are the armoured cruisers of Canada, where is the portion of the fleet which is going to do service on behalf of the empire?-and the answer of Canada is:	It is here. Where
are Canada's Dreadnoughts? Not here. Where is the balance of the fleet; where are the Bristols? The answer is: They are not here, either; they have slunk behind to get out of danger. Well, they cannot take any part in the battle. They are no match for Dreadnoughts, and because we cannot afford to waste the fighting power of our Dreadnoughts in their protection, they had better go back at 25 knots an hour from whence they came. If that Armageddon results in British victory they will be safe from further attack; but if the Armageddon results in disaster to our naval supremacy, then the victor will come to the shores of Canada and our fleet will have to show its heels at the rate of 25 knots an hour until it can show them no longer. But, as a matter of fighting force and efficiency in the defence of the empire these four Bristols are actually a negative quantity and, as our leader has said, in time of war, they are positively a danger and they would be better to be as far removed from the fighting line as possible. Then, the Postmaster General, for some reason-I do not know why-gave us a list of eighteen independent nations and self-governing colonies which have a population of less than 10,000,000 that have navies of their own. His illustration would have been good, I admit, if he could have pointed to self-governing colonies that have navies of their own. I do not know whether it was a mistake or not, but the statement made by the Postmaster General was this:
I have here a list of independent countries, and self-governing colonies, whose population does not exceed 10,000,000 people, and is in many cases less than that, who have navies of their own;
Then he gave a list of eighteen countries. On examining the eighteen countries he referred to as independent countries and self-governing colonies, I find that there is not a self-governing colony in the whole eighteen. If he cited that illustration for the purpose of proving that a self-governing colony ought to have a navy of its own, since there are no self-governing colonies in this list, the conclusion is that we do not need a navy; or, to put it in another way, we do need a navy because we in

Canada are going to be an indepedent nation. His illustration is absolutely without force unless he puts it on one of these two grounds, either that self-governing colonies have navies, and I have proved that there is no self-governing colony in this list, or that we are going to be an independent nation and need a navy.
Now, in conclusion, let me say that I have read very carefully the resolution which has been placed on the order paper by my honoured leader in amendment to the proposition of the government. I am thoroughly in accord with every proposition contained in that amendment. It repudiates the idea of non-imperialism and independence that pervades the whole policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite and also pervades the premier's speech in the introduction of the Bill. It makes provision for the impending necessities of the empire, which is the very reason that we are considering the Bill in question. It embodies the principle of effective co-operation on imperial lines, which is the only salvation of the empire, and, having satisfied the emergency, it gives the people the right to say what they shall do as to the permanent policy of this country with respect to naval questions. This is in line with the loyal, patriotic policy that has been advocated by the Conservative party within the memory of the oldest member of this House. So far as I know that policy is distinctively in line with the policy of the Conservative party on imperial matters. It is a policy which has for its hope and aspiration, not as the right hon. the Prime Minister says, that this country should sever its relations from the motherland as naturally as the ripe fruit falls from the parent tree, not that the goal of our ambition should be the independence of Canada, not that we as a child should leave the parent with a pang in her heart; not that, but it is in line with the idea that the undoubted position of this country should be that we should cultivate a sentiment of loyalty and devotion to the motherland, not only in ourselves but in those who shall succeed us, so that beyond all neradventure they will recognize that the destinies of this country are inseparably bound up with those of the empire. We have sufficient confidence and trust in the motherland to know that in her foreign policy she will always act in the same generous, magnanimous spirit which has actuated her in the past, and that she will never do anything that we need be ashamed of. We know that wherever the British flag floats order is restored, liberty is established, religious toleration prevails, education is fostered, and that peace, progress and development with their beneficial results inevitably follow in its wake. We know that the proudest boast of the Bo-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
man citizen in the days when the world acknowledged the supremacy of Borne was: 'Civis Bomanus sum.' I am a Boman citizen, and if that was the proudest boast of a citizen of an empire far less great and noble than the British empire of to-day, how much prouder ought not we subjects of Britain be when we are able to say: 'Civis Brittanicus sum.' I am a British subject. But apart from all that there is this object lesson we ought to teach: That who ever meddles with the child meddles with the parent, and who ever meddles with the parent meddles with the child. That principle, Sir, is inconsistent with the declaration of the Prime Minister when he says: I do not pretend to be an imperialist. I say, Sir, that we cannot set a better example or precept than by passing the resolution proposed in amendment by my honoured leader, because its passage by this parliament will show the nations of the world that who ever meddles with the motherland must reckon with every part of the empire, and when that is thoroughly understood hostile nations will realize they are undertaking a herculean task. Let me conclude by quoting a few lines which I have taken the liberty to slightly paraphrase so as to adapt them to this phase of the question:
Ye who would reckon with Britain, Ye who would sweep from the seas, The flag that Rodney 'nailed aloft, And Nelson flung to the breeze,
Count well your ships, and your men, Count well your arms, and your guns, For they who reckon with Britain, Must reckon with Britain's sons.


Mr. F. L. FOWKE (South Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my necessary attendance at a meeting of a sub-committee of one of the committees of the House prevented me from having the privilege of listening to the opening sentences which fell from the lips of the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro). But, I came into the chamber in time to hear him attempt to define to this House the policy of the Liberal party and of the Liberal government, and I am bound to say that in that attempt I found the hon. gentleman in the position of one sparring with rather soft gloves. That is not surprising, however, in view of the fact that his restricted vision, owing to the political school in which he has learned his lesson and grown up in until this hour, prevents him from enjoying a proper appreciation of the life and purpose of the Liberal party in this great country. We are now in the last year of the first decade of the twentieth century, and during these ten years, and in fact for a bakers' dozen of years, the Liberal party has been in power in Canada under the leadership of the Bt, Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and, if the hon. gentleman

wants to know what is the policy of the Liberal party, I would refer him to the history of Canada during that period to which 1 have referred. Let him go to the statutes of this country, let him consider the marvellous development which has taken place in Canada in progressive legislation, in developing the natural resources of the country, in extending commerce, in attracting the attention of the British empire to our country; let him take into account the prominent place which Canada holds today, not only in the estimation of her own people, but in the estimation of the British public, and he will have something of a better definition before him of the life and labours of the Liberal party in Canada and the policy of that party as administered under the Prime Minister of to-day. Now, Sir, while Canada in one respect has a very short history, for our history proper began only in 1867 at confederation, we nevertheless have a history antedating that by some 300 years. And, let me say that if to-day we rejoice, as we have for some years past, in the possession of a free constitution-as free perhaps as that enjoyed by any people in the world-that constitution did not rain down from Heaven upon us. Sir, we have that constitution, and we enjoy it to-day because of the struggles of the Canadian people and largely because of the sacrifices of that portion of the Canadian people who have always been found within the bounds and limits of the Liberal party of Canada. Now, Sir, in this country we have had influences coming upon us from without as well as from within; we have not always had an easy course. We have gained our present position through stress and strain and struggle; we have had foes from without and sometimes enemies from within. 1776 is a date familiar to the members of this House as is 1812 and 1837-8 and .1866 and 1870, and the meaning of these dates have not been lost upon the people of Canada. Let me say, Sir, that because of the struggles, largely of those who stand as fathers of Liberalism in Canada we enjoy the free constitution under which the laws of this nation are being administered at this very hour, and one of the very distinctive principles of the Liberal party in the past has been that this nation should enjoy its freedom and autonomy within the empire and in the face of all the world. And, if to-day we stand as a growing and prosperous nation within the bounds of the British empire, no one presuming to dictate to us as to what our course shall be in any given particular, it is largely because of the fidelity of the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier to these principles of Liberalism which are embodied in the lives of those who are' known in history as the founders of the Liberal party. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) has undertaken to
defend the loyalty of the Canadian people, and he has spoken in particular of the loyalty of His Majesty's opposition in this House, and by inference he has endeavoured to create the impression that the Prime Minister of Canada is lacking in a proper spirit of loyalty towards the mother country at this present time. Sir, that hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) will find that the task of Mrs. Partington with her broom endeavouring to sweep back the waves of the ocean, was a very pleasant pastime indeed in comparison with the efforts that he or others may engage in to endeavour to convince the Canadian people that the leader of the Liberal party is anything but a devoted subject of King Edward, as he is today the first son of Canada. And in no single particular is that fact more brilliantly displayed than in relation to this very naval programme which is under discussion at this moment.
Now, Sir, what are some of the things which help to determine a nation's destiny? One of these things surely is the possession of a national purpose. Have the Canadian people a national purpose? I feel that they have, and that national purpose is to achieve greatness in this greater half of the greatest continent of the world, with the government of which they are specially charged, and to maintain those ties and connections which have always in modern times bound us to the throne of England, and bind us at this hour. It was only yesterday that we passed from a state of tutelage, from a system of authority to a system of liberty. It is only very recently that we have felt our feet as a nation, and have begun to feel that we have a right to exercise all the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of nationhood; and to-day we stand on our own feel, ' the heirs of all the ages in the foremost flies of time,' and are willing to be judged on our merits. This is the spirit of the Bill submitted to the House by the premier. In the introduction of that Bill the other day by the premier, in a speech which I have no doubt will remain classic in the literature of Canada, which will be read by the youths of this country in days to come, when they wish to understand all the influences which led to the securing of a free constitution by this people, as the Gettysburg speech of Abraham Lincoln is read by the youth of the United States to-day, and will be prized most highly because of the manner in which it gives us a proper conception of the place and importance of this young giant nation of the north, not only in the discharge of its own internal duties towards itself, but in relation to the duties and responsibilities it feels towards the empire and towards the great world at large. We are very delighted to-day to feel that, as a result of the legislation of the admin-


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: If there is no emergency what is the need for building a Canadian navy at the present time?


