1910-03-07

Mr. JAMESON.: I wish to call attention to the following despatch which appears in the Ottawa ' Citizen,' under date of March 5:
A rather interesting state of affairs, showing the working of the tariff on fish as between the United States and Canada, is reported from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. CitL zens of the town are now importing fish from Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. These fish were caught in Canadian waters last season by the Dominion Fish Company, a branch of the so-called Booth Fish trust, and put into cold storage by the A. Booth Company at the Michigan Soo.
A quarter of a cent per pound duty is paid on Canadian fish entering the United States and one cent per pound on fish coming from the United States into Canada. The unique part of the transaction is that Canadian con-Mr. PUGSLEY.
sumers at the Soo are paying one and one-quarter cents per pound in duties on fish caught in their own waters.
The duty on Canadian fresh fish going into the United States is not a quarter of a cent as stated, but one cent per pound, but owing to some elasticity in the regulations or in the consciences of those responsible for their enforcements, this duty is not, I am informed, imposed on Canadian fish which are purchased in Canada by Americans and imported into the United States in American bottoms. I wish to ask if the government' are aware of this alleged condition of affairs, if they recognize it as a serious condition and what, if any, measures they propose to take to remedy it?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The attention of the government has not been called to this matter, but I shall have it looked into. On first blush I see nothing extraordinary in it. If fish caught in Canadian waters is imported into the United States it pays duty, and then if it comes back to Canada it had to pay duty. If that is the extent of the trouble I do not know that there is anything wrong, but I will have the matter looked into.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I wish to inquire about two returns, one ordered on December 15, with reference to the appointment of a government weigher at Montreal, and the other of November 24, showing the total amounts paid for printing and advertising.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) will send a note of these returns, I will have the matter looked into.


Mr. STANFIELD.: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) when I may expect the return moved fod on November 22, with regard to passes on the Intercolonial Railway?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I thought the return had been brought down. I will make a note of it and will have the matter looked into.



EXPORT OF HORSES FROM ONTARIO TO WESTERN CANADA.

Mr. CAMPBELL.: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) what has been done with reference to disinfecting the stock yards at the feeding points between here and Manitoba. I understood the minister to say that he would attend to it at once. I am informed that nothing has been done so far. I would like to know what the Department of Agriculture is for, if it is not to serve the interests of the farmers in such matters as this? i-


Mr. FISHER.: Immediately after the hon. member's (Mr. Campbell's) remarks on the subject, I spoke to the director general of health on the subject. He said that the question was before him and) would See to it that all necessary precautions were taken. I have not asked him further about it, but I think probably that everything has been done.


Glenlyon Campbell: I may tell the minister that nothing has been done up to date with reference to disinfecting the yards at feeding points between here and Manitoba. It ought to be done at once.



ALIEN LABOUR LAW-ALLEGED INFRACTION.

Mr. THOBURN.: I desire to dTaw the attention of the House and of the minister to whose department the matter pertains, to an item which appears in the 'Central' Canadian' published in Carleton Place in the county I have the honour to represent :
Twelve men took breakfast at the Queen's hotel on Tuesday morning. They were all bound from Buffalo to Braeside to build a steamer for the river traffic.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member can only put a question at this stage. Any other discussion will be out of order.


William Thoburn: That is all I wish to do, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the minister to whose department this relates to the statement here made. This newspaper,, with the item marked, was sent to me by the Trades and Labour Council of Carleton Place. I wish that the minister would investigate this case. For it does seem to me hard that, at this season of the year, when a great many of our Canadian mechanics have been idle all winter-especially that class of workmen who are engaged in building ships-they should be deprived of their employment by a horde of mechanics coming in from the United States.


Mr. FIELDING.: I had difficulty in understanding the purpose of the hon. member's (Mr. Thoburn's) question. What is the information he desires?


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: He wants to know why the Alien Labour Act is not enforced.


William Thoburn: A letter accompanies this newspaper in which the Trades and Labour Council /of Carleton Place ask that the minister should take action under the Alien Labour Law to prevent these men coming into the country. They want to know if it is the intention of the government to take any action in the matter.


Mr. KING.: If there has been a violation of the Alien Labour Act, it is open to any person to take action to have it enforced. Under the law, there is no need for the government to take action.


William Thoburn: I thought this was a matter that would come under the supervision of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King).



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Nelson River Railway Company.-Mr. Rutan.
Mr. LENNOX.: On Friday evening, in the absence of the Minister of Railways, I asked that this Bill be allowed to stand over. As the minister is now present I desire to direct his attention to the matter involved. This Bill passed the committee the other day with some amendments. Since that time, we have had several Bills of the same character. Notably we had one the other day that was very much pressed, but after a good deal of discussion it was decided that the matter should stand over until the Minister of Railways could have an opportunity to consider the question, not piecemeal but as a whole. The point involved is covered by the 13th section: [DOT]
13. The company may acquire, utilize and develop lands, water-powers, rights, easements and privileges on the Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers or in the vicinity of its railway, and construct, maintain and operate dams, reservoirs, buildings and works for the general transmission and distribution of electricity for light, heat, power or any other purpose in connection with its railway, vessels and other properties and works, and may supply, sell or otherwise dispose of any surplus water, electricity, electric or other power not required for the purposes of the company, and may enter into agreements with any company or person for any of the purposes aforesaid.
This section has been, slightly amended. But the point is this: we are authorizing companies, nominally Tailway companies-and sometimes, perhaps, bona fide railway companies, but often railway companies in name only-to acquire and develop valuable water privileges throughout Canada, sometimes to the impeding of navigation, at any rate, to acquire most valuable franchises that would be otherwise available for the benefit of the people of Canada, going to lessen their taxation and so decreasing the burden that they would otherwise have to bear. This is a somewhat new departure. But some Bills involving the principle have passed the committee, as in the present case. But there was one we struck upon the other day that

is still before the committee. I urged, and for the time being successfully, that the committee should stay its hand until the Minister of Railways had an opportunity to consider the whole matter. Now, it is a very serious question. I admit that it is a very difficult problem to deal with. The companies can put forward the argument that they want water-power to a greater extent than was formerly necessary in the case of a railway because they are going to use electricity, generated by water, as a motive power, and in every case they ask that they shall have the right to sell their surplus power. The result is that if they build a mile of railway, even with the amendments and safeguards we put in, if they build a mile of railway they acquire the right to develop whatever water-power can be developed to the utmost extent and to sell the surplus power. They interfere with the distribution of wealth in that locality, and they interfere-as in the case of the province of Ontario-with the control the provincial government is exercising over' water-powers for the benefit of the people. They accumulate in this way, and will continue to accumulate, large unearned fortunes in many cases, and there is every reason to believe that many of these schemes are only railway companies in name. The minister can see that if this came in as a power Bill, it would not go before the Railway Committee at all. In many respects it is a power Bill and nothing else. I would ask the hon. minister to stay progress of this and all Bills of a like character until to-morrow, when the Railway Committee holds its session, or until he can enunciate some scheme which will safeguard the interests of the public. The onus is upon the minister. The matter is not an easy one, but I would ask the minister to allow this Bill to stand over in order that all similar measures may be dealt *with alike. We shall have more or less of a contest over it in the Railway Committee to-morrow, and it will be weil to allow it and others like it to stand until the minister has stated the policy which the government intend pursuing. If you provide in all these Bills that the railway company shall have the right to develop only such power as they want for their own use, their charters will be shorn of a good deal of danger, but whatever policy the minister may enunciate, I would urge him, in the interests of the public, to see that he does enunciate a policy which will apply to all-some definite, clear policy-and if necessary amend the Railway Act so as to prevent companies, under the garb and name of railway companies, acquiring these valuable franchises and controlling industries. These water-powers will be the cause of great industries springing up at certain points;


Haughton Lennox: they will be the producers of trade to be carried over railways, and if railway companies obtain the right to hold up the people in this matter of power, they will have an enormous leverage to exercise.


George Perry Graham: The question raised is very_ important, and, as my hon. friend admits, not altogether free from difficulty. The problems that confront us in a young country change so rapidly, the conditions surrounding them change so rapidly, that we have something new to solve about every year. My opinion may be an erroneous one, but I do think that tieing up water-powers and preventing their development is not conserving, but wasting them. If we can surround their development with safeguards to the public, and at the same time encourage their development, we shall be doing the best possible in the public interest. It is not in the public interest to tie these water-powers up so that the public cannot get at them, either through themselves or through some company. One of the objections to railway companies being authorized to acquire water-powers is the fear that they might in some way get the rights to expropriate water-powers. But we have a safeguard against this in this measure, and the other Bills. No Bill has gone through the committee which allows any company to expropriate water-powers. As regards the impeding of navigation, the Public Works Department has to approve of every obstruction, of every bridge, or other impediment on a navigable stream, so that way the rights of traffic by water are protected. Some are op-opposed to the development of water-powers by railway companies. I cannot see what difference it makes, so long as the people are absolutely protected. My hon. friend had no doubt in mind the case of the coal mines on the other side of the line, which were owned bv the railway companies, so that any reduction in the rates on the railway could be added to the price of coal, and the railway company thus escaped the control of rates; but in these Bills the rates to be charged for power as well as the railway rates are to be subject to the board of commissioners, so that if a railway company should have surplus power to sell, the price is controlled by the government. It is difficult to say how far we ought to allow a railway company to go on developing power. Suppose we were to provide that a railway company cannot develop water-power except for the use of its road, and suppose it should develop more water-power than it requires for its operation, how are you going to deprive it from selling its surplus? Who will step in to prevent it? It is well known that a large amount of horse-power can be developed cheaper pro rata than a smaller amount. Now, if a railway com-

pany should need only 5,000 horse-power at present, but lays out its plant to provide double that quantity in order to be ready to meet the growth of trade, would it be wise for that company to prevent it developing 10,000 horse-power, although it can do so cheaper pro rata than 5,000, and limit its development to its actual need of 5,000. Would it not be more reasonable to allow the company to develop all it wants, and a little surplus and sell its surplus, so long as we take a proper safeguard to control prices? But even if we should strike it out altogether, the provision giving a railway company the right to sell its surplus waterpower, no one, outside some shareholder of the company could prevent its doing so. I have no objection to let the Bill stand until we discuss the other Bill in the Railway Committee, which has a like provision, although several have gone through with that clause in allowing the development and sale of water-power.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: My hon. friend missed the objection altogether of the hon. member for Simcoe. His argument was that in the case of these valuable water-powers, there should be something for the people, and not have the whole profit go to the individual. In the United States they have a policy by which the people of the United States, and the different states insist that the profits arising from these natural advantages shall redound to the people. What my hon. friend asks is that the government should lay down a clear, well defined policy with regard to this matter so that if an individual or a corporation wants to develop water-power they shall develop it on the policy laid down by the government, under which a certain portion of the profits shall revert to the people. All my hon. friend asks is that this government should have a policy on this matter just as every other country in the world has at present, that the natural advantages of the country shall be for the benefit of the people, and if necessary, that a certain portion shall go to the corporations or individuals who do the developments.