Frederick Luther Fowke: I am not at all -sorry that the hon. gentleman ha3 put that question. Let me say to him and to this House that the question of building a Canadian navy is not merely one of yesterday. Since 1902, that question has been under advisement.
A year ago the subject was debated in this House, and when last year the conference met in London, and it was attended by our representatives, it was only in pursuance of a well-defined policy which was in the minds of British statesmen as well as in the minds -of the statesmen of Canada and all other portions of the empire. At that conference these three propositions were submitted for the consideration of the conference and of the Canadian delegation. One of the these propositions was a fleet unit. This government chose to accept one of the other two propositions as that best adapted to the requirements of Canada and to the purposes of Canada in relation to her desire to be of assistance to the ' mother country and other parts of the empire. What were those two propositions? One was:
It was represented on the part of the admiralty that it would he difficult to make any suggestions, or to formulate any plans, without knowing approximately the sum of money which Canada would spend. The Canadian


Martin Burrell: Mr. Speaker, under our representative system of government every man who sits in the House and who regards with any degree of seriousness his duty to those who have delegated him as their representative and his duty to the state at large must, or should, experience a constant sense of responsibility in the discharge of those duties, even during what may be called the routine work of parliament. But there comes times, and this essentially is such a time, when a peculiar and unusual responsibility rests on him. The party banner, the party cry, the party vote, necessarily, though perhaps too often dominate and determine the discussions in this Chamber. But there are some questions, and I think this is one of them, that should lose their 103J	*
party aspect when they come to be discussed.
This question, Mr. Speaker, was brought before this House on Thursday last by the leader of the government, and his speech in upholding the government policy was accorded a thoughful attention by members on this side of the House. I may perhaps be allowed for a moment to refer to a matter that I touched on in an earlier part of the afternoon. At the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman's speech outlining the policy of the government on the Naval Bill, the leader of the opposition also in a powerful and closely reasoned speech, at its close moved an alternative proposal which represents, as we believe, the best interests and wishes of the people of Canada. When he closed that speech, as we all very well remember, there was a spontaneous outburst of sentiment in this House, presenting a very unusual spectacle, namely, that hon. members stood up on their feet and sang the national anthem. Well, Sir, as we also know, this incident was described, I will not say intentionally, in a leading organ of the Liberal party on the next day as occurring at the close of my rignt hon. friend's address, and intimating therefore that that address was so powerful so moving, so much In line with the sentiments of this House irrespective of party, that the imprimatur of the whole House was put upon it in that extraordinary way. That report in the recognized organ of the Liberal party in Canada, and in a great many affiliated papers, went out through the length and breadth of Canada; and it is perfectly natural for the people to think, assuming that that report was true, that my right hon. friend's speech was a speech not only of extraordinary merit, but that it must have created a great deal of enthusiasm on the opposition side of the House. Now, I am not taking the ground that because that report was incorrect the fault should be laid at the door of the press gallery in this House, because it may have been unintentional. But, we do claim from the right hon. gentleman and his party, as this matter was given such extraordinary prominence in the papers throughout the country, he should have used his undoubted influence to have got, in an equally prominent position, a correction of the report and a true statement of what took place in this House. When I put that question to the Prime Minister this afternoon what was his answer. His answer was ! What have I got to do with it? Well, let me say that, the right hon. gentleman had far more to do with that question than he had with; another question on which he expended a great deal of power and energy last session. Everybody remembers the occasion last session when British Columbia affairs

came up, that there was inif-noduced a garbled telegram, and the Prime Minister waxed indignant upon the immorality of publishing a telegram of that character, though it had not half as much to do with the right hon. gentleman as this particular episode has to do with him at the present time.


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me-the report he has referred to was corrected by the paper he alludes to on the following day.


Martin Burrell: I have just intimated that I knew that. It was corrected, but we all knew that the correction appeared on the fifth page, an inside page, in a small paragraph, with no heading to indicate that it was there.


Murdo Young McLean: It was corrected at the close of the parliamentary report of that day.


Martin Burrell: I am not denying that, but I say it appeared on the fifth inside page, at the bottom of a parliamentary report dealing with routine proceedings, with nothing in the shape of a heading showing its nature. Of course the question has its amusing side. I have in my pocket here a letter sent from a gentleman in Winnipeg who had seen this same report in the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' another organ of the Liberal party, which paper, so far as I can see, did not correct the statement that was sent out. This gentleman says that he sees the Prime Minister has made a wonderful speech, and that there was so much enthusiasm that the House sang ' God Save the King.' And he says, ' I would like very much to get a copy of that speech.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister can be content with the merits of his speech as they exist, without attempting to put upon them such a seal as this, and allow it to go out to the country that such a seal of approval was set on it that the members had to get up in their seats and sing the ' National Anthem.' This shows the false iippression that is created throughout the country by the erronous report to which I have alluded. So I say that I was surprised at the right hon. gentleman at taking me up so sharply in that matter this afternoon.
Now, I think we all have a right to expect that the Prime Minister of Canada, in opening this debate, would have spoken in a manner worthy of the high subject with which he was dealing; but I say, and I say it emphatically, that it was amazing, it was disappointing, to find that, instead of starting out on that high plane showing a proper realization of the magnitude of the subject, he at once launched out in a manner so partisan, so small, that upon him must rest the responsibility of injecting Mr. BURRELL.
into this debate the party virus in its worst form. Now on that occasion, and on other occasions in dealing with naval matters, he has said a good deal about Rome. Let me bring to his notice a well worn word that describes the lofty patriotism which made Rome great in an hour of supreme danger, and will make any nation great:
Then none were for the party,
Then all were for the State,
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great.
Then lands were fairly portioned,
Then spoils were fairly sold,
The Romans were like brothers In the brave days of old.
Well, was that the spirit in which the right hon. gentleman made the greater part of his speech? There was ridicule of our silence from the start, ridicule of the attitude taken by this side of the House, ridicule at our alleged indifference, spiced with jests to create laughter and applause, I was going to say upon his back benches, but it is rather significant that three of those back benches were empty during the whole of his speech. I say that nothing more narrow, more far removed from the spirit of true statesmanship, has been heard in this House than the speech of the right hon. gentleman. What do these tactics mean? Why does the Postmaster General follow suit? Why do they taunt us with being-I think the expressions used were Pharisees of imperialism, superloyalists, and the Postmaster General paraded his mock heroics about ' crimes committed in the name of loyalty.' We are familiar with these methods. Their unworthiness and their meaning cannot be hidden by floods of rhetoric in the peroration of minister's speeches. These tactics were adopted deliberately as a means of closing up their own ranks. Not once or twice, but many times we have seen the same thing. When lack of unanimity prevails amongst their followers when fatal weaknesses are exposed in a policy or in administration, my right hon. friend is astute enough to see that a wholesale charge that the Conservatives are attacking the great Liberal party is the best rallying cry to whip his own followers into line. Yet we must realize that a solemn and imperative duty faces every man, whether on the government or opposition benches, of deeply weighing the effect of his spoken works on this question, or even his silence, and of the vote which forms the final expression of his convictions.
The Bill now before parliament is a formal pronouncement of the government policy on a question of infinite importance -a question, which, in one shape or another, has been agitating the mind of the country for some time past. Above conflicting cries-and in spite of divergent

opinions, one great fact stands out strongly; Canada has evidently felt, and openly acknowledges, the vital-the	paramount
importance to Canada, of British naval supremacy, and the great need of a broad imperial unity.
Time was, and not so long ago, when he who raised his voice to urge Canadian duty in this high matter of assistance by the Dominion in the imperial naval defence was as one crying in the wilderness. It is now clear that in the hearts of a people, crowded with other pressing duties, this sense of responsibility this high sentiment did exist and in that moment when the note of danger, of trouble, was sounded across the seas a response was evoked from-the Atlantic to the Pacific which expressed in unmistakeable language the strength ol the popular convictions. This one thing then, amidst the many divergencies of opinion is at least clear gain. But Sir, the question, while in some respects con' cerned with the present day and hour, is not solely so concerned. To the rise, the development, the decadence of nations a vast number of factors, great and small, contribute, and as in the upper range of the mountains a pebble may deflect the course of a rivulet and determine its final destiny, so small, so obscure may be the causes which shape a nation's course and fate. But the student of history also knows that sometimes in national discussions the parting of the ways lies plain to the eyes, that some questions are so inevitably bound up with great issues that to fail to recognize their gravity is impossible.
Such a question is this now before the parliament of Canada. It is a time to speak out, a time to welcome the most absolute frankness of expression. There are some people-my right horn, friend the Prime Minister has expressed such an opinion-who believe that Britain's great colonies are destined to drop like the ripe fruit from the tree-a process of separation. I like better to take the simile of the family -the	clan-to believe that manhood
reached, the son while managing his personal affairs, is still of the family and the clan and inspired by a deep fealty springing from the ties of love and blood will unhesitatingly, in the face of a common danger, take his place by the side of his sire against even a world in arms.
The attitude of every man in this House towards the government proposals mu9t naturally be affected and his course in regard thereto be determined, first, by his views as to the imminence or non-imminence of danger to British naval supremacy and, second, bv his views on the general question of empire and Canada's part and lot therein, or whether indeed she is to deliberately shape her policy so as to
remain a permanent factor in that empire or assume a position of independence. One thing we have all agreed on, viz.-that the supremacy of the empire is essential, not only to its component parts but to the civilization for which that empire stands. The stability of England is the security of the modern world. Is that stability then threatened, and if seriously threatened, what is to be our attitude?
And, first, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that T do not share the anxieties of those who fear that the present time is marking the first steps of a decadent period in British history, that the old spirit which drove England to first place amongst the world powers is weakened; that her civilization, her polity is, in any sense of the word, moribund. It is true her problems are changing. We have witnessed a national struggle, indeed are still witnessing it, in which certain hysterical features seem to be noticeable, and prominence has been given for political purposes to phases in the national life far from beautiful, far from comforting. Nevertheless, those of us who have been long enough there to read beneath the surface of things realize the amazing vigour which characterizes the people of those small islands. It is treason to doubt, nor can we doubt, that the spirit which lies behind English liberties and English progress is as strong to-day as in past days. In the fiercest shock of adversity the cry will still be:
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody but unbowed.
Sixty years ago, in a time of trial, depression and fierce stress, England was visited by a clear-eyed, keen-brained son of the great republic to the south, probably her greatest son, as great at all events in intellectual as was Lincoln in state affairs. I refer, of course, to Ralph Waldo Emerson. His message, his words then have an absolute fitness to the present hour and are as true to-day as when he delivered them in Manchester in 1847.
And so, gentlemen, I feel in regard to this aged England, with the possessions, honours, and trophies, and also with the infirmities of a thousand years gathering round her, irretrievably committed as she now is to many old customs which cannot suddenly be changed; pressed upon by the transitions of trade, and new and all incalculable modes, fabrics, arts, machines, and competing populations-I see her not dispirited, not weak, but well remembering that she has seen dark days before; indeed, with a kind of instinct that she sees a little better in a cloudy day, and that in storm of battle and calamity she has a secret vigour and a pulse like a cannon. I see her in her old age, not decrepit, but young, and still daring to believe in her power of endurance and expansion. Seeing

this, I say. All Hail, mother of nations, mother of heroes, with strength still equal to the time; still first to entertain and swift to execute the policy which the mind and heart of mankind requires in the present hour.
But, Sir, though acquiescing in this great tribute to a great people we cannot shut our eyes to the far-sweeping changes which have come over the political and industrial map of the world since those words were spoken. The marvellous expansion of overseas Britain which has made the empire at once more strong and more vulnerable; the rise of an eastern nation to the rank of a first-class naval and military power, the tremendous development of the Pan-Germanic nations; these things necessitate a. new review of the world forces, and we in this great and growing Dominion have recognized at last that we cannot longer remain passive spectators, cannot longer abstain from offering our willing assistance in the work of consolidating the defences of the empire against any or all foes who might threaten that empire's integrity. First, then as to the question of whether there is imminent or real danger, for the answer to this practically determines our views as to what Canada should, or should not do at the present time. I take it that most of the members in this House have read the verbatim reports of the speeches delivered in the British House of Commons in March, 1909, the speeches especially of Mr. McKenna, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Balfour, and Sir Edward Grey. Any man who has done so and attached the weight to those grave and deliberate utterances, which they deserve, can hardly come to any other conclusion than that there was indeed an imminent danger to the empire, and I am aware of nothing having occurred since that time to make the situation less grave. Mr. McKenna's speech was delivered on the 16th of March, 1909, on the occasion of announcing the naval estimates, which were given as being in round numbers $175,000,000. His speech was the first official utterance following a certain unrest in the public mind as to a vastly increased naval programme on the part of Germany and following some expressioiis which suggested inadequate naval defence on the part of Great Britain. I quote one or two brief excerpts as bearing on this debate;
Our island position, the extent and dispersion of our empire; and the magnitude of our trade oblige us, as long as we are equal to the task, to maintain a navy adequate in strength to insure our shores from invasion, our empire from hostile attempts, and our trade from destruction in war.
In expressing his alarm at Germany's naval programme he added significantly:
We do not know, as we thought we did, the rate at which German construction is taking place.


Martin Burrell: Then, in relation to battleship construction, he further adds:
There vyill come a day when by an almost automatic process all ships of an earlier type than Dreadnoughts will he relegated to the scrap heap.
Mr. Balfour replied, couching his remarks in a manner, as admitted by the Prime Minister, entirely freed from party spirit and worthy of the .occasion. He stated:
We are face to face with a situation so new, so dangerous that it is very difficult for us to realize all that it imports.
Mr. Asquith followed, and hoped that the government would be able to lay down twenty Dreadnoughts to Germany's seventeen, by 1912.
In a leading article next day the ' Times ' referred to these speeches as containing ' utterances all serious and disquieting.'
These speeches were reported in the British press of March 17. On March 18, there appeared in the London ' Times ' a letter which not only by its power and ability, but from the fact that it came from the pen of an anti-militarist, a man well known in literary and philosophic circles, drove home the lesson of the day before with extraordinary force to the minds of the people of Great Britain. I refer, of course, to the letter of Mr. Frederick Harrison. Mr. Harrison starts by saying that his views were formed long before the recent discussions and were formed as the result of a long and careful study of European politics, and he explains with extraordinary power why he considered the problem facing the country as vital and urgent. In a brilliant and searching analysis Mr. Harrison pointed out that the Pan-Germanic ideal and its aim at hegemony was the obvious result of the European situation and of the history of Germany since the rise of Bismarck in 1864. He said:
The danger of collision lies not in any hostile disposition of the German people, but in the manifest tendency of the two dominant factors in world-politics-the military ascendancy and resources of the German empire face to face with the British empire based on command of the sea.
And he utters in conclusion this pregnant warning:
If ever our empire or our dominion of the seas is challenged, we now see that it will be no desultory attack in distant waters, not on India, South Africa, nor Australia

And he might have added Canada.

but by direct plunge at the heart of the
empire, on our arsenals, our ports and the capital.
Events followed in rapid succession. On the 22nd of March New Zealand, to her everlasting honour, cabled an offer to bear

the cost of building and arming a first-class battleship, and offered a second one if subsequent events showed it to be necessary. On the 25th of March'that offer was accepted. On March 29th, the very day in which a memorable debate took place in this House, Mr. Balfour moved a vote of censure on the government for not making adequate preparations, and though the government could not do otherwise than take the position that it was making due preparations, yet Sir Edward Grey, a statesman who commands in an exceptional degree the confidence and respect of the people, only confirmed general feeling as to the imminence of danger. We must all agree with his words that if the extravagant military and naval expenditures of Europe went on at the rate at which it had recently increased, it would sooner or later submerge the civilization on which it was a satire, and that the hopes and aspirations of the best men in the leading countries are devoted to trying to find some means of checking it. But we must also assent to his deliberate statement that to give up competition would be to sink into a position of inferiority, and if so, he added:
We should cease to count for anything in Europe; we should be fortunate if our liberty were left, and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger power.
In the closing words of his appeal to those on the ministerial benches not to oppose a generous naval programme, he admitted that:
We may be entering on a stage more grave, more serious, requiring greater care, greater effort than anything we have yet known.
Mr. Speaker, it is singular that at this very time, on the very night, as a matter of 'fact, that these grave warnings were uttered by one of England's most responsible statesmen, the Prime Minister of this government should have so little realized the gravity of affairs that he could speak as follows:
Let us not disguise the fact from ourselves that at present there is a passing wave in which we can trace anger, enthusiasm and fear, and which may be calculated_by some to force us to depart from our policy, and to contribute at once to the British navy. Let us view the question as it is, let us not blink at it, let us realize that it is not the way in which in the past we have understood our duty. This question is not new; we are familiar with it, it is not of to-day or of yesterday. I will not say it is old as the hills, but it is as old as confederation itself and it comes to the front periodically.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight- o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS-SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Merchants Bank of Canada Pension Fund.- Mr. Doherty.
Bill (No. 134) for the relief of Hope Eileen Moreland Drinkle.-Mr. McCarthy.

Martin Burrell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had stated that there were two phases of this naval question-one, the question of the imminence or non-imminence of the danger to the naval supremacy, of the empire, and the other, the particular question of the empire and Canada's part or lot therein; and just according as each member regarded the weight to be attached to these particular questions, so would his whole attitude be on the proposals of the government. I had also quoted the utterances of responsible old country statesmen which were calculated to make the world at large, and especially us in Canada, believe that there was a serious menace to British naval supremacy; and I had further' stated that while nearly everybody was persuaded of this fact, while New Zealand had responded by presenting a battleship to Great Britain, the Prime Minister alone had remained practically unmoved. The right hon. gentleman did, it is true, acknowledge in a way that he has never done before, the obligations of this country _ to the empire and the necessity of upholding imperial supremacy, though even here his utterances were unnecessarily loaded with cautious warnings to preserve our autonomy. But it is apparent that he did not-grasp then, nor has grasped since, the vital fact of immediate danger and the accompanying necessity and duty of immediate assistance. Even the official organ of the Prime Minister's party, the Toronto 'Globe, has said on March 24, that German unfriendliness and aggression were apparent.
' War is deprecated,' said the ' Globe ' in its editorial:
But as a matter of fact war is in progress. The contest in shipbuilding is war. If the mother country were engaged in a deadly conflict Canadians could not get across the ocean fast enough to the aid of the motherland. But we must remember that our aid is as much needed now as if a physical war instead of a shipbuilding war were on. It is Canada's duty from every point of view, from our affection for the land of our fathers, and for our own self interest to take prompt and practical action.
Everybody sees imminent danger except the Prime Minister. He for his part said: ' I may say that we are not to be carried

away, we are not to be stampeded from what has been the settled policy and deliberate course which we have laid down, by any hasty, feverish action, however spectacular such action may be.' Well, Mr. Speaker, if the prompt giving of a battleship in the houT of English peril by the small colony of New Zealand be feverish and spectacular, thank God for a patriotism so spectacular, and let us all pray that we may be infected with a fever so sane ^ uplifting. And here a word may be said in regard to the resolution passed by this House on March 29, last, and which has been so much discussed since. It has been truly said by the leader of the opposition that unanimous action on the part of this parliament was so much to be desired, that it was eminently desirable that no vote should be taken which might seem to indicate a division on a subject of so much moment. It was a worthy sentiment, worthy of the lofty stand always taken by the hon. gentleman, who leads his Majesty's loyal opposition. But, Sir, it must also be said that though concurring with this view there were many members of this House who had a strong desire to go much further than that resolution, to put matters in such shape that immediate practical help should be at once forthcoming. I believed then, as I believe now, that the day will come when Canada might well undertake to do some efficient work in constructing or having constructed in her own ports, from her own wealth of natural resources, some substantial vessels to swell the fleet which patrols the empire, but I also believed then as I do more firmly now, that immediate effective help to the empire to which wre are so passionately attached could not come in that way. Much self-imposed restraint was necessary to avoid giving prompt expression to those views. But,- while we did refrain from generous motives, it has remained for the government and for the government press to make political capital out of that generosity by the attempt to pin us down to the narrowest meaning of that resolution and to meanly intimate to the country that we are at one with the government in its policy.
I have endeavoured to show that strong reasons existed for believing that British naval supremacy was threatened a year ago. The reasons are no less strong at this day and hour. The German naval budget estimates for 1910 are 443,000,000 marks, the largest in the history of the country, and they have within the past two weeks decided to borrow money to carry out with iron resolution and at all costs the enormous programme mapped out. It is singular, too, that within the last few months Britain has again been warned in impressive terms of her danger. In the heat of a political Mr. BURRELL.
contest the writings of Robert Blatchford have been lightly dismissed by those who had political reasons for so doing. But the message, graphic, stern, mercilessly logical m its marshalling of the facts, has gone home, and went home with additional force from the fact that again the sender of the message, Robert Blatchford, was not a jingo, not a panic monger, but a life-long antimilitarist. The Postmaster General has delivered some ex-cathedra utterances on the meaning of the late elections in Great Britain, and if he expressed himself half as freely in England as he has done in this House, one might have no difficulty in giving a local habitation and a name to the unknown, but semi-official authority quoted by the Manchester ' Guardian '' as expounding Canadian views on behalf of the Liberal party in Great Britain. The Postmaster General saw fit the other day in his speech to make the gratuitous and puerile statement that the German war scare only existed in the imagination of party politicians. ' It was started,' he said, ' by the party press of Great Britain controlled by Lord Northcliffe, and was written up during the elections by the well known socialist, Mr. Blatchford, in the pay of a certain party in Great Britain.' Well, Sir, the minister, who seems to have taken such a keen interest in party politics in the old country, and whose ' peregrinations ' were paid for by the whole people of Canada regardless of party, will acknowledge that any word spoken by Lord Cromer is to be accorded some weight. Lord Cromer should command the peculiar sympathy of my hon. friend, who I take it may be called a. free trade anti-budget politician during his stay in England, as Lord Cromer, the great pro-consul, was one of the Lords who did not vote for the rejection of the budget, and who has always preached free trade doctrines. But Lord Cromer speaks with peculiar authority on all questions affecting the empire and in reference to the genuineness of Mr. Blatchford, of whom the Postmaster General has disposed so airily, he said, speaking at Sheffield on December 18:
It would be difficult to find any two men who hold more discordant views on some important subjects than Mr. Blatchford and myself. But there is common ground on which we can meet. Mr. Blatchford is worth listening to on this subject.
It is rather amazing to hear a Canadian minister, who professes to have followed British affairs closely, impugn the bona tides of a man whose whole career and record, whether we agree with him or not, relieves him of any suspicion of insincerity or purpose. Let those who have carefully read Mr. Blatchford's utterances judge on this point. I quote one of the passages which closed one of the strongest of hie articles:

This is not a party question. It is an imperial question. Let every commercial man in the empire understand that unreadiness for war means bankruptcy and panic and such suffering as this favoured people have never known. If I did not feel this strongly I would not say it. I am no longer young. I have had more than my share in unpopular causes. I would like to live a quiet life. I am reluctant to offend and oppose my own party (the Socialist) and my own friends. But I have never shrunk from a duty because it was unpleasant or unprofitable and I will not begin now. The empire is in danger. It cannot be saved by talk; it can only be saved by sacrifice and work!
Both the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General very laboriously endeavoured to show that no empire danger existed, precisely because they knew that their whole policy of to-day was and is a sham and a delusion in the face of actual danger to British naval supremacy. They are deliberately and purposely blinding their eyes for fear they shall see what every one else sees. The Postmaster General quotes the utterances of Mr. Asquith, Mr. McKenna and Sir Edward Grey on political plat-i forms. No one knows better than the minister that in the heat of an election when the government are attacked for not apprehending a great danger, they will,naturally assert that no danger exists. But we have in this case to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. We have to regard the sober, serious utterances which I have already quoted. As to the popular voice: The total popular vote on the Unionist side was 3,050,072; that for Liberals 2,847,8',!3, and Liberal and Labour combined exceeded the Unionists by less than five per cent. Not only do the whole of the Unionist votes testify to the truth of the facts as to danger to the empire, but it is unquestionably true that thousands also of those who support the Liberal or Labour party for other reasons would assent and do assent to the pressing need of strengthening British and imperial naval defence. I cannot see that there is offence to the German people in our position. My right hon. friend was a great admirer of Cobden, the man of peace. In the face of a threatened danger from another country, not half so serious as that which exists at present, Mr .Cobden said in 1861 :
I will vote a. hundred million pounds rather than allow the French navy to be increased to a level with ours, because I say that any attempt of that sort, without legitimate grounds, should argue some sinister designs on this country.
But if grounds existed then for anxiety, how much greater are they to-day? But I may tell the Postmaster General that one of the most prominent Berlin papers has recently said that Mr. Balfour's warnings as to a menace from Germany, if unplease ant to the German people are certainly equalled in unpleasantness by the statements of the Postmaster General's friend, Mr. Lloyd George, who, to use the expression of the Berlin ' Tageblatt, ' holds us up to contempt as a race of eaters of black bread, horse and dog.' The Prime Minister and the Postmaster General have not only shown strong sympathy with the free trade ideas of the Liberal party in England, but have, during the debate, made very long appeals, in fact I am hardly overstating the case when I say that the greater part of their speeches has been such an appeal- to their French Canadian friends. The Postmaster General said:
Sir, who will believe that Britons, that the English people are scared by a so-called ' German terror.' Sir, I am of French descent but I know something of the history of England.
To these gentlemen of French descent let me commend the words of a French publicist, M. Judet, in an article in the ' Eclair ' of January 16. He looks at the political situation in Great Britain with different eyes to those of the ministers here. Recognizing that a Unionist victory would mean a breaking of the free trade system, and consequently entail financial loss to France in her export trade, he yet adds that French sympathy must go to the Conservatives because they stand for a supremo navy. A strong Britain and an all-powerful British navy, he argues, are so absolutely essential to France, that Frenchmen must not grumble if through a tariff they are asked to pay for them, and concludes that the unconcealed preference of the Germans for the British Liberals is a good reason, why French support and sympathy should, be given to the other party. The right hon. the Prime Minister, much of whose speech was directed to his compatriots of French descent, would do well to bear these things) in mind. The Postmaster General started out with the pious aspiration.
I hope I will be brief in the remarks which I intend to offer.
Like Carlyle, who preached the gospel of silence in forty volumes, so the minister has preached brevity in a speech of two hours and three-quarters. At one time it smacked singularly of a budget oration, with endless examples of the country's progress under Liberal rule, and was like a budget speech also in its extraordinary ir-relevancies. However, he also dealt very exhaustively with the Quebec situation- wrestled mightily to convince his countrymen there that the government policy was sound and frankly stated that his speech was intended for circulation in Quebec. He, too, would do well to ponder what thd French people, in an infinitely better position than he to judge of the trend of events, think and say of the conditions existing at the present time. Mr. Speaker, the sane, sober judgment of this country, of the other

over seas dominion, and of Great Britain is that a critical state of affairs exists- that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is threatened-and feeling this we have to ask ourselves what is our position?
The Prime Minister does not contend, cannot contend, that his proposals provide the slightest help on Canada's part if that crisis should become acute in two, three, four or five years. His statement as to the time when this Canadian navy was to be ready was of the loosest and vaguest character. He piously hopes that five years may see these vessels afloat, but admits frankly that he does not know whether an adequate shipbuilding plant could be laid down in a year, and, judging by other great works which the government has had a hand in, we are not encouraged to think that they can be turned out in twice the time the First Minister mentions. Mean-, while the shock of battle may come and Canada witness what transpires during the dread arbitrament of war, powerless to assist, seeing everything that we value jeopardized and endangered while we stand by with hands tied by the short-sighted and totally inadequate policy laid down by this government.
Much has been said about the British admiralty and its views. The Prime Minister states, to buttress up his own position, that owing to Canada's double seaboard a fleet unit was undesirable for the present. This vras said in August at the conference. But on July 20, Mt. McKenna, First Lord, says definitely and emphatically-section 5 of the Admiralty Report:
In the opinion of the admiralty a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts, in time of war.
That fleet unit must contain a battleship. But the Prime Minister says: No, we will not include the most effective part of the unit-a battleship. It is the old story, the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet left out by desire!
The country will not forget, either, that upon the admiralty must not be saddled the responsibility of such an affair as this. The Prime Minister in his speech said: ' Two plans were proposed to us. One to have a fleet of seven ships, and another a fleet of eleven ships.' On page 26 of the Conference report are these significant -words:
It was represented on the part of the admiralty that it would be difficult to make any suggestions, or to formulate any plans, without knowing approximately the sum of money which Canada would expend. The Canadian representatives then suggested two plans.
One $2,000,000 a year, the other $3,000,000 a year. What sort of a position is the Mr. BCRRELL.
government trying to place the admiralty in? No British statesman, no British naval lord would dream of saying to Canada:
' You must do this, or that.' To their honour they wish, they earnestly desire that our assistance should be -willing, the free expression of a free people. It is all very well for the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to say that when he was in Great Britain the Prince of Wales commended this and Lord Roberts commended that. Any of these distinguished gentlemen would commend anything that Canada was doing on behalf of the empire, be it little or great. We need not try to make political capital out of that. But the admiralty did plainly intimate that ' the maximum of power would be obtained if all parts of the empire contributed according to their needs and resources to the maintenance of the British navy.' They did indicate the necessity of the battleship. Sir, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is fond of quoting scripture. Let me remind him that the Lord loveth a cheerful giver. But, instead of giving cheerfully the government has laboriously struggled to see how little it could give. He has harped upon the policy laid down in 1902. The policy as interpreted by the government has been a laisser faire policy, a policy of masterly inactivity, a policy of words. He has been forced into doing something at last, and here again we have a striking manifestation of the vast difference between opportunism and statesmanship. If I were to cite a noble example of statesmanship I would cite the honoured name of Lincoln, who with firm convictions as to the integrity and wisdom of his own course yet waited till the policies which he was advocating had been sufficiently seized by the popular mind to warrant him carrying his great ideas into effect. How vast a gulf separates this from the opportunism of the right hon. gentleman who leads this government! To-day he and the Postmaster General and others of their followers are, with marvellous insolence arrogating to themselves credit for sending Canadian troops to South Africa.
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
At that time it was, as at this time. Averse to move, loth to strengthen the imperial sentiment, or consolidate imperial action, this government moved only when inaction meant that they would have been swept from power and office by an indignant people, a people now derided by the Prime Minister and his colleague the Postmaster General as ' pharisees of imperial- .

ism ' and ' super-loyalists'; derided by gentlemen the measure of whose regard for Britain and British institutions is exhibited by ornate phrases, and by the determination plainly expressed by the limitations of this naval programme, that they will not stand at once by Britain's side in the hour of danger. It is true that, so far as the administrative power is concerned, the Conservative party is practically helpless at this time. The party led by the right hon. Prime Minister has in its hands the reins of power. We have the ardent desire, without the power to help Great Britain and the empire in this time of stress. But I would infinitely rather have the desire to help without the power than have the power without the desiTe.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asks ' What would be the condition of Canada to-day and of the province of Quebec in particular- if England were to lose the supremacy of the seas?' He asks and may well ask. But, in the face of possible, if not actual, danger we may also well ask: What is this government doing to aid in the maintenance of that supremacy? Nothing, absolutely nothing, as far as any help for many a long year goes. What is the proposed Canadian navy going to do for us when these gallant ships are finally turned off the stocks? Few of us in this House will have the hardihood to pose as naval experts. But, it does not require an expert to know that an unarmoured cruiser of the Bristol type is meant for scouting purposes and is built for speed and, as has been well put to elude pursuit. If this be their chief end and aim, to elude pursuit, the prospect is not encouraging. The Prime Minister and his colleague have expressed some pious sentiments in regard _ to their duty of defending British Columbia. It is pleasant to think that they are experiencing a solicitude about British Columbia's welfare. Hitherto, in some grave matters, they have shown a marked disregard of the' best interests of the people of British Columbia. But, if, unfortunately, at some distant day, we should be at war with Japan the government is anxious to defend us. The Prime Minister says-and this is surely one of the humorous touches of this "debate-' Circumstances may be such as to force us to do what Japan did-strike the enemy before the enemy strikes us.' I do not know whether the First Minister has * mountains of information,' as to the difficulties ahead of him in such a task. If he knows anything of the Japanese navy, it must require a very large sleeve indeed to conceal all the laughter the right hon. gentleman is putting up it as he contemplates a Canadian Bristol cruiser built to elude pursuit, striking first one of the many armoured cruisers or battleships of our oriental friends. However, it is possible, as the leader of the opposition suggested that the New Zealand Dreadnought might come up in time to save us, though the process would not be without its humiliating side for a self-respecting Canadian.
Sir, in the face of the critical conditions now existing-in the face of impending danger, the proposed scheme of the government entirely fails to meet the case. The contribution of two battleships would not only be a far more effective aid to British naval supremacy, but would fit naturally into a broad scheme of naval defence of a permanent kind if the Canadian people pronounced themselves in favour of such a scheme. There would be no difficulty in associating Canada with the future of those two vessels. The admiralty would without doubt willingly man them with Canadian officers and men if, and when Canada can provide tihe men. It would stimulate Canadian interest and Canadian pride if the battleships were named on our suggestion. We would gladly see one of them named 'British Columbia', and the Prime Minister, if he likes, could name the other 'Quebec'. I can assure the government that in this whole matter thq people of British Columbia will be keenly disappointed if nothing more substantial is done at this juncture than is at present proposed. Why should we in Canada, who have absolutely no experience in naval construction, to whom the path is so strange, hastily rush in where others have feared to tread? Let me point out that Germany herself and various nations have all first adopted the plan proposed by the leader of the opposition, viz.:-that of getting their first warships built in the great British yards where years of experience, and thousands of skilled workmen guarantee not only efficiency but expedition? Japan has been mentioned-Japan's first fighting vessel was a wooden frigate carrying 26 guns, ordered in Holland. This was barely fifty years ago. When Japan seriously entered on the task of creating a navy, her first step was to establish a naval college and barracks for training her men; and again in 1877 when she concluded to place ironclads on her waters, * the first ship of this kind wa3 designed by Sir Edward Reed and launched on the Thames in England.
In any event the people of this country have an absolute right to be consulted in a departure so grave and so radical as the initiation of a permanent policy of naval construction.
The Prime Minister says: 'Outside of this House it (his policy) has received the open commendation of the best and most experienced minds in the party'. We challenge the statement and ask him to put it to the test. The government knows just as clearly as everybody else knows that