John Graham Haggart: This is not a railway Bill at all. But simply a Bill to acquire some water-powers along the Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers. I would call particular attention to section 7. That provides jthafc the railway may begin)- where? At the mouth of the Saskatchewan river, at the mouth of the Nelson river, or at any place between these two points, which are 150 miles apart. It may begin any place along the north shore of Lake Winnipeg between two points 150 miles distant, practically it begins anywhere. It runs neither east, nor west, nor north, nor south. It runs to some place where it 153
may intersect the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railway is not located yet. It may run directly west or north, or it may run northeast along the banks of the Nelson river, and with its other powers to construct canals and dams it is placed in a position to grab all the water-powers along that river until the Hudson Bay railway strikes it. It is quite plain that what the promoters are looking for is the acquiring of rights in reference to these water-powers. Another point. Manitoba is interested in this Bill. This territory is all within the limits described by the resolution of the Prime Minister which passed this House about two years ago, whereby the boundaries of Manitoba are set forth. Then there may be another question, the same question that arises in reference to thte canal that was projected along the Winnipeg river. There they are developing water-powers under local charters. Here then we may have local jurisdiction in the course of a year, or in a few years, over this stream and the serious question arises as to whether the title that is given to this railway company by this parliament is not paramount to the title which may be given to some other corporation by the local legislature. For these reasons, and for others, I think the matter ought to be seriously considered by the government. As it is to-day the city of Winnipeg is instructing counsel to see that their rights are protected in reference to the Winnipeg river. If you look at the applications that have been made for charters in the unorganized country north and northwest of Manitoba it will appear that there is some concerted action on the part of promoters to secure or grab all the water-powers in that territory.


Mr. RUTAN.: Before further action is taken I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) if he has any petition or objection from the city of Winnipeg to the construction of this railway or a like undertaking. If there are no such objections it seems to_ me a very peculiar proposition that this particular company which proposes to establish a line of steamships to ply on Lake Winnipeg and then to build a railway from some point on Lake Winnipeg to connect with the proposed Hudson Bay railway should be the one that is subjected to all the objections of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. We all know that only a few days ago these hon. gentlemen who are opposing this Bill assembled in a body to put through the Burrard Inlet Bill which contains similar powers.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Urder.


William Windfield Rutan: And that that Bill went through the committee and also passed



this House. I cannot see wherein we can afford to have one poliey for one company and another policy for another company. It seems to me that it is a very dangerous principle to go upon. This company are only asking for the ordinary powers. Compared with the powers granted in the Bur-rard Inlet Bill they were modified, and there is no reason why hon. gentlemen opposite should undertake to obstruct the carrying out of an enterprise which is intended to promote the development of a country which) needs development, a country which to-day has no chance of development on account of not having the means of transportation such as this company would provide, and a country which beyond doubt is rich in resources. The people in th'e' northern part of Saskatchewan and the northwest territories, where this enterprise is to be undertaken, are just as anxious for the development of the country as are the people of British Columbia 01* any other province in the Dominion.


Mr. BRADBURY.: In what way will that affect your province?


William Windfield Rutan: It affects my province as well as Manitoba or any other province, for in the future the transportation lines will no doubt extend from the southwest to the northeast, and vice versa, just as the transportation lines of to-day extend from east to west. Natural resources are of no value whatever unless they are developed. What are lands worth to the country if they are not developed? They are not worth anything unless they are developed. Why are we advertising to the world the great opportunities which Canada offers for the investment of capital? It is because this country needs development and we are inviting capital to come and assist in this development. If hon. gentlemen are interested in the conservation of these powers, and if they want to take the attitude which some of their remarks have indicated to-day they had better commence at the beginning of the session and treat all alike. Numbers of these Bills have passed this House during this session, and there is no reason why this should not be passed as well. If we are to adopt that principle let us adopt it at the beginning of the session and treat all alike.


Haughton Lennox: I quite agree when the hon. gentleman says, treat all alike, and it is because I feel that all ought to be treated alike that I have urged that this matter should stand over.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: What about section 11 of Bill 118?


Haughton Lennox: I think one at a time is pretty good fishing, and I will not bother about anything further at the moment. I Mr. RUTAN.
am very glad that the minister has decided to leave it over. I recognize, as the minister says, that it is a very difficult question. The promoter of the Bill wishes to leave it until the end of the session, but it seems to me that if we leave it until the end of the session, by the wTay the thing is going, we will have no more water-powers, because they are going at a very rapid rate. It is a pity that this was not considered at the beginning of the session. To return to what the minister has mentioned, I do not know the Bill to which he refers.


William Pugsley: Bill 118, to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company, and which gives very much the same powers.


Haughton Lennox: I was not present when that went through, but I understand that that whole section of country petitioned-or urged upon the House that it was very desirable in the public interest. I understand that the circumstances were exceptional, and it may be that we were wrong even then in acceding to their proposal. My position is that every one of these great water-powers, where they are of any considerable extent, should be conserved in the interest of the people, and they should, in some way, if they are granted to private corporations, afford a revenue to the public. I therefore move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I think it is hardly fair to put it as the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has put it, that these water-powers are being grabbed up by private companies. This company, under the Bill which has been passed by the Railway Committee, obtains no power, or right, title or interest in any water-power whatever. It is merely given the right as a corporation to apply for water-the same right which any individual now has.


John Graham Haggart: Does it give it any right to expropriate?


Hugh Guthrie: No. The right to expropriate is expressly stricken out. I think that we have pretty -well safeguarded the public interest. In the first place there is no right to expropriate; in the second place, if they desire umter-power they must apply to the Governor in Council to secure it, as any individual has; in the third place, we have placed the tolls which the company may charge under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners and, in the fourth place, the company cannot use their surplus power in any municipality without the consent of the municipality. I do not know what further safeguards we could impose in the interest of the community. This is hardly the

place or hardly the occasion to discuss what the policy of this government or this House should be in regard to the matter. That could be better settled when the company apply to the Governor in Council for waiter-power and then such conditions as are thought proper may be laid down far better than they could be settled in committee while discussing a private Bill.


John Graham Haggart: All these regulations ought to be statutory.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that suggestion is a good one.


Mr. BLAIN.: I do not agree with the policy laid down by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Surely the time to lay down the policy of the government is not when a private corporation makes application to the Governor in Council to be regulated in respect to their Bill. It seems to me that the House and the Railway Committee should be in possession of the policy of the government upon matters of this kind; and that those that are allying themselves together to make applications for such charters shall understand what the policy of the government is.


Mr. NEELY.: As this Bill and Bill (No. 69, which follows it on the order paper, were held over on Friday for the'same purpose, I want to say a word, as my name is attached to the other Bill. As the members of the Railway Committee are aware, the point raised by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was thoroughly discussed in the Railway Committee, and after that discussion this Bill, together with Bill (No. 69) were reported to the House. I must congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) on constituting himself the watchdog of the natural resources of Canada, and I must also congratulate Canada on having such a faithful watchdog.


Haughton Lennox: Good.


David Bradley Neely: But there are other members of the Railway Committee and of this House who are just as much interested in conserving the natural resources of Canada for the people of Canada as is this selfconstituted watchdog. Now, I may tell the member for South Simcoe that I have absolutely not one cent's worth of interest, directly or indirectly, in the Bill to which my name is attached, and I can tell him also that if there was anything in that Bill which I thought interfered with the rights of the people in the -water-powers of Canada, I would not have my name attached to it nor would I seek to promote it in this House. The hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is therefore not necessarily the only hon. gentleman in this House, or in the Railway Committee, who is interested in conserving 153t
the people's rights in the water-powers of this Dominion. It has been pointed out by the Minister of Railways that our natural resources can be of value only to the extent to which they are developed, and the clause in this Bill, as in the Bill following it to which some of these gentlemen take exception, is a clause which simply gives these railway companies the power to acquire water rights. It is not a new clause; it is a very ordinary clause to be inserted in such Bills. Every railway company requires the privilege of acquiring water rights for the development of power for the purposes of its railway undertaking, and if a railway company develops more power than it requires for its own undertaking, can the. hon. member for South Simcoe or any other hon. member point out wherein the people of Canada are going to be injured if the balance of the power not used by the railway is sold to the municipalities in the immediate vicinity of the railway works. Why, it seems to me, that any reasonable man would consider that such would be for the benefit of the people, provided, of course, that the rates at which the surplus power -would be disposed of are properly regulated. Now, in every instance, so far as these two Bills are concerned, these rates and tolls are subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I am perfectly satisfied, and I think the people of Canada are perfectly satisfied, to have such rates placed under the control of that board, because the Railway Board to my knowledge has never shown any undue discrimination or any discrimination of any kind in favour- of railway companies or any other monopolies or corporations, as against the interests of the people of Canada. I cannot see where these hon. gentlemen can find any serious objection to these particular clauses of the Bill. Now, I am not prepared to say whether the hon. member for South Simcoe was in the Railway Committee when the Burrard Inlet Bill went through, but if he was not it was his own fault, and it would be at least one instance , in which the watchdog failed to be on the job. I think, however, that the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) was present in the Railway Committee when the Burrard Inlet Bill went through, and strange to say, there is in that Bill, which has passed the Railway Committee and passed the House, a clause identical with the clause contained in this Bill to which these hon. gentlemen now take such strong objection.


George Henry Bradbury: Was not that clause inserted in the Burrard Inlet Bill after a compromise between those who were interested?


David Bradley Neely: Not at all, so far as I know. Of course, the incident which I

have just mentioned may not have any particular significance taken in connection with the fact that it was the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) who has the task of piloting the Burrard Inlet Bill through the Railway Committee and through the House. That may be merely a coincidence, but it is a very strange thing to me that there are such serious objections raised in the Railway Committee and in the House to some of these Bills, even though the rights of the people are absolutely safeguarded from every standpoint, so far as I am able to judge. Now, when the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway, or some of the other great companies, have exactly the same kind of legislation before the House, we do not find the same objection taken by these hon. gentlemen. But the moment some others than these larger companies ask for a charter and in that charter ask for these very ordinary powers, the question of the rights of the ueople is at once raised. Now, Sir, the Bill succeeding this on the order paper has a clause similar to that in this Bill which is objected to. That Bill passed last year, and this year all that is asked for is an extension of time. The Bill at present before us was held over in the Railway Committee, and held over on Friday night last in the Committee of the Whole House, and now the hon. member for South Simcoe asks that it be again held over for a few days until the government expound a policy that will be satisfactory to him. Well, even though the Minister of Railways should, after weeks of consideration, announce a policy to this House, I am very much afraid that that policy would not receive the approval of the hon. member (Mr. Lennox). I do not know why the passing of these Bills ought to be made the occasion for the announcement of a policy, because whatever policy the government announces is absolutely foreign to and has nothing whatever to do with the passing of these Bills. If the government wish to make a statement as to what safeguards there should be placed around the acquisition of the water-powers of this country, well and good, and I shall be as glad to hear it as will the hon. member for South Simcoe, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the passing pf this Bill, which simply asks that the company shall have the power to acquire water-powers for the purpose of its railway.
The Minister of Railways intimated that he would be satisfied to have this Bill stand over. I am not the promoter of the Bill, but it seems to me that this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I would ask the hon. member for South Simcoe to withdraw the objection. In any case, whether he does or not, I think this committee ought to consider this Bill and the Bill following to-day.


David Bradley Neely: 


Mr. EMMERSON.: This subject has been very fully ventilated in the Railway Committee. In the consideration of two or three of the Bills now on the order paper some three or more days of the committee were occupied. I am quite in agreement with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat in his statement that it is not of material moment in connection with this Bill whether the government announces a policy now or whether it never announces one on the point raised by my hon. friend, because that policy goes beyond these Bilk. It is fair to bear in mind that this particular Bill has no powers of expropriation.