they are absolutely unwarranted in committing the country ito this scheme without the country being allowed to utter a word either of assent or dissent. But ministers are reaching out everywhere for excuses for not so consulting the people. The Postmaster General, in his desire to stifle the popular voice, hastily pleads that there is no need of a plebiscite when the loyalty, duty and chivalry of the Canadian people are in question. I do not know how the people of Quebec, for whom this speech was intended, will interpret these sentences, but in the west we should call it a flagrant example of side-stepping. Is there less loyalty, less chivalry, do we less perform our duty, if Canada, out of her riches and her affection, sends two giant battleships to reinforce the British fleet instead of withholding help for at least five, and probably for ten or fifteen years? Surely the minister does not intend this clap-trap for serious argument?
Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to show that a critical juncture of affairs exists. Even the ministers indirectly have to acknowledge its existence. What then does the government propose to do to meet it? The Prime Minister, when the question of emergency was baldly put to him the other day remarked: 'We are getting pretty far from the question we have in hand just now'. But we have his answer in another place:
For my part, he said, I do not see any cause of danger to Great Britain at the present time. Let me say further that if Great Britain were engaged in such a contest, a wave of^ enthusiasm to assist her would sweep over this country and all other British countries.
Yes, thank God, that is true. But under our proposals if Great Britain were engaged in a life and death struggle in three years, two Canadian battleships would be in 'the foremost line of battle. Under the government plan, there would be a wave of enthusiasm, but no battleships. Even the 'Bristols' would not be ready to sail on any kind of waves, even waves of enthusiasm. But one inspiring spectacle we should have at that dread time, for on March 29 last, the Prime Minister told us that if that time of storm and stress should come:
I would stump the country and endeavour to impress upon my fellow countrymen, especially my compatriots of Quebec, my conviction that the salvation of England is the salvation of our own country.
He doesn't need to stump Canada on such a mission. Canada knows these things, and demands and insistently cries out that the government of Canada shall do its duty and do it now-Now !
Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I Mr. BURRELL.
urged that every member's attitude to this great question before the House must be determined by two things. One by the matter of imminence or non-imminence of danger to naval supremacy, and the other by the broad question of empire and Canada's part and lot therein. The first I have dealt with. The second I propose to deal with for a few minutes.
Those great words, patriotism, loyalty, duty, have been heard much of during this debate, and certainly if there ever was a question before the Canadian parliament which called for true loyalty and true patriotism in its discussion, this is one.
The Prime Minister says he is not an imperialist, not an anti-imperialist, but a Canadian. Sir, one does not like a personal note. But like thousands of my fellow-countrymen, I was born in England.- More than a quarter of a century ago, out of all the world, I deliberately chose Canada as my country. For twenty-seven years, east and west, I have amid varying conditions, lived my life; like myself thousands of others have endeavoured faithfully to interpret the messages which our common country breathes in our ears from time to time; have loyally tried to translate those messages into practical work for the betterment and development of this great British Dominion beyond the seas. We are Canadians in every sense of the word; our patriotism is not less pure, our devotion to Canada not less sincere than those whose eyes first opened on Canadian scenes, and we speak with no less authority on these high matters which affect Canadian citizenship and Canadian destiny. Passionately as we are attached to Canada, proud as we are of the strengthening opulence of her life, assured as we are of her great future, we, Canadians too, have also a deep-rooted affection, not only for the motherland, but for all those over-sea sister states whose people are gloriously perpetuating in the twentieth century British institutions, and daily carrying into effect the noble ideals so long associated with British traditions and British liberty!
Feeling these things so deeply as we do we cannot help feeling that there is a tremendous, a grave, responsibility on us at this time. We ought not, we dare not, think only of ourselves. What we do, or do not do, may have a profound effect on others. South Africa, shortly to commence its formal career as a federated state within the empire, will anxiously watch to see the steps we take, and it is because so many of the arguments advanced to support the government policy, and because of the policy itself, that we urge the binding necessity on the government at the present time to move in a direction which makes for the solidarity of the empire, and not for its

future disintegration. The word autonomy has been strained to the breaking point. The Prime Minister has laboriously worked up the case of Canadian historical development and sees autonomy thrusting up its head on every page. There is an old saying that we get out of the Bible what we take into it. A lofty and noble message will be of noble and lofty import to one man. Another may read into the same words, and read out of them, simply an application to a local political condition. Similarly with history. It is one thing, as Whately said, to want to be on the side of truth, and another thing to want truth to be on our side. The Prime Minister appears to assume that we are even to this day in the position of having to wrest our autonomy from Great Britain, and it might be almost logically inferred from the whole tenor of his argument that the wresting process ought not to cease until we have achieved final autonomy in the shape of independence. The right hon. gentleman may comfort himself that in this view he was in line with an older and small school of English thought 

now happily dead.
We are two peoples to all intents and purposes

Wrote Cobden years ago,
-and it is a perilous delusion to both parties to attempt to keep up a sham connection and dependence which will snap asunder if it should ever he put to the strain of stern reality. I have felt an interest in this confederation scheme, because I thought it was only a step in the direction of an amicable separation. We have recognized their right-
-The right of the colonies -to control their own fate, even to the point of asserting their own independence whenever they think fit, and which we know to be only a question of time.
Does the Prime Minister subscribe to these opinions? No one doubts that we can assert our independence. Great Britain, as we read things, gives us full liberty, but earnestly asks full co-operation in welding the empire together. No longer dependence, but inter-dependence. The South African war was the final answer to those who shared or yet share Cobden's views. We want not a separated country, not a fleet which in the hour of danger may or may not lift a hand, or fire a gun, whose vessels according to a significant hint may be flying a distinctive flag, but we want one King, one fleet, one flag. I was amazed at a statement of the Postmaster General when he argued out these things. In his speech, arguing for the government programme, he said:
I have here a list of independent countries and self-governing colonies whose population does not exceed 10,000,000 people, who have navies of their own.
Sir, a review of that list is significant, for not a single self-governing colony is to be found in all the eighteen cases cited. Leaving out China, which the minister stated was contemplating a naval programme, we have the seventeen countries quoted. Of these Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Holland, and Greece are monarchies. Let us glance at the rest and see how thi3 argument works out-an argument singularly unfortunate and even sinister: The Argentine Republic; Brazil, formerly a monarchy, but becoming a republic in 1889; Chili, which threw off the yoke of Spain and became independent in 1818; Colombia, which became a republic in 1819; Costa Rica, which took a similar course in 1829; Ecuador, a republic in 1830;Hayti, which asserted its independence in 1804, and, whose unhappy and stained history we all know; Mexico, which became independent in 1857; Paraguay, which threw off its allegiance to Spain in 1811; Peru, which also did so in 1821, and San Domingo, which became independent in 1844. Where are the self-governing colonies here? My hon. friend accused the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) of not playing the game fairly. What about this? Let it also be remembered that in becoming independent these countries, as far as naval services go, have found the result to be vast and ever-increasing expense, weak and inefficient navies and in many cases universal service.
Does the minister imply that we should cast off our allegiance as these countries have theirs? The term is of different import to us. Ours is not a yoke under which we give grudging service to tyranny, but an allegiance and a loyalty willingly given, willingly received and to sunder which would mean not independence, but final absorption by the great country to the south, whose history and development we admire, but whose problems are not ours, and whose political destinies we do not wish to share.
The Prime Minister has paid a tribute of admiration to Lord Milner and has sheltered his policy behind the words of that great imperialist. Long passages were read from Lord Milner's addresses in this country, addresses with which most of us are thoroughly familiar. My right hon. friend remarks:
Lord. Milner was here last fall, and you will pardon me, Sir, if I recall to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite what were the opinions of Lord Milner upon this question.
He then cites amongst others the following passages from Lord Milner's Toronto speech:
It is not a question, of shifting burdens, but of developing fresh centres of strength. For this reason I have never been a great advocate of contributions from the self-governing states to the army and navy of the United

Kingdom, though as evidences of the solidarity of the empire such contributions are welcome and valuable pending the substitution of something better. But I am sure that the form which imperial co-operation in this field will ultimately take and ought to take, the form at once most consistent with the dignity of the individual states and most conducive to their collective strength and organic union, is the development of their several defensive resources in material and manhood.
Well, Sir, we too believe that regular and periodic contributions of money to Great Britain are not the most desirable way of performing our duty, and the leader of the opposition has said so very emphatically. We too believe that ultimately Canada should, and no doubt will, strengthen and develop her own defensive resources.. But let me emphasize one thing. Lord Milner was not in Canada last fall. This very address was delivered in October, 1908, and it is necessary, therefore, to clearly bear in mind, in arguing from the passages that the_Prime Minister quoted, that Lord Milner" was emphatically dealing with the ultimate policy, and not with what was Canada's best course at the present time.
What did Lord Milner, whose authority the Prime Minister invoked, say, when speaking on this question at Stockport on December 20 last? These words he uttered, and those who call him to their aid and shelter themselves behind his name and prestige would do well to bear them in mind:
The great position which this country occupied in the world-a position won for ns by the enterprise, sacrifice, industry and courage of our forefathers, though still held is being more menaced every day. The undoubted supremacy which this country at one time possessed at sea, if it has not gone, is seriously challenged.
We cannot doubt what the attitude of Lord Milner would be in the present case, nor can we doubt that he passionately hopes for a strengthening and not the weakening of imperial ties. My right hon. friend quoted a passage also from Lord Milner's speech in Vancouver in 1908. Here again it applies to ultimate action in defence and as the Prime Minister left off just where the passage became most interesting, I will finish the paragraph:
Without any loss of individuality, without any excessive strain on her resources it is within her power to enjoy all the benefits of that great position not only on this continent, but throughout the world, in which every selfgoverning community under the British Crown is equally entitled to participate. Canada would be greater, far greater, as a member, perhaps in time a leading member of that group of powerful though pacific nations, than she ever could be in isolation.
With that proposition we on this side of the House entirely agree, and it is because we agree to it that we cannot support a Mr. BURRELL.
policy which so obtrudes a false idea of autonomy as to say that a navy having been built, not a gun shall be fired until the Governor in Council or this parliament says so. The fundamental difference between military and naval matters in this connection are too obvious to be pointed out. Every one knows that on its naval side the issue between Japan and Russia was decided in the first hour of attack. The position taken by the government is impossible and repugnant to the feelings of the whole country. The moment, in the face of war, that question is debated that moment we cease to belong to the empire in any real sense. We cannot be of the empire and yet not of it. To say as prominent Liberal organs have said that we may lend our ships to Great Britain-with emphasis on the may-is to admit the point is an arguable one, a distasteful and dangerous admission.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding this expression of my own feelings on this great question. and also I believe the opinions of the vast body of my constituents, I can but again repeat my belief that the step proposed by the leader of the opposition is the wise, the patriotic, the right step and the people of Canada will so regard it.
We cannot lightly talk of war, or lightly consider the infinite miseries that follow it. Grant's words that 'war is hell' must remain true for ever. But there is another kind of war, a war which, to use the glowing words of Ruskin:
In which the natural instincts of self-defence are sanctified by the nobleness of the institutions, and purity of the households, which they are appointed to defend. To such war as this all men are born; in such war as this any man may happily die; and forth from such war as this have arisen throughout the extent of past ages, all the highest sanctities and virtues of humanity.
We owe it to ourselves to help the coming of that day when every state in the empire shall be worthily represented in a council of imperial defence. Such a step would in itself be the surest step towards the securing of peace. We owe it to ourselves in Canada at this time and hour to see that we linger not behind others in the defence of the empire.
On this grave matter, of a permanent naval policy, fraught with far-reaching results, the government ought and should consult the people who are the final authority. We know not whither it will lead, or what consequences will follow: 'Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide'. If the Prime Minister will not refer the issue to those who placed this government in power, we can at least tell him what we feel to be the absolute truth: that Canada,
32C9

if it were given its rightful opportunity of expression, its choice between the government proposals and the patriotic plan of the leader of the opposition-would unhesitatingly choose the latter, and, out of its riches, and out of its strength, sustain a policy which makes for the speedy and effective strengthening of that navy which has guarded our liberties in the past, and which alone can guard them effectually in the future.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: Mr. Speaker, I must say that my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell), for a gentleman who bestows so much contempt upon waves of enthusiasm, certainly to my mind gave undue importance at the beginning of his remarks to the exact chronological moment at which he and his followers in somewhat discordant tones, so far as I can remember, sang the National Anthem. I have been accustomed to hear Tories on both sides of the Atlantic claim a monopoly of loyalty and patriotism, and it would now seem as if they claimed a monopoly of the National Anthem. I am one of those, Sir, who do not believe that the main strength and enduring greatness of a people depend upon armaments. The world is full of decayed civilizations, but every one of these civilizations died first from within. The real strength of a people is in the strong arm, the healthy body, but far more than that in a healthier mind and good morals. And, I am bound to say that the people of Canada, following as they have followed, the advice of the right hon. the Prime Minister -which has been suitable for Canada up to this period of her history-the advice to keep out of the vortex of European militarism, have not lost but gained in the process. Does any one pretend that Canada has been weaker because she has followed1 that policy hitherto? No. With no desire to interfere with others and yet with a quiet determination that others shall not interfere with her, the strength of Canada has been as the strength of ten because her heart was pure. But, having said this much I am bound to admit that we live in a practical age and that the resolution of last March really narrows this discussion down to a very fine point indeed. It narrows it down to two definite lines of policy upon which we must decide. As the House, most unfortunately as I think, upon a question of foreign policy is to be forced to a division. Now, I think it would be regarded as a presumption on my part were I to make a long speech. I do not think that the House or the country is looking for long speeches from private members after the extremely exhaustive speech of my right hon. frienid the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill and the equally exhaustive speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition on the first
reading. I would like, however, to say a few words on the points which have been raised in the speeches of the two gentlemen who have spoken for the opposition to-day; and at the outset I wish to say that I am in perfect agreement with the main position taken by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) and by the hon. member for Yale Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) as to what ought to determine, or largely determine, the attitude of members on this question. The question, is there any immediate peril to the empire? Is that peril imminent or non-imminent? as my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo put it, is a question upon the answer we give to which will depend largely the attitude of members who want to give a rational vote at the end of this discussion.
Now, both my hon. friends have based their case for a present imminent peril of the empire very largely upon what I'may call authority. One of the authorities was quoted with very great surprise to me. I am surprised that my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo attached the importance he did to the writings of the quondam Socialist, Mr. Robert Blatchford. Why, Sir, if he were well acquainted with the former writings of that gentleman-perhaps he is, I do not know, but it does not seem to me as if he were-he would remember that Mr. Blatchford, when he was the editor of a paper called ' The Clarion,' eight or ten years ago, was writing in that paper the very stuff about a German invasion which he has been trying to frighten the British public with during the general election. If that be the kind of authority on whom my hon. friend bases his effort to prove that the German menace is imminent, and if that gentleman has been blowing his clarion off and on for the last eight or ten years, and we are still living free from a German attack, I am bound to say that my logical faculties are such that I cannot be worked into a state of panic over anything that emanates1 from the pen of Mr. Robert Blatchford. However, there were very-much more eminent authorities quoted by my hon. friend from North Grey as well as by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo. A great deal was made by the hon. member for North Grey of the speeches delivered to our own delegates and the delegates from the rest of the empire on the occasion of the press conference in Great Britain last summer. But as I listened to the quotations from those speeches, so far as I could gather the object of the various statesmen speaking to those press delegates, they did not want to convey to them for a moment that there was any particular peril to Great Britain at the hands of Germany. I think they rather wanted to impress upon them a thought as old as Adam Smith, that the time had come when the whole burden of imperial defence could no longer be allowed

to rest on the mother country. Take the language that was used. The members of the press conference were asked to exercise a- forethought extending over years, to look forward, and Mr. Balfour was careful to say to the delegates that there should be no panic.
A great deal was made by both of my hon. friends of the utterances of Sir Edward Grey. I quite agree with them that no British statesman could be quoted whose language ought to be listened to with greater respect or consideration than that of Sir Edward Grey. But I think that where my friends have made a mistake is that they have not seen the most recent utterances of that right hon. gentleman. Speaking when the election was almost over, at Hexham, in my native county, after seven seats fought there had gone Liberal, and contributing his quota to the eighth one going Liberal, he referred to his speech of last March, which my hon. friends have quoted, and referred to it in this language:
There was not a word to take from anything from which they said in March last with regard to the navy, and not a word to be unsaid. Was there anything to be added? Yes, this, that during last year they gave orders for the ships which were necessary to be built to be put in hand in the course of this year in order to maintain our naval position. In March they said that it might require to be done; they were now in a position to say that they had done it.
Well, that is one member of the British Cabinet; and let me say at this point that I cannot confine myself in what I quote to utterances preceding the late general election. I was astonished at my hon. friend the leader of the opposition taking that attitude, because it surely created the inference that no men of front rank in British politics are quite sincere at election times. Well, I do not concede that. I think I can furnish evidence that some candidates in the recent campaign were sincere; and, while we may believe in the sincerity of Mr. Robert Blatchford, I do not think we need attach much importance to what he said. But when Mr. Lloyd-George, who was the leading figure in the recent contest, and who will continue to be a leading figure in political life in England for years to come, described this, like other British panics, as ' manufactured cries of national danger,' I think we should attach some importance to his language. Mr. Asquith, shortly after the speech on which my hon. friends base so much of their reasoning, went on to add that old ladies of both sexes might rest quietly in their beds, because the empire was perfectly secure. Now, I contend that such a description, applied to the scare mongers is sufficiently strong, and comes from a sufficiently high authority, for a country with our broad' prairies and our


Michael Clark: clear air and our self-reliant people not to pay too much attention to these scaremongers. Mr. Churchill, another prominent member of the British Cabinet-and these are men who know the real condition of the navy-has referred to the scare-mongers of last spring as ' March hares and April fools running about the country creating an unfounded panic.' But before this House had broken up in the month of May last, another prominent member of the British Cabinet was doing what many of the British people were doing at intervals during the most of last summer-interchanging ideas with their fellows of the same race among the great German people. The right Hon. John Burns was addressing a large number of German trades unionists who were visiting Great Britain, and he used this language:
Your visit is timely. It coincides with the collapse of an attempt to foment mischief between the two great branches of the same race. I have seen a few scares in this country come and go, but I never saw one more hollow and less decent than the last. It has hardly lasted the traditional nine days. It was confined to a small section of people, and I may say, with few exceptions, to the least reputable of our journals, to the most unreliable of our precocious politicians, and to a few socialists who ought to have known better.
That was very strong language to have ci me right on the back of the scare on which we carried the resolution of last March and on which scare, I understand, the whole defence of the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is being based by the two speakers who have preceded me to-day. But we are not (dependant on British authority in this matter. I hold in my hand the account of the Press Conference, by one of the ablest journalists in Canada, who was present at that conference, written in England in the shape of letters to his own newspaper while there. And what had he to say about the scare in the country last summer while the conference was going on? If the speeches quoted by the hon. member for North Grev (Mr. Middlebro) had the significance which he attached to them, surely that significance would have found its way into the head of this journalist.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Who was that journalist?


Michael Clark: Mr. John Dafoe, the editor of the Manitoba 'Free Press.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: My hon. friends laugh at the name. I suppose that is because he belongs to a different political party than themselves. I described him as a great journalist, and if I want to justify

my description of him I could surely do it up to the hilt when I mention that there was scarcely a committee of the journalists for whatever purpose of that conference appointed by themselves on which Mr. John ,Dafoe was not placed, and let me say to my hon. friends that when we have the good opinion of our peers and fellows with whom we work we have the highest testimony that we are men of reputation and of worth. Mr. Dafoe said:
The panic, of course, has quite passed away, leaving behind it a fixed resolution in the minds of Englishmen, of all classes, that in a matter of such supreme importance to them as the supremacy of the seas, they will take no chances.
Might I offer the testimony of another journalist who has passed through the recent election. I think that, as Canadians, we cannot afford not to pay attention to the journalists who are over there. Something was said by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) in criticism of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) for a remark he made about the last elections having settled the war scare, and the hon. member for Grey in regard, to that, quoted Portsmouth as a place where the scare was evidently believed in. In Portsmouth and the other dockyard towns: it is not so much belief in the scare as our old and well known friend, patronage, which affects an election. It is a cure for the scare that the people of Portsmouth and Davenport are interested in, because they get their living by building ships, and, of course, they listen to any one who goes there and promises an enlarged naval force. Mr. Joe Clark is the correspondent to whom I refer. I do not remember even the papers which he represented, but I read all his letters, and his forecasts of the campaign seem to me to indicate a journalist of an alert mind to whose word we should attach a good deal of importance. He said:
The navy scare will probably pass away. In fact it lias been almost impossible to find anybody not on the stump afraid of Germany and one feels that such talk would, not be used except in a country too strong to care whether a neighbouring nation took offence or not.
Mention was made of Lord Beresford's attitude. This same journalist quotes some words of Lord Beresford, and I am bound to believe he would only have done so on the best of authority. He states that Lord Beresford said after the contest, and I think these words indicate the exact importance he attached to the scare:
I do not wish to make a party thing of the navy, but you have got to get into parliament somehow.
Taking these views of the journalists who have been there and the leading mem-104
bers of the British cabinet, I am bound to say that I do not see there is much evidence that they believe in any imminent danger from Germany at all. I would like to quote the language of Mr. Balfour, the prominent statesman on the other side of politics. He was taken to task by Mr. Asquith for referring to an opinion among the statesmen and diplomatists of the lesser powers of Europe. Mr. Balfour said:
You will find among them absolute unanimity of opinion that a struggle sooner or later between this country and Germany is inevitable.
Yes, but Mr. Balfour was careful, with the sense of responsibility which naturally is felt by a man who might conceivably have had to go into office and hold diplomatic- relationships with the great country of Germany, to immediately add:
I do not agree with them, that is their opinion.
So that every leading member of the government of England, at the present moment. has thrown doubt upon the motives and the reality of the scare of last spring, and Mr. Balfour, the leader of the opposition, agrees with them.
But, as I said, my friends have rested mainly upon authority in this matter. I, Sir, have other methods bv which I judge of the importance of these panics into which the British people go from time to time. A little history is a splendid cure for a good deal of hysteria. I am old enough, I regret to say, to remember when the word ' jingo ' first became a current word in British politics. In 1878 Lord Beaconsfield and the Marquis of Salisbury returned from the Berlin congress, and the Prime Minister made the famous speech in which he said: I bring you peace, and peace with honour. The London crowd went crazy and broke Air. Gladstone's windows. Yes, but the London crowd was not then representative of British opinion, and in 15 or 16 months after that event, so far from the British people being carried away by that panic and entering or rather coming any nearer to war with Russia-it was Russia that the scaremongers were frightened of at that time-Mr. Gladstone won the country by a majority of 120, and that scare, for the moment, was forgotten, indeed it has been forgotten ever since because we have 'had no war. It is over half a century ago since the British people were similarly excited over the absurd rumour that the French people were building ships secretly in the harbours of Toulon and Cherbourg. There is no one to whom we ought to pay the attention that we do to the successful prophet, the man who sees the meaning of those things at the time. As I said, a little history is a splendid cure for a good deal of hysteria. Mr. Richard Cobden said at that time:



R 16 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
There is something very puerile in the recent attempts to frighten the country with stories about secret preparations in the French dockyards.
Yes, and how puerile it looks to us today, 50 years after the event, when we reflect that from that moment to this there has grown up between the great French and English nations the entente cordiale unbroken by a single warlike act during half a century.
It is absurd to have any fears of a war between Germany and England at the present time, owing to the relative strength of the two peoples and the two fleets. Why, I do not understand the make-up of the Jingo. It is beyond all possible doubt that the British seamen in the British navy at the present time number two and a fraction to one in the Germany navy. Britain is equally superior in the matter of ships. What is the attitude of lion, members towards the Englishman's fighting power anyway? The people who made the charge at Balaclava did not ask to be twice as strong as their opponents? I 'have never heard that Nelson and Wellington made it a sine qua non of their fighting that thev should be two and a half times as strong as the enemy. I cannot understand the make-up of the Jingo. Have hon. members no belief in the might of England? Have they no knowledge of her history? I cannot for the life of me see why we should insist on Britain being two and a half times as strong as Germany, and, when we fear that it may be otherwise, to get into a state of hysterical excitement and do things that we shall be sorry for six months after when we have recovered from our unworthy panic. But I rest more on the good-will that prevails between the two peoples. And I am bound to say that, while I think a number of my fellow countrymen have been-to use the old American phrase-twisting the tail of the German lion, a trick that used to be played regularly in elections in the United States with regard to Great Britain herself, it redounds greatly to the credit of the German people that they have taken it all calmly and quietly. Thq trade relations between the two peoples make it the most unthinkable thing in the world that there could be war between them. Let me read what John Burns1 said on this subject upon the occasion to which I have referred:
On the ground of race, religion, ideals and aims, Europe and the world would he the poorer if Germany and Britain were involved in a war. Germany was England's best customer and he was not a wise shopkeeper who advocated the blacking of the eyes of his best customer as a means of advertising his business. England sent Germany over £41,000.000 of goods and Germany sent England £57,000,000 a year, £12,000,000 of which was in food, whilst Mr. M. CLARK.
the British empire sent to Germany goods to the value of £90,000,000.
It is inconceivable to me that the two foremost nations of the world to-day are going to stop the whole beneficial service of commerce in the North Sea to fight it out like two school boys to see which is the stronger of the two.
Now, Sir, I think I have furnished sufficient ground for holding a different view from that of these two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred as to the imminence of the German peril. But, we are face to face with the situation, peril or no peril, and there are two methods of handling it before the members of this House. Now, I must say that I was immensely disappointed when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) tabled his amendment. Having regard to the speeches which he had been delivering all summer and during the fall, I anticipated that he would allow this question of the foreign policy, this question of such immense importance, to pass the House without a division. We have heard, however, Sir, that the tail sometimes wags the dog. When three tails of extraordinary activity get wagging all at one time the result is likely to be serious. The result was the production of what I would call an omnibus resolution-an omnibus with compartments. Into one compartment was hustled the -hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) and those who agree with him, singing: 'We don't know where we are, but we're going to the countrv to find out'. Into the more roomy compartment of the omnibus were crowded the larger number of those who sit behind the leader of the opposition, singing, as befitted them, the old Jingo refrain:-
We don't want to fight,
But, by jingo, if we do,
We've got the men, and we've got the ships,
And we've got the money, too!
Until my hon. friend resumed his seat, I thought there would have been a compartment for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), but he struck on the business and switched off on a little conveyance of his own. The main omnibus was driven, I need not sav. by the leader of the opposition with everv apparent encouragement from his chief lieutenant, and the_ whole party raced off as fast as they could from implementing the resolution for which they were, equally with the other side, responsible last March.
What is it that the amendment proposes, Mr. Speaker? It proposes to carry out at once the policy of the opposition and propose to refer the oolicv of responsible government to the people. Well, that is a shifting of governmental respon-

sibility. But, if a referendum is good for the Liberal policy, which happens to be the policy of the majority of this House, surely it will be equally good for the policy of the minority, especially as there is no great panic, as I have tried to prove. Surely, the referendum policy wo.uld apply to the policy of providing Dreadnoughts as well as to the proposal to build a Canadian navy? There are one or two questions which I would like to ask about the giving of these Dreadnoughts. How often would hon. members propose this policy? Are these Dreadnoughts to be the finish, the final policy of Canada? Is that all they propose to do towards saving the empire in the midst of the terrible peril to which she is exposed in the pages of Mr. Robert Blatchford's writings? If not, and if there is to be gift of Dreadnoughts, when? I wish to push these questions upon the opposition. 1 judge that there will be plenty of members from that side following me, and I want them to explain to the House and country just how this thing is going to work out. How many Dreadnoughts are we going to give? Perhaps I could help to answer that question. These delegates of ours to the imperial conference saw a wonderful sight in the Solent last summer. The British fleet was there assembled, 144 battleships, covering eighteen miles of water. And the thing which bears upon the question I am putting to my.hon. friends of the opposition is this

that only one of these battleships had been in existence twelve years before. You are going to give two towards one hundred and forty-four-not an almighty contribution, but probably sufficient There are a great many questions that the opposition have been directing to the government side of the House about, the government policy that are equally applicable to their own. What is the empire going to do. we have been asked, during the time the ships are building? All I have to .say is that if the empire, with 144 ships of hey own on the Solent, depends absolutely for her salvation upon the two Dreadnoughts of the opposition, she will be in a worse place still. But the point I wish to urge upon my hon. friends is that this fleet was new within twelve years. You give your two Dreadnoughts, at a cost to Canada of about $25,000,000. Then, about time when the British fleet is rebuilt, you have to give two Dreadnoughts again. But if, long before that, Mr. Robert Blatch-ford and the yellow press of England agree to raise a scare, are you going to propose a policy of this kind every time such a scare is raised? There is a great deal to be said in support of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) -when he said that the yellow press was at the back of this whole policy. I hold in my hand a telegram sent February 29, 1909, from the 1041
' Standard ' newspaper in England to the 'Evening Journal' of this city:
Build your navy. The rest must come. Build and your claim to a share in controlling imperial defence cannot be evaded, but build.
Now, I would like to know if, every time the English yellow press gets into this particular mood, and sends a telegram to the ' Evening Journal ' of Ottawa, we are going to give another couple of ' Dreadnoughts ' ? Unless we are to withdraw from the empire altogether, you are not going to stop with the two, you will give another couple at least in eight or ten years when the present vessels of the British navy have become obsolete, and you have to replace them. But during that time you will not have taught a single Canadian to go to sea without- being sea-sick, you will not have taught a single Canadian youth to walk the decks, yon will have remained a nation of land lubbers-that is the practical outcome of the policy of the opposition. Contrast that with the plan of the government. The panic on one side, what we are concerned with is, not the giving of ' Dreadnoughts,' not a policy which is so ill thought out as that, but we are concerned with the orderly development of Canada as a portion of the empire.
Now what are the merits of the government plan? 1 want to state them in a couple of sentences. In the first place, the government plan is at least on an equality, for emergency purposes, with the opposition plan, because, if we are going to have a war with Germany next week, it is clear that any money we send to build [DOT] Dreadnoughts ' could not be used in that time. So that so far as emergency goes, the one plan is as good, or as poor, as the other. If emergency comes upon Britain quickly, we should at any rate be in quite as good a position as the opposition, or as we have been at any past period in British history. But I would say in criticism of the hon. leader of the opposition at this point that the very objection he made to the government plan is equally applicable to his own: it either goes too far, or not far enough. For my part, if the empire were really in danger, I do not believe Canadians would be content with giving a couple of ' Dreadnoughts.' The real "asset which the empire has in Canada is in the knowledge of the fact that behind her, if the worst comes to the worst, she has all the material and moral resources of the people of Canada; and when that is made known to her it is better than giving a couple of ' Dreadnoughts.' So far as emergency goes, that is all the knowledge that Britain would want. I have some young fellows myself who can handle a rifle fairly well, and if the old land was really exposed to danger from a foreign foe, those young fellows, and others in the west, could not be restrained, and I think
[Stage Direction]
I	should have to put a sticking plaster on myself. ' Give a couple of Dreadnoughts.' I have heard of little Englanders in England, and I think I have discovered some little Canadians in Canada.
Not only is the government plan at least on an equality for emergency purposes with the opposition view, but it guarantees the autonomy of Canada. Now, disguise the contribution plan as yoir may, it gives away that autonomy, and if you repeat your contribution from time to time, it becomes equivalent to taxation. If you do not repeat it, then I think you would be little Canadians. Disguise it how you may, a cash contribution for ' Dreadnoughts ' would amount to taxation without representation. Now, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, running away as he was from his resolution of last March-because it was his just as much as the Prime Minister's-he did what is very uncommon with him, but he did what people very often do when they are going to do a foolish thing, he rather lost his temper, and he charged the right hon. gentleman with great heat, with having talked two-thirds of the time he was on his feet, wide of the subject. Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with that view. I think that the magnificent argument we had, the history we had of the rise of Canadian autonomy, and the need of preserving it, was absolutely pertinent to that point. What is the history of the colonies of the empire in that respect? From the time of Lord Durham's memorandum and the repeal of the navigation laws by Lord John Russell, the attitude of the old country has been under the aegis of British Liberalism; the policy of the old country has been to produce, not so much an empire, as an alliance of free naltions, independent for a great many purposes, but connected for others. That is the history of autonomy, and I should think that our Tory friends would have had enough of the other policy when they reflect upon what happened to the United States of America. That good old Tory. Lord North, believed in running the colonies from Downing street, and he tried it with the American colonies, with the re-mlt that they are gone. Well might Lord Beaconsfield call the Tory party the stupid party, because they are talking the same imperialsm to-day, they are building the same kind of a Tower of Babel, that will end in the same confusion, and chaos, and failure that attended that memorable building.
Not only is the government plan on an equality' for emergency purposes with the opposition plan, not: only does it guarantee the autonomy of Canada, but as I have said, it takes its place naturally in the national development, and it. keeps hold of the purse strings. Let me say, Sir, that this is a point of very great, importance. My Mr. M. CLARK.
hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo said just now that the Lord loveth a cheerful giver. Well, it is as well that he quoted that text for the benefit of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, because I am sure it would never have any effect upon the Minister of Finance. ' The Lord loveth a cheerful giver ' may be a very good maxim for people to carry out in their private enterprises, but I do not think it would be a good maxim for those responsible for taxing the country, and governing the people with the proceeds of their taxation. The Lord may love a cheerful giver, but I do not think the taxpayer has the same affection for him. I am bound to say that the resolution of last March could not leave this country where it had been, because we were bound after that resolution to do something. A great deal of the growth of this nation's responsibility in the empire is based upon the possibility of paying our own obligations as we go along, and retaining some of the benefit by giving fresh outlets to the enter-; prise of our people; and if we are ever to be a sea-faring people, teaching our young generation, those of them who want to go to sea, to learn to be sailors, would seem to be an essential part of a sound policy upon this question. I have endeavoured, as far as might be, to argue this question, free from partisanship.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: Well, if a man be a partisan when he proves that the authorities of those who build up a panic are not quite what they expected they were themselves, then I have been a partisan. I have taken one side of the argument, but it happens to be the right side. I have, at least, been non-partisan in this that I have never hinted, nor would it be fitting to hint, at the want of loyalty on the part of a single member of the Conservative party. Be he French or English, I give him credit for as good citizenship as I possess myself, and I must say that it would redound greatly to the credit of the Conservative party if they would follow my example in that respect. I marvel at any member of the Conservative party trying to cast doubt, upon the First Minister of the Crown of this great country. I marvel at it for this reason that for two generations Liberalism has been teaching that the peculiar glory of the British people has been that they are colonists and -that they can take Frenchmen and, by giving them their freedom, make them good citizens of this great free empire. It is still the glory of British statesmen and of British Liberalism to believe in freedom as the cement of empire, witness the giving of freedom recently to South Africa. I marvel at this want of courtesy and want