John Graham Haggart: Section 14 gives the company the right to build tramway and to expropriate land.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was struck out in the committee, and there was an express reservation that there should be no powers of expropriation. I think it unfortunate that we should take up the time of this House with this question at this moment. I have very strong views with respect to the granting of these powers. I had heard that pretty rigid rules were laid down in some of the state legislatures on the other side of the line with respect to the granting of water powers. In this Bill we simply give the company the right to acquire water-powers for the purposes of its undertaking.


Haughton Lennox: Is there any reservation of anything to come to the country, or are these companies to have all the profits?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend has raised quite another point, which I was about to raise myself when I was interrupted by my hon. friend. In some respects our legislation has differed entirely from that on the other side of the line. In the legislation adopted during this session we have been very insistent in limiting the powers of these companies to the purpose of their undertakings; but we have granted them the privilege of selling their surplus power, which I conceive to be in the public interest; but there is this distinction between legislation here and legislation on the other side of the line. There, wherever franchises of this character are granted, there is imposed upon the companies a certain tax. I had heard of this in a general way, and since the committee met and had these Bills under consideration, I have received, on an application which I made some weeks ago, a copy of a Bill passed by the legislature of the State of New York, being 'an Act to incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses and locks at or near Long Sault Island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing power from the

waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge and carry on the manufacture of commodities.' Having a copy of that Bill in my hand, I will call the attention of the committee to this fact, that in the very inception the company is required ' to pay into the treasury of the State the fixed sum of $10,000, and in addition to the payment just mentioned, the company shall pay into the treasury of the State for the year 1910 the fixed sum of $15,000, and for the year 1911 the fixed sum of $20,000. For each year after 1911 the said corporation shall pay at the following rates upon the average amount of electrical horse-power generated during such year under the authority of this Act, that is to say: upon all amounts up to 25,000 electrical horse-power, at the rate of 75 cents per horse-power; upon all amounts in excess of 25,000 electrical horse-power and up to 100,000 horsepower, at the rate of 50 cents per horsepower; upon all amounts in excess of 100,000 electrical horse-power, at the rate of 25 cents per horse-power. In case said corporation shall generate or develop waterpower as mechanical power without transmuting the same into (electrical power, then for so much of said water-power as may be developed payments shall be made at the above mentioned rates per mechanical horse-power.' There are provisions with respect to determining the amount, which I need not read. Now, it occurs to me very forcibly that this is legislation which we might very properly and in the interest of the country imitate in Canada; but in doing so, let us bear in mind that there should not be any discrimination in this regard. I simply, invite the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this particular Act, because we all realize that if there is not already, there will be in the near future, an application to the parliament of Canada from this same company for Canadian rights, and in the consideration of that application it will be well to bear in mind just what the gentlemen who come here were obliged to meet when they went to the legislature of the State of New York and to the Congress of the government of the United States to secure powers for the purposes of the company. It is not necessary, of course, that we should incorporate this provision in these several Bills that are now under consideration or those which may have been under consideration by the Committee of the Whole of this House.


Haughton Lennox: Why?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because there can be general legislation. The only effective way in which that can now be done is for the government to pass legislation. Where would the Burrard Inlet, and other Bills be? We have passed these Bills, and they are now before the Senate, and then we hold
up these new Bills, and impose upon their promoters burdens which we have not imposed upon the Burrard Inlet and other companies. That would be manifestly unfair and unjust, and I would say if action is to be taken it should be taken by the Department of Public Works, that there should be legislation in that regard. I see no reason why these particular Bills should be held up or should go back to the committee to have those conditions imposed now. If we take that course it would be necessary in order to be fair that we should ask that these amendments should be made by the Senate to the other Bills or else that they should not receive the assent of the Governor General.


John Graham Haggart: The passage of the Bill may give the power of expropriation, and the power to acquire property. Would it be fair for the government afterwards to pass legislation imposing penalties?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be fair to do this. If they get the power to use and operate the water highway for purposes of a canal or for electrical power they must go to the Department of Public Works with their plans, and these plans must have the approval of that department through its minister. It would be fair for the government of Canada to-morrow to enact legislation whereby before any such privileges are granted or approvals given there may be imposed on these companies a certain percentage on the amount of the power.


John Graham Haggart: Before they have acquired the right, but not after the right is acquired.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The granting of the authority to a company to go to the Public Works Department is one thing, and it is another thing for that company to appear before the Public Works Department in order to get the execution of that right or the right to exercise the privileges which they are authorized to exercise by the particular Act of parliament incorporating them.


John Graham Haggart: But if they can get it without any imposition?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They can go there, but it would be a matter of regulation for the government of Canada to impose a charge, and that would be the only way that we could reach these numberless companies that have acquired these privileges, and this authority. You say this policy should have been adopted long ago. Perhaps it should, but it has not been. I am not dealing with this from any political standpoint. I am dealing as a member of this committee with conditions which present themselves; and we realize that other states, and other countries require the pay-


John Graham Haggart: Can the Bill not be made to read: Subject to such terms and conditions as the government may from time to time stipulate?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That might very well be done, but we want to deal with other Bills, and we want general legislation which will affect the Bills that have already passed the gamut of this committee.


George Henry Bradbury: Let it be retroactive.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would hardly be retroactive, because after all these gentlemen could not complain without realizing that when they get the authority to do certain things they do not get the right to do them until the Public Works Department gives them that right, and if in the intervening period the Department of Public Works under the authority of this parliament imposes regulations and charges, they could not complain of any enforcement, and it would be retroactive in so far as the action of the Department of Public Works is concerned.
Mr. BRADBURY'. I agree with the hon. gentleman's views, the question is, will the government enact this legislation?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend and I cannot throttle the government, we cannot take the government by the throat, and say what they shall do, and what they shall not do, but I say it would be unfair on our part to hold up these Bills in view of the action which we have taken within the last week. It would be unfair to deal with these gentlemen in any other way than we have dealt with previous applications, and then we should place the responsibility on the government of dealing with the whole question, having regard to the companies which have already been incorporated, and dealing with the companies which may be in-Mr. EMMERSON.
corporated during the remainder of this session.


Mr. GOODEVE.: As a member from British Columbia, and a member of the Railway Committee I take exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Hum-bolt (Mr. Neely), and the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan), that the members from British Columbia gather together and act as a body when they have a Bill in which they were interested to pass through the Railway Committee of this House, and then took exception to Bills brought forward on similar lines by members from different parts of Canada. On my own behalf, and on behalf of the members from British Columbia, I say we have never made any attempt of that kind, and neither has such a principle as that guided our action in this House.


William Windfield Rutan: I did not say the members from British Columbia; I said that in relation to a Bill from British Columbia the members of the opposition


Mr GOODEVE.: I am pleased to accept the explanation of the hon. member, but the hon. member from Humbolt went much further and made the statement to which I took exception. But I wish to say further that the position taken by the minister in allowing this Bill to stand over meets with my approval. He has stated, very fairly I think, the point that we are constantly dealing with varying conditions in matters coming before this House and before the Railway Committee, and that, therefore, careful attention to all matters is necessary. But it segns to me, he does not deal with the crux of this question when he states that if the government, as a government, are not prepared to go ahead and develop these natural resources, we should not prevent their being developed by private individuals. I agree that we want our natural resources developed, and we ought to encourage capital to develop these resources. But this does not touch the point raised by the hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox). At this particular time, a large number of Bills are before the House dealing with these matters-and it is for that reason, no doubt, that the question now arises. These Bills deal with water-powers upon many streams, some of them running in more than one province, and thus practically interprovincial streams. Many of these rivers run through little known or comparatively unknown territory. We cannot tell what is the value of the water-powers that may be involved in these Bills. In view of this fact, we see the importance of the point raised by the member for South Simcoe that the government should lay down some policy to regulate the granting of these powers in connection with railway enterprises and other-

wise. In that connection, the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. A Haggart) seems important. In my own province, we have our Water Act, with clauses similar to those of the laws referred to by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) as being in force in the United States. One of these sections provides as follows:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time, by order in council, reserve and fix such rents, royalties, tolls and charges in respect of the water used or taken and used, and of the lands of the Crown used, and of the rights, powers and privileges which may be required by any licensee unler this Act.
The point I wish to make and to call particularly to the attention of the Minister of Railways is that a similar control is being exercised in the province of Ontario, and it is altogether likely that the other provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, feeling that they have a valuable asset in these great water-powers, would like to derive some revenue from their development. This was my strongest objection to the present Bill. This Bill covers no certain, definite territory:
-from a point on Lake Winnipeg, at or near its outlet into the Nelson river, or at or near the discharge of the Saskatchewan river into Lake Winnipeg, or from a place between the said points, to a point of junction with any railway to Hudson bay which may be located by tile government of Canada.
This involves several waterways, and deals with water-powers in two provinces, Manitoba and Alberta. I do not think that the members from either of these provinces are prepared to tell the committee-I certainly did not receive the information in the 'Railway Committee-what particnlar water-powers there may he on these great waterways. Possibly, in future, both of these provinces will feel that they have a vested right in these powers, that these powers belong to the people, and that this parliament ought not to give a company power to expropriate these natural resources and use them for its own interests. This is not a question as to whether the municipality to which they sell power is charged proper rates or not; the question is whether the people of Canada as a whole are not entitled to some revenue from these water-powers and the privilege of their exclusive use. That is the question at issue as I understand it to he stated by the -hon. member for South Simcoe; that is the question that we discussed in the committee. Now, I would like to call the attention of the minister to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart). That hon. gentleman speaks as a lawyer, and, though I am a layman, and my opinion on such a matter will not carry
great weight, it seems to me that there is something in the point-that, possibly, if we give this power, that fact will make it impossible for the province of Manitoba hereafter to claim this right. Suppose that hereafter, the province of Manitoba were to grant a strictly water-power Bill to develop power in the province of Manitoba within territory covered by this Bill, it is a question whether or not the mere passing of this Bill by this federal parliament would not nullify the rights and prerogatives of the province of Manitoba in the matter. The company could develop, use and sell power for their own profit without regard to the people of the province or the people of the Dominion as a whole. That is the point we are considering at this time, and I am glad the minister has seen fit, in a broad-minded way, to say that he will allow this Bill to stand over, that this great and important question may be considered.
The position taken by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan), I understand to be that we can do that possibly at the end of the session. The difficulty is that we have not only this Bill but other Bills dealing with the great water-powers throughout the west. Bills involving many important rivers upon which are immense powers of incalculable value to the people of Canada. I understand the suggestion of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) to be that we might let it go through and afterwards pass retroactive legislation imposing conditions. But that might be difficult, and possibly even unfair. For, if the company has invested $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 in good faith in developing a water-power under a charter granted by this parliament, it is a question whether we should place restrictions upon that company afterwards. The right time to deal with this matter is now,' before we grant the power, so that each company will know exactly the conditions with which they have to comply before getting their charter. For these reasons, I am glad of the attitude of the Minister of Railways in allowing this Bill to stand over, so that we may consider this Bill in connection with others involving a similar principle and see if we -cannot formulate a policy that will be in the interest of all.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I am glad this question has been brought up. It is a question that has taken up a good deal of time in -the Railway Committee, more especially this session. We had some talk of it last session also. I believe that the time has come when the government should lay down a policy in connection with the granting of -special privileges to railway companies applying to this parliament for charters. Possibly, the time may have

come when a railway company should be given a charter for the building of a railway only. But I think it would be manifestly unfair if we, at this stage of the game, should say to the member (Mr. Rutan) who has charge of this present Bill simply that it should not go through. It is manifestly unfair because hon. members opposite who are now so keenly opposing this Bill either sat still or supported other Bills even during the present session containing, I believe, the same clauses exactly. There is far less objection to this Bill and to the Bill that follows it on the order paper than to other Bills that hon. gentlemen opposite supported last week. For this reason: The custody of the water-powers affected by this Bill is in the hands of the Dominion government. The same is true of the next Bill on the order paper, respecting the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company in the hands of my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely). But in the case of the Bills supported by hon. gentlemen opposite, the water-powers were owned by the various provinces. Why did not these hon. gentlemen, who are now so anxious not to have these water-powers granted to railway companies, object to the Bills introduced by some of their friends? It seems rather unfair that, having got their Bill through they should get up now and say that the same powers that have already been granted to another company should not be granted in this case, and the one to which I have referred. Further, nothing in these Bills gives the company any rights in water-powers. This Bill does not give the company a single iota of right that any member of this House does not possess at this moment. All it gives them is the right to go to the minister who has charge of the water-powers in the western provinces and make arrangements with him. It is open to him to impose conditions under the Dominion Lands Act.: All the regulations are there providing the terms on which these water-powers may be acquired.
The minister has it in his power now to impose any stipulations or regulations that he likes on those railway companies when they come to apply for water-power. To my mind the most serious aspect of this granting of railway charters is where the railways run through provinces which own their own lands, and I think the time has come when this government should fairly consider whether it is advisable to grant water-power privileges to companies wh.en the water-powers are under the jurisdiction of the different provincial legislatures. I am sure it is no advantage to this government or the Liberal party in any way to have the different provinces sending their lawyers here Mr. TURRIFF.
to oppose in the Railway Committee every one of these Bills, on the ground that we are infringing on provincial rights. If the provinces have certain rights, they should be respected. I think it would be far better to lay down the principle, in connection with railway charters, that power shall be given only to build the railway, and that if the company should want to get hold of rvater-powers to run the railway, let it go to the province that owns^ these powers. I quite agree that the time has come when something should be done along these lines, but I cannot agree to my hon. friends opposite getting Bills of their own through and then denying the same rights to others who happen to be opposed to them in politics. I am not saying that we are very much better on this side, but there has been a good deal of wrangling in the Railway Committee pro and con, and I think it would be better for the government to lay down a policy so that we would know exactly what to expect. As regards the particular railway under discussion, and the one following, under 'the name of my hon. friend from Humbolt (Mr. Neely), there is less objection to these than to any other, because the water-powers belong to this Dominion government, and the Minister of the Interior has the right to place any restriction on their development he likes. We are not giving any power itself, but only the right to go to the Minister of the Interior and acquire a water-power for the purpose of operating the railway and the right to dispose of any surplus. No one can object to that. We all want to see the w'est develop, and to object now to these two Bills would be eminently unfair. I think that they should be passed and then some definite policy laid down which would govern us during coming sessions.


Mr. NESBITT.: As has been pointed out by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) all we are doing is to put this company in the same position as a private individual, and it will have to go to other powers for its rights. The Bill which my hon. friend read from an American legislature was probably inspired by the views of President Taft this year, concerning the conservation of natural resources and recommending that a certain charge or revenue should accrue to the state. That is all very fair and right, and probably it would be a good thing for us to adopt, but you must bear in mind that these companies will have to submit their prices to the Railway Commission, and that commission, no doubt, in fixing the rates, would take into consideration any charge or fee which the government might impose. Therefore the consumers *would probably have to pay more

4a34
on that account, The Railway Commission would no doubt make the rates higher than they would if the company had not to pay any federal charge. It is only wise therefore, that we should consider that aspect of the case, and I draw attention to it because, if we do not impose any Dominion charge, the communities served would no doubt get the benefit.


George Henry Bradbury: There seems to be a general consensus of opinion on the other side that something should be done to conserve the interests of the people in these great water rights. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) why this Bill should not be made an exception, is a very weak one. The reason he gives is that in the early part of the session we did grant similar rights. But if we have made mistakes in the past, is not that all the more reason why we should stop now? If we have failed to safeguard the interests of the people in one or two other Bills- and. I am not prepared at this moment to say that we have-surely it is now time to cease making any further such mistakes. The water-powers covered by this Bill are situated almost on the northern boundary of the province of Manitoba and will come within the limits of that province as soon as the right hon. gentlemen sees fit to extend its boundaries, so that perhaps in the next few months they will be under the control of the Manitoba government, and therefore, we ought to hesitate legislating with regard to them. They are the two greatest water-powers in, Canada. My hon. friend from Assiniboia knows something about the water-power at the mouth of the Saskatchewan, that great river which drains the whole western country from the Rocky mountains and empties into Lake Winnipeg, with about 125 feet of a fall into Lake Winnipeg. On the Nelson river there is the Sea falls, which this Bill covers. All the waters from the two Saskatchewans, Red river, Winnipeg river-all the waters that enter into the Hudson bay, run over these falls, thus creating one of the greatest water-powers on the country. These are two great water-powers which by this Bill this company will get control of.


William Pugsley: Where is there any thing in this Bill which would enable the company to utilize any one of these water-powers without making terms either with the Minister of the Interior or, should they be vested in Manitoba, with the government of Manitoba?


George Henry Bradbury: That may be all right, but that is not enough to meet the argument which has been put up by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and by hon. members on this
side of the House that the people of this country should have some rights with regard to the conserving of these great water-powers. I think that before this or any other Bill affecting these water-powers is dealt with, the government should be given time to bring down a policy. It should be framed in such a manner that every one of these powers granted should come under it. I do not wish to oppose this Bill because it is coming from our friends h'ere, but with the information that is now before this committee, and realizing that in granting these powers we are not conserving the best interests of the people,
I cannot very well see how hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House can ask the committee to pass this Bill.


William Windfield Rutan: I am rather surprised at the inconsistency of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). He well remembers that at the beginning of the session, or shortly after, Bill (No. 52) was brought up before the Railway Committee and he remembers the stand that was taken by himself and other hon. gentlemen at that time. He also remembers the stand that was taken on other Bills by these hon. members, that passed the committee and also passed this House. It seems to me that his argument is very inconsistent, If these hon. gentlemen are so critical about the right to acquire extra powers which! this company may dispose of, it was just as much harm to confer similar rights on other companies incorporated in other Bills that have passed since then, and in regard to which the hon. member for Selkirk has not opened Ms mouth. He has either remained neutral or has taken a position the direct opposite of that which he is taking to-day. It seems to me that he cannot have forgotten what has happened in the Railway Committee or on the floor of this House. More than that, I cannot see why it is necessary to attack this particular Bill and the Bill which immediately lollows it for the reason that they affect a new and undeveloped territory and which, without enterprise of this kind, has no chance of development. If this were an old country like the state of New York, or like the well settled portions of Ontario, and a. large amount of power had been disposed of, a question might perhaps arise as to the wisdom of the measure, but I cannot see why a new country like this where we are looking for development should be the one place to be sought out by hon. gentlemen opposite in order to keep development from going forward. The hon. gentleman is inconsistent in his argument, for he certainly knows that this Bill was held up in the fore part of this session, and that it was kept on the order paper until last Friday when it passed the com-

48)6
mittee. The hon. gentleman knows very well that during that time several other Bills with exactly the same powers passed the committee and also passed this House.


Mr. OLIVER.: The demand has been made that this government should come forward with a policy with regard to water-powers. In so far as the waters of Canada are under the jurisdiction of this government, the government has a very definite policy in regard to water-powers, which has been in force for some time. With regard to the water which exists in the three prairie provinces, by me terms of the Irrigation Act, this water was vested absolutely in the control of the Dominion government. Under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in 1908, provision was made for the development of power upon these waters. Under the terms of the Act regulations have been passed and have been in force now for something like a year, providing the method by which rights in water-powers are acquired, making provision that a rental may be charged for the use of the water by the power company, which rental may be determined from time to time-that is at periods of 21 years-and making provision for the regulation of the charges which should be made to the consumers of the power generated from the water, such charges to be under the control of the Railway Commission, and to he subject to adjustment at periods of seven years.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would point out to the Minister of the Interior that this Bill does not affect any of the three prairie provinces; can he tell us what is the law in the Northwest Territories which are affected by this Bill.


Frank Oliver: I should have mentioned that I think the Irrigation Act applies to the Northwest Territories as well as to the three prairie provinces, but at any rate the Dominion Lands Act does and under the authority of that Act regulations have been made which would certainly apply to the water-powers that would be affected by either of these Bills. There is no question as to the policy of the government, or as to the administration of the government in regard to water-powers 'which are unquestionably under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. The present Bill applies to the Northwest Territories outside the limits of any province and therefore no question of provincial rights is involved.


George Henry Bradbury: How long will these territories be outside the limits of the province?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that, but I can say that as the Irrigation Act declares the control of water in all the provinces to be in the Dominion government, it will not Mr. PvUTAN.
make any difference, because either the Irrigation Act or the Dominion Lands Act, and the regulations under it will apply whether the territory is inside or outside of the province. As a matter of fact, within the province, to-day we are administering the water-powers under the regulations authorized by the Dominion Lands Act.


Haughton Lennox: Suppose that this territory is given over to the province or Manitoba, does the minister mean that the Dominion government would still continue to exercise full control over these water-powers, and that the province will have no jurisdiction over them?


William Pugsley: He has just said that.


Haughton Lennox: Let him speak for himself.


Frank Oliver: I think what I said in the last few sentences made that quite clear. In the province of Manitoba to-day we are administering the water-powers under the regulation framed by authority of the Dominion Lands Act, and if this territory were added to the province I presume the conditions would be the same.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of the Interior has pointed out quite clearly that what hon. gentlemen have been asking for is the law, and has been the law since 1908. Let us understand exactly the position. There are a large number of gentlemen in this House to-day, and so far as getting water-power is concerned any one of us can obtain all the rights that this Bill gives to the company, by making application to the Interior Department. The terms on which the power should be given would come under the contract or lease so granted, and since the Dominion Lands Act of 1908, the Interior Department has made regulations under which this power is leased for a certain period on terms stipulated, and these rates can be altered at the expiration of the first period mentioned in the lease and an advance rental charged if an increase in value should take place. Therefore everything which hon. gentlemen have asked is already provided for. There is the other point to be considered: That every extra dollar you charge for the lease of a waterpower will come out of the consumer of the power at some point, because the companies are not in this business for their health.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite follow that. If that be the case then it would be entirely in the interest of the public to give all these water-powers away so that those acquiring them might supply power at a very cheap rate.


George Perry Graham: Not exactly. These rates come under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and they will be

based on the cost to the company of the production of the power, and every dollar you add to the cost of production will come out of those who use the power.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so.


George Perry Graham: And if we charge a very large rental the people of the locality who
use the power will have to pay the interest on that charge. That is another side to the question.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another side also.