of faith. However, I recollect that before I became a citizen of Canada I used to see that when the Prime Minister visited Britain, at least, his loyalty was believed in there by all classes, of the people. I tell my hon. friends with all due deference to the talent which is on their benches, that it will be a long time before the same kind of a reception is given to any man outside of the right hon. gentleman himself in Great Britain.
Sir, if, after over 200 years of freedom from war in Great Britain, the smoke of battle were to be seen there again instead of the much more beneficent smoke of industrial enterprise which has prevailed for a couple of centuries, and if the land of this sacred island were to be stained again with human blood, from all I have seen of Canadians, I believe there would be aroused the cry from the whole Anglo-Saxon population of Canada: Hands off the cradle of our race, but I believe there would be mingled with that cry the equally patriotic and strong cry from every one of our French Canadian citizens:	Hands off the
mother of our liberties.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I may say that I do not propose to treat this subject at any great length, but there are a few points to which I desire to direct attention. I listened somewhat attentively to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who has just taken his seat for the purpose of jotting down points that I might answer, but I regret to say that the paper is yet a comparative blank. Although he travelled over ancient, medieval and modem history, political economy and the .abstract questions of government, nearly four-fifths of his speech, I thought, had very little to do with the question before the House. He did say before he sat down that the Canadian people were loyal. Well, I agree with him in that. I think there is no doubt about that. The Canadian people as a whole are loyal. There may be individual cases of disloyalty. There may be policies propounded for Canada that, if carried out, would lead to disloyalty, but I think the great heart of the Canadian people is loyal. The hon. member for Red Deer finished by saying that the government proposal or plan had two merits. What were they? One was that it was quite as good as that proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). Well, that is an admission that there is some merit in the proposal contained in the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He did not claim that the government proposal was any better, but at least that it was as good. The other merit w^as that it preserved the autonomy of Canada. Does that imply that the amendment which was proposed would not preserve the autonomy
of Canada? That is the only and natural inference to be drawn from the hon. gentleman's remarks. There is no man in this House who will read the resolution calmly and dispassionately, or analyse and criticise it fairly, who will reach the conclusion that there is anything in it that would lead to a sacrifice of the autonomy that we enjoy at the present time. The hon. gentleman went over a lot of ground and what occurred to me as a fair summing up of his speech as a whole was what i heard once from a very young professor who was asked if he could give a clear and logical demonstration of chemistry. Well, he said, the shortest and best that I know of is about this. I will give you an example of it:
You take air effervescent And add a deliquescent.
There will be a precipitation
That is a conglomeration
That amounts to a demonstration.
His statement was just about as clear and just about as logical. The first observation made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when moving the second reading of the Bill, which attracted my attention, was the positive and emphatic statement, as he turned around to look at his friends^ that the government intend to stand or fall by this policy. What did he intend that to be? It could not be addressed to members of the opposition because they are generally found opposing the government, but it was a very strong and vigorous threat addressed to his own friends. Why? Because forsooth there must be a very great diversity of opinion and strong opposition to the policy which the government has propounded. That is the only conclusion to reach from that observation. I am justified in reaching that conclusion as well, because farther on, in answer to the question I asked him: Do you mean to say that when England is at war, Canada is at war?-he said: Certainly he did. Then he went on to say that when he made that statement he shocked his friends in Quebec until they rent their garments and tore their hair. These remarks were addressed to his friends in Quebec, and it, therefore, would not seem that they were standing as a solid phalanx behind his back; they could not have been addressed to the opposition in this House because he does not stand or fall by the power of the opposition, for were they strong enough they w-ould vote him out of power. Then his next observation was that there v'as no emergency between Germany 'and England. Surely to arrive at this conclusion he must have ignored the calm and deliberate statements made by Sir Edward Grey, by Mr. Reginald McKenna, by Air. Asquith, by Lord Roberts, by Lord Char-
32c?3

les Beresford, and every one of the public men of England who gave their views- as to the necessity for a strong naval construction policy by Great Britain. True, the Postmaster General told us, when I questioned him across the floor, that he was ignorant of the statements made by these gentlemen last spring, but he had heard the matter discussed during the election. However that may be, surely the Prime Minister was aware of the statements of British statesmen that there was a grave crisis at present in the British empire. The right hon. gentleman told us that if there was any emergency the Liberals would be as ready to assist in the time of need as the Conservatives would be, but if all he has heard and seen will not convince him that a crisis is- upon the empire, then it would be a waste of time for us to try to convince him. The right hon. gentleman told us there was no danger because the navy of England represented 2.000,000 tons displacement, whereas the German navy represented only 890,000 tons. That may be all very well when you apply it to each of the navies as -a whole, but if you take from the British navy such ships as are not considered of any great- value as a fighting force, and then compare the Dreadnoughts of the two countries, the difference will not be found to be nearly so great. If Germany should continue her activity in building Dreadnoughts for the next three or four years, and if England should make no more progress than she has made for some years past, then Germany would have a fighting force equal to that of England. And, if this great German navy is not intended against England, what does she want it- for? No other naval power than England begins to compare with her. England is the only country that- has a navy superior to that of Germany, and if Germany did not design her ships against England she would have no nation with which to claim rivalry on the seas. The right hon. gentleman t-old us that it was trifling with common sense to say that this policy now announced by the government was "a new policy, and he added that it had been clearly before the people since 1902. Well, there were three distinct colonial conferences attended by representatives -of Canada. At the first conference all that was done was to agree to have another conference in three years. The second conference was largely taken up with discussion as to the trade relations between the different portions of the empire, and although defence was mentioned there was nothing formulated except the assistance offered by the Australian colonies to the motherland. At the conference of 1902 there was a proposal made in regard to naval defence, and one of the authorities who made the statement before the conference said:


Thomas Simpson Sproule: to these there is an army of clerks, attached to the department involving an expense of several thousand dollars each year in addition.
I have given these figures to show what the new undertaking will involve in a few years. Instead of being able to handle that militia force with $16,000, we now require $73,000. I believe to-day it is over $100,000 and is increasing every year. When I first spoke on this, I said it was the commencement of militarism, and I repeat the same thing with regard to the present proposal of a naval force. It is the commencement of militarism that the Canadian people dread because of the expense involved in it and the little result that will accrue to the country. For that reason, I say, I am opposed to it because, I believe, it is radically wrong. I am opposed to it because it does not meet the present emergency. What did the people in England say was required to meet the present emergency? They said:
If the problem of military and naval defence were considered merely as a problem of naval strategy

And naval strategy is what gives them control of the high seas to-day, with a force standing at their back.
it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command.
That is what would be the most valuable.
In furtherance then of the simple strategical ideal the maximum of power would be gained if 'all parts of the empire contributed, according to their needs and resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.
That is what would do the most good. If our desire is to do the most good to strengthen the British navy, surely we ought to have some regard to their expert knowledge, to their judgment and to their views, and they tell us that is what they desire; but .we are told Canada will never consent to that. It is said that if we gave in that way it would be taxation without representation. Perhaps it would be and yet after all it might not be a bad thing, and we might be able to do that without any injustice to Canada and with great good to the British empire. But that is the judgment of the British people and I say I am opposed to this because it does not meet the present emergency. In no sense or in no way can it meet the present emergency. Now it is said that the emergency is on, we must either deal with it or do nothing, and that if it matures at the present rate it must come to a head within a few years. The Prime Minister himself said that these ships could not be built, we could not have a ship ready to go into com-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: mission before at least five years. But a navy to be of any value would take at least 15 years to build. What is to become of the emergency in the meantime? What assistance are we giving to the British fleet in the meantime? None whatever, and that emergency is on. that emergency must be met.
England said: If the colonies will not assist we are bound to do it ourselves. She accepted courteously and thankfully the offers made by New Zealand, Victoria and the Australian Commonwealth generally when they offered ' Dreadnoughts ' and money-but Canada made no offer, Canada stood aloof from it. Therefore, I say, I am opposed to the proposal because it does not meet the present emergency. I have no doubt many in this House have noticed that for several years past a proposal has been made by the foremost minds of the world, that the different nations should have a conference and agree to" a limitation of their naval and military forces, and their expenditures for the development of these forces. Almost every nation in the civilized world has offered to agree to it except Germany. While Germany has said she was willing to agree to it, she was never prepared to do it. In the meantime, while she was professing a desire to control her naval expenditure, she was still going on spending more and more each succeeding year.
She must have had some purpose. What was that purpose? England was ,ready to go into that conference, France proposed to go into it; even the United States was prepared to go into it-all civilized countries were prepared to enter the conference except Germany. But Germany was going on building her Dreadnoughts and preparing for her naval battle whenever it came. If, to-day, the colonies of the empire came to the assistance of England with a gift of money which she could use in aceoi'dance with the well-matured plans that her naval experts have evolved from generation to generation, her force would be increased to the greatest extent and in the quickest way, and England would be ready to cope with Germany. Germany then might regard it as useless to go on. developing her naval forces as she has been doing. And, if she reached that conclusion, she might go into that conference and decide to limit hex-naval and military expenditure. If this were done, the enxergency would be over. Giving once, we might not be called upon to give again. This would be a free gift, on the saxxxe lines as our sending men to take part iix the South African war. It would not be taxation without representation; it would be a free and voluntary gift, and, as the enxergency might not arise again for many veax-s, we might save ourselves the millions upon nxillioxxs which we must

spend to go on with a navy as proposed at the present time.	_
I am opposed to this policy, because it was not what the British naval authorities suggested would be of the most use to them. They said that a naval unit -would be the best contribution outside of money. The fighting they said must be done bv Dreadnoughts, while the smaller craft are good in their way they are practically of no value in the work for which the Dreadnought is needed. There fore, we are not preparing to give what the naval experts of England said every colony should give that wished to help the empire in the best way. It is suggested that with Esquimalt and Halifax to care for, if we want to have a naval force of any value and to look after these ports, we must have a force on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic. But. because the government is not prepared to undertake that expenditure, it cannot provide a single unit, the only fighting force that Britain thought would be of great value. But a monev con tribution would meet the emergency. Therefore, I would favour a monev contribution, which, as I have. said, might be required onlv once in a generation.
And lastly, I am onposed to this policy because the Canadian people have not had an opportunity to express their views upon it. The government has never submitted their policy to the people either by referendum or at a general election. I hold that we should not commence such an undertaking without asking the judgment of the Canadian people upon it, and if the government is not prepared to evolve a policy and submit it to the Canadian people at the next general election, they are not the kind of statesmen as are to be found in every other portion of the British empire except Canada. For this would be in accordance with the principle of our form of constitutional government-the government propounds its policy crystallizes it into form and submits it to the people and asks for their approval.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Might I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) if he would propose to put off submitting the question until the next general election?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I would propose to do is exactly what I have said. The government should give a contribution either in money or in vessels in order to meet the present emergency. We might not require to do that again for a long time. Then, they should evolve a policy and submit it to the Canadian people, either by calling a general election, or by making it an issue in the next general election, and let the people express their views upon it. When that is done, when the Canadian people endorse the policy, the administration will be justified'in going on with it; if they do not endorse it, it will have to be abandoned for the future. For these reasons, I am opposed to this Bill and in favour of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.
On motion of Sir Frederick Borden the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Thursday, February 10, 1910.