George Perry Graham: There is another side, and it is, that all the people of Canada ought to have some benefit from the power that may be developed in a certain locality, although if we apply that to the transmission of power in the province of Ontario perhaps we may not think that the principle which the hon. gentleman has announced, is applied. However, on the Trent canal system we have fixed a rate of, I think, $2 per horse-power, but the rates to be charged by the company to the public are under the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I have taken the ground, whether rightly or wrongly, that if we charge a reasonable rate for power it will enable the commissioners to compel the company to give the people in the locality a reasonable price, so that the greatest good may come to the greatest number by making that power as cheap as possible. I am not at all objecting to the proposal that the Dominion should get some revenue, but do not let us run away with the idea that if we impose a big tax to get revenue tor the Dominion, we are not taking it out of the pockets of the people who have to buy that power.


Robert Laird Borden: If the argument of the minister were carried to it3 legitimate conclusion, then, the city of Montreal, or the city of Toronto, which get a very large revenue from the street railway companies would do much better in the interest of the general public to exact no revenue at all.


George Perry Graham: If the rates were under control perhaps it would be just as well.


Mr.   R.@: L- BORDEN. I do not agree with the minister there. The interests of the people of Canada who own these water-powers have to be considered on the one hand, and on the other hand the government is bound to consider the interests of those who may be purchasers of that power in the several districts. The minister puts it in a very plausible way when he says that if you give the companies these water-powers for nothing, then the people will get the power very cheaply. I take issue with that. I say "it is not the history of corporate action, I say that the advantage gained in that respect is mufch more apt
to go into the pockets of the shareholders in dividends than into the pockets of the consumers. The principle of controlling rates is a proper principle and the government is taking the right course when it_ invests the Railway Commission with that jurisdiction, but if you exact a reasonable rental for the benefit of the entire people of Canada on the one hand, and if on the other hand you control the rates, the result will be that the Railway Commission in fixing these rates will always look at the rental which must be paid to the people of this country, and the commission will govern its control of rates accordingly. But to say that it is absolutely desirable to give away a public franchise to whomsoever comes and asks for it, and to base that idea upon the proposition that the consumer in every case will get the advantage is an argument which does not commend itself to my mind.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the hon. leader of the opposition will agree that I did not say anything of the kind. I distinctly said that I was agreeable to a reasonable rental.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: So am I.


Mr GRAHAM.: But that is not what I rose to say. I think, perhaps, it would straighten out this matter if we said in these Bills, what is an absolute fact any-wav that these companies are subject to the regulations made by the Minister of the Interior with regard to the leasing of water-powers.


Mr LENNOX.: I wish to point out that at the beginning of this discussion the Minister of Railways intimated that he would allow this Bill to stand over, and in pursuance of that I moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, and that is what is before the Chair at the present time. The minister, like the rest of us, seems to have obtained some light on this subject during the discussion, assuming that the Minister of the Interior is correct in his interpretation of the question as it stands. I do not think it will do any of us any harm to refresh our memories on that matter. I for one would be willing to plead my ignorance to the utmost extent in order that I might look into this legislation and see if the result would be as the Minister of the Interior states. Hon. gentlemen who object to this Bill standing over seem to think that we want to hit this Bill in particular. My understanding is that we shall not necessarily deny the promoters of this Bill the legislation that they ask, but we wish to take time to consider whether or not the matter can be put in better shape while we are considering the other Bills in the Railway Committee, so that all these Bills can be dealt with together, and so that we shall not be handicapped in considering the'

other Bills. With regard to the argument that because we have allowed some other Bills to go through, either inadvertently or improperly, therefore we should allow this Bill to go through, I entirely dissent from that proposition. Even if we had allowed nine out of ten Bills to go through, that ought not to go through, I would fight against the passage of the tenth. My position is that however often we may have made a mistake, it is always better to remedy the wrong, even at a late day, than not ta remedy it at all.


George Perry Graham: We have had a good deal of discussion since I said that I was quite willing that we should let the Bill stand. In doing so, I do not think we shall lose a moment, because this matter has been threshed out for days, in fact, this particular Bill has been held for nearly a month, during which other Bills containing the same power have been put through. I do not think there will be any difficulty in putting through the committee in one form or another the various Bills of the same kind, and I assure the promoters of this Bill that it shall receive the same treatment as the others, and its passage will not be retarded by its being allowed to stand over.


Mr. WRIGHT.: With regard to all the charters that have been mentioned as having gone through, I think this is the only one that lies entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I do not remember any other that is in precisely the same geographical position. I think it is very undesirable to include water-power privileges in railway charters, and this purports to be a railway charter. One striking peculiarity of this charter is that the company do not appear to know within 150 miles where they want the railway to start from or where they want it to run to; it is a sort of roving charter. In my opinion, there should be a proper map outlining the proposed railway, and that has not been furnished.


George Perry Graham: That is a question for the committee.


William Wright: It is a question I wish to mention here. There is a map in the Railway Committee, but there might as well not have been any so far as it is any guide to the members considering the question.
Progress reported.



PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Neely.
Haughton Lennox: 


Haughton Lennox: This Bill is similar to the other, and I move that it stand over.


David Bradley Neely: The reason for holding over Bill (No. 52) does not apply to this Bill, as the company is not asking for any powers except in extension of time, and power to extend its line of railway from Prince Albert southwest to Calgary. There is no more reason why this Bill should be held over than that the committee should reconsider Bills that have already been passed by the committee and the House this session, because whatever rights this company has were granted last session, and it is not asking for any new rights.


George Perry Graham: This company was chartered last session, and is not asking for any new powers, only for an extension of time and an extension of its line. No objection has been taken to that in any Bill, so far as I know.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, the objection has been taken in the committee, in this way, that where a company comes for a privilege in the way of an extension of a charter, we have a right, and it is our duty, to consider just what it is we are extending.


George Perry Graham: This charter was only passed last year, and it would not lapse for another year.


Haughton Lennox: By section 4 of the Bill, the time for construction is extended. We are now considering the question of a policy as to water-powers, and the question arises whether it would be wise to extend the powers conferred by this Bill in respect to water-powers, so this- Bill stands on the same principle as the others, and I submit it should remain over pending the consideration of that question. As the minister has said no wrong is done, because we will get them all together, and will consider them as one proposition, all being accorded fair play.


George Perry Graham: Let us be reasonable. Suppose we do not grant this. Then for one year more they have all the rights which they have to-day. Under ordinary circumstances they would not come to this House for another year, but they want to extend their line, and incidentally they follow the usual course of asking the privilege of starting within two years, and completing within five years. We granted a year ago all the powers in that Bill whatever that may be. Their time has not yet expired. Is this House going to pass an amending Act this year taking away the powers we gave last year? This Bill is in a different position from the others. The committee has been liberal in renewing charters year after year, and does not deprive companies of powers already conferred. Here they are asking an extended

time to build the line, and the hon. member suggests that we should take advantage of that to deprive them of some of the rights they have under the old Act. I think that is going too far.


Haughton Lennox: I see it in another light. They ask an extension of time. It may be that we granted them something a year ago that we ought not to have granted. Give them the privilege of extending their line according to our fixed policy, but we should not grant them an extension of time in which to acquire water-powers! to which we should never have, perhaps, given them a right, not at least until we determine just what policy we will adopt as regards new charters. Let them have the time they were granted last year, and if they exercise their powers within the time let them keep those. powers, but do not to-day extend that time until we have determined on a general policy. Therefore, inasmuch as we may devise some policy within a day or so, let this Bill stand as the other Bills stand.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the positions are equal; I do not see any reason why this Bill should stand.


The CHAIRMAN (Air. Miller).: Mr. Lennox moves that the committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Haughton Lennox: As the minister is opposed to that course there is no object in putting the motion.


William Wright: By this Bill the company are granted an extension of time, and also the right to extend their line. Will the granting of the extension of the line give them the right to exercise in respect of such extension the powers in relation to water-powers conferred on them in the Bill?


George Perry Graham: I think not, but we can let the Bill stand for third reading in order to have that matter looked up.
Bill reported.
VANCOUVER, VICTORIA & EASTERN RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 99) respecting the Vancouver and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Air. Burrell.


Air. GRAHAAI.: The hon. member (Air. Burrell) who is in charge of this Bill, is not present.


Air. BARNARD.: The hon. member asked me to take charge for him.


Duncan Graham: Can the hon. member (Air. Barnard) tell me, if the original charter-this is an extension, I believe-includes clauses about water-powers?


George Henry Barnard: I do not know. This is an old incorporation.


Air. COWAN.: It is a provincial charter.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I believe that the original charter contains no rights with regard to water-powers. This company was incorporated by the legislature of British Columbia, and, at a later date, came before this parliament. This is a renewal. There were amendments, one particularly, limiting the extension of time to those branches or extensions the termini of which were definitely named. The amendment suggested by the Railway Committee, I think, was accepted by the hon. gentleman in charge of the measure.


Duncan Graham: Let it go to the third reading, but allow it to stand then and we can deal with it later.


George Henry Cowan: I have here the original charter, and it gives no power to acquire water rights.
Bill as amended reported, and read the third time, and passed.



THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COAIPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Air. CARVELL moved second reading of Bill (No. 150) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company and to change its name to the Restigouche Log and Boom Driving Company.
Air. PERLEY.: Before this motion passes, I would like to suggest that this Bill be referred to the Public Works Department and carefully gone over. It is a very complicated Bill with many powers and no doubt intended for a very good purpose, but there are some curious things in it. For instance, there is a provincial charter referred to in section 27, and this section empowers the company to buy up and extinguish the present shares of this provincial company and force the shareholders to take in lieu bonds in the new company. I question whether this parliament has the right to give any such authority. Then there are no names of shareholders mentioned in the Bill.


Air. CARVELL.: This company has been doing business 'some 25 or 30 years on the Restigouche river both in Quebec and New Brunswick, and its business is increasing very rapidly. A cut of 25,000,000 feet a year was at one time considered fairly good, but last year the cut exceeded 100,000,000 and this year will likely peach 125,000,000. The facilities of the boom company are entirely inadequate to hold the lumber for certain periods, and the only way possible to get additional fa-

cilities is to take a portion of the rights on the province of Quebec side. Application was made to this parliament a number of years ago to secure this extension of rights, but because of the opposition of one important bond or stockholder, it was allowed to drop. I am now in a position to assure my hon. friend that every stockholder in the old company has agreed to the proposition and the stockholders are really promoting this Bill. They will be represented by their solicitor who has been here on two occasions, and the Bill has been redrafted by the solicitor of the old company and the law clerk. There will be no objection from any of the old stockholders, and the understanding is that the stockholders shall take the bonds in the new company for their stock.


Mr.   .T. HAGGART@: Is the old company a provincial one?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: In that case we should not empower them to sell to this company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would do no harm to give the power. We can create the new company and give it the power to purchase. The matter will be one for the old company to work out at their end if necessary. This is in the interests of the company. I would like to have the Bill pass its second reading to-day because I understand there are some interests opposing the Bill, and I should like to have the Bill go before the Private Bills Committee so as to give every one interested sufficient time to be present.


William Wright: Is it not, necessary that those who are promoting the Bill should have their names in the charter?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -I am not promoting the Bill myself, but am speaking on behalf of my hon. friend from Restigouche (Mr. Reid). I know, however, a great deal about the old corporation and something about the preparation of this Bill. I supposed that the names of the gentlemen applying were in the Bill; but if not, they can be put in the Bill in committee if necessary.


George Halsey Perley: I have no desire to block the second reading. No doubt the Bill is for a very good purpose, but there is a company on the Ottawa river very similar to this one, all the tolls of which are under the Public Works , Department and have every year to be submitted to the government before thev become law. There is no provision in this charter in that regard whatever. If there are no shareholders, at the end of 30 years when the bonds run out, who will own these works? There is no provision as to who will pwn Mr. CARVELL.
them when that time is over. There are officials in the Public Works Department who have had to do with this kind of work many years and this charter should be submitted to those officials, who understand their business, before it is brought to the committee. The members of the committee necessarily cannot be conversant with the technical details of a Bill of this kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All these matters can be argued before the Private Bills Committee.
This is not a new principle by any means in New Brunswick. There are other companies in which this principle isi worked out and in which it has worked very satisfactorily the last 25 or 30 years. The company is mutual and there are no stockholders.


George Halsey Perley: To whom will the works belong after the bonds are paid?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To the company.


George Halsey Perley: But if there are no shareholders, there will be no company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -This Bill provides for persons who have the right to vote and the man who has a certain quantity of lumber in the river has a vote. There are other parties who take the place of shareholders, who can vote and decide what to do with the property at the expiration of the charter.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Congregational Union of Canada-Mr. A. Haggurt.


Mr. LANCASTER:: 1.	Has Arthur Johnson, of Midland, engineer of the barge ' Reliever' during the season of 1909, a third-class engineer's certificate? If so, what is the date of same?
2.	By whom was he examined, on whose report of fitness was same granted, and where was such examination held?
3.	What certificates were filed with the department as to service, what was the time of service, the name of tug or vessel, by whom owned, and by whom each certificate was given, respectively?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Yes, dated July 30, 1909.
2.	Examined by J. Dodds, steamboat inspector at Midland, Ontario, July 1, 1909, and recommended for a certificate, which was approved by the chairman of the
4846

board of steamboat inspection, and certificate granted.
3.	The certificates produced for service, character, ability, and sobriety are as follow :
No. 1, dated Windsor, Ontario, April 3, 1905, as six months second engineer on tug ' Onaping ' in 1893. Signed Thomas Con-rick, first engineer.
No. 2, dated Midland, Ontario, October 12, 1905, as chief engineer on tug ' Mag-anetawan ' in 1895, six months and 24 days. Signed, Paul Dusome, master.
No. 3, dated Midland, April 18, 1905, as chief engineer tug ' Maganetawan ' in 1896, five months and twenty-seven days,. Signed A. W. Clark, master.
No. 4, dated Midland, April 18, 1905, as chief engineer on tug ' Beaver ' in 1899, five months and six days; also as chief engineer on tug ; Clipper,' 1903, eight months and twenty-six days. Signed, George Kinnee, master.
No. 5, dated Midland, 18t.h April, 1905, as chief engineer tug ' D. L. White,' 1900 and 1901, eight months and three days. Signed, William White, master.
No. 6, dated Midland, April 18, 1905, as chief engineer on tug ' Lake,' 1902, seven months and nine days. Signed, John Shuman, dredge captain.
No. 7, dated Midland, 18th April, 1905, as chief engineer on tug ' Clipper,' 1904, four months and four days. Signed, T. E. Cook, master.
No. 8, dated Midland, April 10, 1909, as chief engineer tug * Clipper,' 1905, eight months and fourteen days; also chief engineer tug ' Aubrey C,' season of 1907, nine months and six days. Signed, Manley Chew, owner, Charles Gould, master.



CONSERVATION COMMISSION-COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES.

Clarence Jameson: Referring to a question on February 14 last, as to the powers of the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources, what are the names, residences and occupations of the Committee on Fisheries, appointed by said commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. Hugh Armstrong, Winnipeg, Man., Provincial Treasurer of Manitoba.
Hon. Price Ellison, Victoria, B.C., Chief Commissioner of Lands, Forests and Works of British Columbia.


Hon. W. C. H.: Grimmer, Fredericton, N.B., Surveyor General of New Brunswick.


Hon.  A. P.@: Maclean, Halifax, N.S., Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
Dr. Howard Murray, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Dean of Dalhousie University.
Hon. Frank Cochrane, Toronto, Ont., Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines of Ontario.'



ESTIMATE OF POPULATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAGRATH;
In the statement giving the population of Canada in various years, which appears in the hon. Finance Minister's last budget speech, what is the exact method employed to estimate the population since the last census?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The last census of each province is taken as the datum, to which is added (1) the yearly immigration into each province as reported by the Immigration Office; and (2) the natural increase per 1,000 per annum according to the last sen-sus, table IX of volume IV. The total natural increase in each year is computed from the estimated population of the preceding year.



COST OF HEATING RAILWAY COMMISSION BUILDING.

Mr. S. SHARPE:: If the cost of heating the Railway Commission building, Queen street, for the year 19089, amounted to $1,164, what are the various items of expense making up this amount, including the amount of coal, cost per ton and other particulars?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 72 tons of coal, at $7	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]$ 504
Salaries, at $55 per month, for six
months, of night and day firemen 660



$1,164 LIST OF BANK SHAREHOLDERS.

Mr. HENDERSON:: Has the Minister of Finance yet laid before parliament the list of shareholders of banks transmitted to him for the calendar year ending 31st December, 1909, as required by subsection 6 of section 114 of the Bank Act? If not, when does he propose to do so?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act allows the banks some time after the close of the year to send in these returns. The returns have been received, are in course of preparation for parliament, and will be laid on the table in a few days.



JUDGE OF KING'S BENCH.

Mr. A. HAGGART:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Manitoba Act providing for an additional King's Bench judge has been brought into force?


2.	Have representations been made that there are serious arrears in the Court of King's Bench work, and that the appointment of a judge is urgent?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to provide at this session for the payment of such judge, and to fill the vacancy without delay?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The government has been so informed.
2.	The benchers of the Law Society of Manitoba have forwarded to the Department of Justice a resolution in which it is stated that a large number of cases are awaiting trial and cannot in ordinary course be tried for some time to come.
3.	The subject is receiving consideration.



SLEEPING CARS ON INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Has the Intercolonial Railway Company any sleeping cars now under construction? If so, how many?
2.	Are they being built under contract? If so, by whom and at what place?
3.	If they are being constructed under contract, were tenders asked for such work? If so, when and in what manner were such tenders asked, and was it by public advertisement in newspapers, or how otherwise?
4.	How many tenders were received, what were the figures of each tender, and what was the lowest tender for each car?
5.	What was the cost of each car? If the work is not being carried on after tender and contract?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Yes, two sleeping cars.
2.	They are being built, under contract, by the Silliker Car Company, at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
3.	Tenders were invited by circular letter dated Tuesday, November 9, 1909.
4.	Three tenders were received as follows The Dominion Car and Foundry Company, of Montreal, $23,500; the Preston Car and Coach Company, Preston, Ontario, $19,000; the Sillikfer Car Company, Limited, Halifax, $20,800. The Preston Car and Coach Company, though submitting an offer which was the lowest for the first-class sleeping cars, were unable to make delivery at a date to meet the requirements of the railway, viz., by the 1st of July, 1910. The Silliker Car Company, who made the next lowest offer, undertook to deliver these cars by the 1st of July 1910, as entered in their contract, therefore it was recommended that their offer for two first-class sleeping cars at $20,800 be accepted,
5.	The cost of each car, as per tender, is $20,800. The work is being carried on as per tender, contract and specification.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: 



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the House go into committee to-morrow on the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, by providing for the payment to the chairman and members of a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, of an allowance at the rate of twenty dollars for each day's sitting of the board and for each day necessarily engaged in travelling from or to their place of residence to attend or after attending a meeting of the board.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved that the House go into committee to-morrow on the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to enable the Governor in Council to authorize the expenditure of a sum not exceeding fifty thousand dollars for investigating the processes used in the production of zinc, for making experiments, and for any other purpose that may be deemed advisable for the promotion of the production and manufacture in Canada of zinc and zinc products from Canadian ores.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. A. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it may be boldness on my part to address myself to the subject which has been under discussion for the last month in this House; but I rely on the good will and courtesy of hon. gentlemen, even if only to the length of protesting against the contemptible charges of servility and graft preferred against the Liberal members from the province of Quebec by certain public men of that same province, who at all times, and always out of season, pose as unappreciated and uncompromising patriots, and take occasion of that to slander us in the press and on the hustings; or even if it were only to satisfy the opprobrium mongers that our support of the government and vote, are in no way inspired by venality, but as the result of study, of reflection, of common sense, of true patriotism. Such is my object in addressing the House.
When a few months ago, the question of the defence of Canada was first submitted

to the public, many were surprised at it; in some quarters even it resulted in a scare, while elsewhere it was a matter of serious alarm; a few, on the other hand, took occasion of the circumstance to indulge in over-statements. One might have inferred that the matter was a novel one, unheard of until then, suddenly cropping up in the political arena.
It did occur to most people that the defence of Canada was initiated on that very day when Champlain founded Quebec in 1608 and built the ' Abitation,' which was destined to be used both for residential purposes and to be a bulwark against the attacks of aborigines; the fact was lost sight of that, later on at various points, forts had been built which have become famous in our annals, and in the defence of which Frenchmen have distinguished themselves while warring against the Indians, and later in repulsing the British troops sent to conquer Canada. Regiments of French troops and after the conquest, British troons were quartered there. Was not that paving the way for the country's defence?
What numerous stages have we not gone through since the days of those early armaments ! In the course of years, 'and in quick progression, the military equipment of Canada has developed, its organization has been perfected, its efficiency increased. As evidence, I may mention that the militia estimates which at the time of confederation reached about the million mark, aggregate to-day $6,000,000. Nevertheless, it is not to my knowledge that at any time this circumstance has been considered a matter for alarm; nobody has raised his voice to protest against the principle of progressively increasing our military forces, so natural it appears to protect the country against invasion.
What would have become of Canada without troops at the time it was invaded by the American forces in 1812; what would have been its fate, had not the Fenians been repulsed in 1866 and 1870? Who will assert that we would to-day he enjoying that constitutional system under -whose protection individual liberty is in full bloom like flowers under the bright June sun?
Nobody will contend that there is no need of an army to ensure the maintenance of peace, to quell serious riots, unwarranted uprisings which might break out among our people, and also to protect our trade and defend the integrity of Canada's possessions.
Up to this day, we have been the object of attacks on the part of the United States only, and the forces on both sides were about on a par. True, these old-time foes have long since become friendly to each other, both engrossed with peaceful pur-154
suits and enjoying the benefits of an ' entente cordiale.' Unfortunately, though there is nothing stable in this -world, and if hostilities were to be renewed some day- which God forbid-a possibility which should not be lost sight of, how will we manage to defend our sea coasts if we have only a land force at our disposal?
And what I say in regard to our neighbours in the south, applies just as well in the case of those countries beyond the Pacific ocean, of ancient origin, but new to civilization, a civilization, in some cases at any rate, buoyant, imbued with a spirit of enterprise and even of conquest. Barely had thirty years elapsed since modern progress had dawned over the country of the chrysanthemum, when the empire of the Rising Sun imposed its rule in Corea to the Celestial empire, and then with one prodigious leap struck to the ground, under the walls of Port Arthur, the colossus of the rorth made torpid by a stifling autocracy. Who can foresee the development in the near future of those other countries bordering on the Pacific, overcast just now with the gloom of ignorance, but which are bound to be overtaken bv the light of progress, in accordance with what I might call the law of geography. In the earliest times, civilization developed in the east and made it famous, extending over Asia and Europe, then crossing the seas in the folds of the Spanish and French flags, and after setting foot in America, resuming its flight towards the far east. It seems as though in accordance with a decree of Providence, progress ic bound to encircle the whole world, quickening with its rays the minds of men to a better comprehension of liberty and progress.
Should we have a land force? Its desirability has been recognized, as I have already said, and the principle has been long since acted upon and more energetically than ever of recent years. Would there be any sense in doing away with the principle of naval defence and its practical carrying out, now that Canada has two great oceans as its boundaries on the east and west? Would it be in accordance with common sense to take steps for the defence of the interior while leaving our coasts without protection, open to raids, to attacks from the enemy, without even being in a position to keep off the enemy, until we had made preparations or called for reinforcements.
But, say our opponents, is not England there with her powerful war navy to defend us? Yes, thank heaven, England is there; let us hope she will there remain long, I might say for ever, if earthly things were everlasting. Yes, England is there; she may even be said to be everywhere, since, as is sometimes said, the sun never sets on the British empire, so extensive are its



possessions, and so widely distributed oyer the surface of the world. It is precisely because that empire exists and we are part of it, that the duty of the hour is so imperative on us.
Are there very many Canadians who would willingly accept the rule of a foreign nation? I do not believe it. Whoever observes what is the condition of the average citizen of the world, cannot be but proud to live under the protection of the powerful Albion. That is not empty rhetoric, it is my earnest conviction. I am a Frenchman, and I am a Catholic; I am not forgetful of it, and I hope I shall never be. I love France as the home of my ancestors, that is to say, deeply, unalterably, with a filial love. I have reverently learned its history; I was enthused at reading of its glorious past, of its perils, of its misfortunes, and I feel it would be a cruel blow to me were the heart of my dear France to bleed under the stroke of some national catastrophe. But while that attachment remains strong, I am happy to be a British subject. Where would I find such free-doni for the individual, where would I find such perfect safety elsewhere than in the folds of the British flag, and of the Canadian flag?
It is customary to say the British subject; that is wrong. In whatever domain, whether in national, private life, in public or business transactions, there is nothing carrying with it the idea of dependence. Loyalty to the king does not imply subjection, but the fulfilment of one's duty towards the head of the nation, whether he be called king, president, or by any other name. That is why I say there are properly speaking no subjects, but only British citizens.
Accordingly there should be only one heart and one voice towards maintaining unimpaired the prodigious power which the empire wields to-day, and supporting that empire at the summit of glory where it shines at present. To neglect that duty is to be one self's enemy. It means that we fail to understand that so long as we are a British possession, so long will Great Britain be strong and great, the more prestige and authority she will have, and the stronger also will Canada be, and the greater will be her prestige and her authority. And what is it that is feared? Some say imperialism, others say militarism, and after crying out these words, to frighten the people, they believe everything has been said, everything has been settled. Words are no proof at all; it is facts that convince.
An imperialist I am not, if to be such I have to sacrifice a modicum of the rights enjoyed by the inhabitants of Canada in matters of language, civil, religious and political liberty; and imperialist I am not, Mr. LACHANCE.
if to be such I have to put up with the least interference with our autonomy, or pave the way for any future restriction of it.
But if it is the part of an imperialist to put our militia in touch with the rest of the British forces, so that in case of a war in which we would be interested, there would be secured unity of action, very well, call me an imperialist. Lastly, if it is the part of an imperialist to wish to see the mother country from day to day more powerful, so that our country, as well, may become from day to day stronger, very well, call me an imperialist, because to be an imperialist in that way is to love one's country, is to be a patriot.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Lachance: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I stated at the outset that the first expenditure incurred for the defence of the country dated back to the foundation of Quebec, and that it was ordinary common sense to provide for the protection of our coasts just as we had provided for the defence of the rest of the country. And when you left the chair at six o'clock, I was pointing out what are to my mind the distinctive features of the right kind of imperialism as well as of the objectionable kind.
I now wish, Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, to say a word on another subject. Some public men, some writers, have, in a sarcastic vein, dubbed these first beginnings of the naval defence a ' tin-pot navy.' All great undertakings, no matter how generous the feeling which prompted them, are bound to have their critics. All things have small beginnings. What would those bitter critics say to-day if the government had appropriated, let us say, $40,000,000, at one stroke, and neglected in consequence other branches of the public _ service? I fancy I hear them complaining bitterly of the government's inefficiency and of the check thus put on the government of Canada for several years to come.
Of course, ten or twelve ships are not sufficient to make the country absolutely secure against attack, at every point along the coasts. But Canada is progressing very rapidly; its revenue is increasing in proportion and will enable us to develop little by little the means of defence, until the day comes when our navy will represent a sufficiently strong unit to provide, in conjuncture with the land forces, full protection against raids, inroads, or interference by nearby or distant foes. Fortunately, for the time being, there is no reason to

suspect on the part of any one a desire of invading, dismembering, or conquering Canada. But what assurance have we that such a thing will not be attempted some day? _
Up to some twelve years ago, Canada was not very much known, and its population being comparatively small, it had not attracted particularly the attention of the world. But the early years of this century have opened wide for her the gates of fame; she presents herself as a peaceful conqueror, anxious to show, as stated by our illustrious leader, that the twentieth century is really Canada's century.
All eyes are turned towards us; our chances are figured on; our future is, I might say, forecasted; our mineral, agricultural, industrial and forest wealth is estimated; and fifteen or twenty years more of progress at the rapid rate of the last decade, will make of Canada an envied and coveted country, on account of its riches, its great population, its brilliant prospects.
Who will say that at any time Great Britain may not be engaged in a war requiring the concentration of all those naval forces. That day may be remote or it may be closer to us than we expect, the natural tendency being to foresee calamities only in the distant future. Will she then be in a position to give us as much help as she otherwise would have been? Certainly not.
Then, will England always possess the power and prestige which she enjoys today? That is our ardent desire, and our sincere hope. May the British empire for ever rule on land and on sea. All Canadians entertain that fervent hope. The proof lies in the very Bill submitted to the House for the maintenance of that supremacy, inasmuch as it lies within our power.
But nothing is endowed with perpetual stability. What has been the fate of these immense kingdoms to which the British empire might be compared? What has been the fate of the empire of Alexander the Great, of the Greek republics, of the Roman empire, and in more recent times of the empire built up by the lieutenant Bonaparte?
And what then? In such a juncture, inadequately protected by the mother country, without means of defence at home, our only resort would be to run about on the ramparts and witness, desolate and powerless, the landing of the invaders, or the destruction of our own merchant navy.
Let us suppose the case when we would be called to take care altogether of ourselves. Should I not tremble in making such a suggestion, seeing that since the beginning of this debate on the naval question hon. gentlemen on tlhe other side represent as a crime of high treason to forecast, or even suggest, the possibility of independence for Canada at any time. On 154J
the part of the members of parliament who are intent on enlightening public opinion, such narrow-mindedness is most regrettable, and warranted the proud reply elicited from my hon. friend for the Yukon, who, to better point out the foolishness of such empty rhetoric, reminded us that Englishmen, not of Canada, but of Great Britain, eminent statesmen, reputable writers, celebrated historians, have spoken of the independence of Canada as of a fact which may and must necessarily come about some time or other, adding that such an event would be in accord with the natural course of history as regards such dominions or colonies.
But that is not all, will hon. gentlemen believe that a Governor General of Canada has been found to echo such sentiments. It is nevertheless a fact, yes, Sir John Young at an official function at Quebec on July 15, 1869, following on his arrival, expressed feelings which were construed as an invitation to Canadians to proclaim the independence of their country. He spoke as follows:
At the present moment, Canada is in reality independent. It has its own destinies in its own hands, and its statesmen and people are recognised as competent to judge of their interests as to what course to pursue to conciliate those interests. England looks to them for her guidance, and whatever their decision may be. either to continue the present connection or in due time and in the maturity of their growth to exchange it for some other form of alliance.
The same views are expressed in the London press of the time, as witness the following extracts from the ' Thunderer ' :
There is no ground for surprise, still less for indignation, if it be asked whether it would not be better for both Englishmen and Australians if the independence the latter have, in fact, should reveive a name. The Dominion of Canada is in all respects independent. It is fitted to become independent as it has the institutions of a great power. It is surely a fair subject for inquiry whether the emancipation of the adult is not as desirable to complete the manhood of the son as it is necessary from the inability of the father to understand the peculiar circumstances of his son's life.
And the 'Times' said further:-
Incidents like these (the withdrawal of troops and the speeches of public men) coming too, in quick succession, showed that the executive government of the United Kingdom acting, as must be presumed in harmony with the imperial parliament, had resolved upon abandoning the old policy of tutelage with its pretensions and responsibilities, and urging the colonies by gentle suasion to take up the freedom of their manhood.
May I be allowed to quote another extract from that paper against the colonial system. I fear lest the hon. member for Frontenac and others whose views are not

4S56
*any broader, should have a fainting spell; hi wever, I shall take the risk; there are several medical men occupying seats in this House, and I beg of them to keep their eyes open on these likely patients in case of emergency. I shall then read the wording of the ' Times ' onslaught: not only does it advocate independence for the colonies, but it sarcastically discards the expression ' mother country ' as applied to England:-
Now said the ' Times/ what is meant by speaking of England as the mother country? What is to he understood by the description of Australia, Canada and the rest of her colonies? If all that is intended is to remind us of the historical fact that the citizens of Canada, New South Wales and Victoria are mainly of English origin and descent, we shall not quarrel with the accuracy of the statement, although we may doubt the pertinence of the phrases. England is in this sense the mother country of Australia, and just in the same way some other land, without committing ourselves to the quarrels of ethnologists, we may [DOT]say Shleswig-Holstein is the mother country of England. Again, it may be observed that if Australia be the child of England, the United States are elder brethren of the same family. It is evident that considerations like these, though extremely interesting in their proper-relations, have no necessary connection with the mutual obligations of communities, that is to say, of societies of individuals banded together for purposes of government in different parts of the world. Let us then, in the interest of truth and right conclusions, discard altogether the phrase ' mother country ' in the discussions which are before us, let us even use with deliberation words apparently, so innocent as ' England ' and ' colony/ and remember that what we are called upon to weigh and determine is the proper relations of Englishmen, Australians and Canadians.
I do not concur in the views expressed by the ' Times ' on that point. I believe that the expresion ' mother country/ in a general way, describes the status, the respective positions of England and her dominions. If I recall these facts, it is "to show to those who are unacquainted with them or have lost the memory of them to what extent freedom of opinion and speech is granted out there.
If then these British statesmen and newspapers have referred to the independence of Canada in such strong terms, and even induced Canadians to turn to it, and that without even causing the slightest surprise, *why should people here get angry or feign anger because the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Postmaster General and others have now and then referred to that subject in extremely moderate language, as citizens taking an interest in the future of their country? Why should these gentlemen on the other side take occasion of that to favour the House with some bits of eloquence of very doubtful quality, in regard to our so-called disloyalty. That -such winnings should be agreable to them, Mr. LACHANCE.
I do not say the contrary; all tastes are in nature, though it must be admitted some of them are peculiar, but, for the sake of us, let them spare our ears and indulge between ourselves in tht kind of sport.
Moreover, I will tell them very frankly that their unworthy denunciations do not in anv way interfere with our tranquility; our past record is the best answer the turn of mind evidenced by such appeals is almost akin to mania, to a morbid state, the analysis of which may be as much a matter of medical science as of parliamentary debate. Nevertheless, freedom of opinion exists for us as for others; we propose taking largely advantage of it; but we should before all unite with all persons of good will, and broadness of mind towards ensuring the reign of peace in this country. Those whom the spirit of discord torments or that race prejudices distract are free to waste time on the side of the ditch; but we shall continue our progress onwards towards the heights.
So, then, I am quite free to state in this House, that we are perfectly, absolutely, entirely satisfied to live under the present system; but that is not a reason why I should not be at liberty to anticipate a possible condition of independence of Canada, as well as the possible settlement in some way or other of many other problems yet unsolved.
Whom are they expecting to frighten, or alarm, or intimidate, by exclaiming: In your mind, the building of a navy is merely a step towards independence. And supposing it were so, what harm to it? However, that is not a weighty consideration in this debate; the navy is not being organized to-day with a view to conquering independence, but it will be there and will be required, should at any time independence become a reality.
Besides, to be consistent, our opponents should put a stop to all future progress of trade, industry and agriculture, for all these factors help in as great a measure as the navy, and even more so, in developing that degree of wealth, of power and of expansion in Canada which would be required to make independence a possibility.
Accordingly, although this is not the subject just now under discussion, I say it is the part of wisdom to foresee the hour when possibly Canada may separate from the British Crown, and separate without any friction, on friendly terms, owing to circumstances that are still the secret of Providence. That forecast, I repeat it, does not imply any hostility towards the mother country; but since we are discussing a question of national interest, We should consider all its aspects. Events move quickly; what are mere dreams today may be actual facts to-morrow. Some will then advocate annexation to the

United States, others independence, and what not? But whatever proposals are made, wisdom demands that we should be ready, so as not to be at the mercy of anybody.
If to-morrow the tie which binds us to the empire was broken, would there be a single Canadian to deny the desirability of equipping at once a navy? But why should we await that emergency? Are we not even now in fact an independent nation? The British Crown does not take umbrage at that designation, so lightly does that Crown weigh on the British possessions. So let us speak, and especially act, as a nation; let us make the best of the present, but let us also make preparations for the future inasmuch as human forecasts enable us with the help of experience and the teachings of history, to see through that mysterious veil.
We have obligations towards the empire as a whole, but that does not mean that -we should not mind doing an injury to Canada. Accordingly is it not part of the duty incumbent on representatives of the people to discover a means of being serviceable to both at the same time? To cooperate towards the upholding of the power of the empire, to defend our country, to protect our business interests which already aggregate several hundred millions and give promise of increasing fivefold in the near future; such is the treble task with which we are confronted. How -will we succeed in fulfilling it?
Shall we take the advice of these academic thinkers whose only teaching on that question of naval defence, is to have nothing at all to do with it? What is their plan? To delay until danger is at hand? Unless they are gods or demi-gods capable at a moment's notice of providing a well-equipped fleet risen from the deep at the snap of the fingers, what would be the outcome of their procrastination? They should beware lest in waking up they find out it is too late.
Shall we, on the other hand, take the advice of those who favour the idea of a direct contribution? In what way -would Canada and her business interests be protected thereby? To a very limited extent, in a most indirect and uncertain fashion, especially should Great Britain be at war, not to speak of the possible emergency of the mother country being crippled by her foes.
The only other alternative is that which meets all emergencies, gives satisfaction to the just claims of the Empire as well to the legitimate aspirations of Canada; that is the plan proposed in the Bill submitted to the House by the government.
Evidently the people prefer it to [DOT] all others, and justly so. Through it we ensure in a stiil greater measure, if possible,
our political and administrative autonomy. The money required for the building and maintenance of that navy will be spent here; a new field of action will be opened to Canadians; then parliament will have the exclusive control of that force which will be entrusted with the duty of protecting our territory, ensuring the safety of our trade, of our international dealings, and which may, besides, at certain critical times, act in conjunction with the fleet of the mother country, but only when the people of Canada through their representatives will have agreed to it.
True loyalism or patriotism does not consist in giving everything away blindly and rashly; it consists in giving intelligently. Since Canadians henceforth form a separate nation, and since part of its revenue must, be appropriated to military purposes insuch a way as to meet its requirements and those of the empire as well, let it be in such a way at any rate that Canada may reap from it the greatest benefit possible without interfering with the object in view.
It has been contended-the hon. gentleman from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) who spoke recently is of that mind, and there are others-that is contrary to the constitution, or rather interfering with our autonomy, to put, under the circumstances laid down in the Bill, our navy under the command of the British Admiralty, and in the same way to take part in the wars of the empire. There can be no greater mistake. We have the right, I presume, to organize our land and sea forces for the defence of Canada. Well our right to put the Canadian navy under the control of the admiralty and to have it take part in the wars of the mother country is quite as evident. To deny it one must be in bad faith, or else be absolutely blind to the spirit or ignorant of the letter of the British North America Act of 1867 and of the militia Acts since passed by this parliament. Not only is that our right but even, under the law now in force, we are liable to be called upon to do so as regards the sea forces; even as regards the . land forces, we were in the same position 1 up to 1904, when the statute 4 Edward VII,
* cap. 23 was passed.
As a matter of fact, all our militia Acts passed since 1867, are based on the following principles:-
r 1. The King has the command of all the land and sea forces, and of the whole military and naval service of Canada. i 2. Since 1867 and until the passing, in ) 1904, of statute 4 Edward VII, cap. 23, the ' King had the right, of his own authority,
1 and without the interference or concurrence of the Governor in Council or of parliament, to call out to active service all our land and sea forces, either within or outside of the limits of the Dominion.
3. Since 1904 our land forces can be sum-

mcned to active service only through the Governor in Council or through parliament, and solely for the defence of Canada.
4. Our sea forces can even to this day be summoned to active service within or outside the boundaries of the Dominion of Canada, by the King, of his own authority, the interference or consent of the Governor in Council or of parliament.
Section 15 of the British North America Act, 1867, gives the King command of all our militia corps.
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
If these words mean anything at all, it is that the King is commander in chief of the militia, that he has the right to assume command of it, consequently to order it to wherever, he pleases and put it under the command of whomsoever he thinks fit. That section 15 is in itself a peremptory answer to those who, earnestly or otherwise, contend that the Confederation Act of 1867, does not in principle allow our forces to take part in Great Britain's wars or to put the Canadian navy under the control of the Admiralty.
That provision is reproduced in all our Militia Acts since 1867. With a view to giving effect to the provisions of that section 15 and of subsection 7 of section 91 of the Confederation Act, which provided for the organization of land and sea forces, parliament passed in 1868, our first Militia Bill, 31 Viet., cap. 40. That Act has been revised several times since then; the provisions as amended will be found under cap. 11, of 46 Viet., in chapter 41 of R.S.C., 1886. in chap. 23 of 4 Edward VII., in chap. 41 of R.S.C., 1906. It is expressly pro, vided in each of these Acts that the command of the militia is vested in the King, who exercises it in person and may delegate such power to the Governor General, not the Governor General in Council, but to the Governor General alone, as representative of the Sovereign. So that, basing myself on that legislation, I have the right to conclude that our militia can, without infringing on the principle of our autonomy, take part in the wars of the empire.
That construction on the other hand, is confirmed by other provisions of the Militia Bill; as a matter of fact, from 1867 up to the time of the passing of 4 Edward VII, chapter 23, the King had the right to call out on his own authority and without the interference or consent of the Governor General in Council or of .parliament, the whole of our forces to active service, in or outside the Dominion of Canada.
I quote section 61 of the Act of 1868:
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof, for active service either within or without Canada, at any time when Mr. LACHANCE.
it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them, and the militiamen, when so called out for actual service, shall continue to serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for actual service, if required so to do; or for any longer period which Her Majesty appoints.
46 Victoria and the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, also contained that provision. So that ever since confederation the King had the absolute right of calling out on his own authority our military forces to active service, in or outside the Dominion of Canada. On whose behalf and for what object might they be called to do active service outside of Canada, if not to take part in England's wars.
In 1904, the Militia Act is revised in part in 4 Edward VII, chapter 23. Radical amendments are then effected, particularly by vesting in the Governor in Council alone the right of calling out the militia to do active service in or outside of Canada and by providing for the summoning beforehand of parliament. Thus, section 70 reads as follows:
The Governor in council may place the militia or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
So then it will not he the King alone, acting on his own authority, but the Governor in Council, that is our cabinet ministers, responsible to this House and to the people of the country, who shall henceforth have the right to call out the militia for active service. So that constitutes a radical change in our favour.
Section 70 says; ' for the defence thereof ' (Canada). These words and that restriction appear for the first time in our Militia Law. What are we to infer from it, if not that, previously to that, our forces could be called out to do active service for other purposes than the defence of Canada, and for what object then could it be, if not to wage war in the interest of the British flag?
However that statute 4 Edward VII., relates only to land forces, as stated in section 136:
The following Acts of -the parliament of Canada are repealed, in so far as the active and reserve militia land force is concerned, to wit, &c.
Statute 4, Edward VII., chapter 23 has been included in the Revised Statutes for 1906; hut the latter have not abrogated the acts previous to 1906 in regard to the naval forces. To satisfy one self as to that, a reference to schedule A which gives the list of the acts repealed, will suffice. Accordingly, the naval militia has always been and is till to-day liable to being called out directly by the King to do active service within or outside the boundaries of Canada.
466 L

In that regard, the Bill now under consideration is a step further towards a state of more complete autonomy, since, in the future, it will be the ministers in council, or parliament, who will have the right to -call out our war navy to do active service.
It has also been contended that there is no need for Canada providing armaments, as it is protected in virtue of the Monroe doctrine. That is indeed a most extraordinary statement. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), has already victoriously answered that contention. However, I may be allowed to add a few remarks. That doctrine was given expression to in 1823 by President James Monroe. It is a theory, nothing more, a theory which has not the force of precedent, if I may so expres myself, because it would be going too far to state that it has received the approval or concurrence, or even the acquiescence, of the diplomatic world, or of the chanceries, and nobody will contend that it is part of the rules and principles of international code.
Besides, even supposing it had these features, a circumstance which I would welcome, that doctrine has reference only to the intercourse of European powers with Americans, but has nothing whatever with the intercourse between one American power and another. That distinction is the essential characteristic of that doctrine; and even if it should be a mean^ of protection for us against the peoples of the old world, it would not be a means of protection against the claims, the encroachments or hostilities of the nations which people the American continent. Therefore, I say that doctrine is not a safeguard for us against all and every one, and does not warrant us in remaining inactive without armaments.
The opposition, which in part recognizes the leadership of the hon. member for Halifax, proposes an amendment while opposition No. 2 led forsooth by the hon. member for Jacques 'Cartier presents an amendment to the amendment, both demanding a plebiscite but for different reasons in each case. As several hon. gentlemen on this side have pointed out, and justly so, a plebiscite is demanded in regard to an expenditure of $43,000,000, appropriated towards the building of a navy which will be our property and constantly in use by us; but all thought of a plebiscite is rejected when, as per the amendment of the opposition, it is proposed to contribute $25,000,000 to the British exchequer as a free gift. Surely that is a striking example of a breach of logic, no wonder the opposition has not yet been able to explain, such inconsistency on their part.
Then, as was stated by the hon. member for Bed Deer, if we repeat that contribution two or three times, it will ultimately turn out to be a direct invasion of the principle which the opposition is so prone to invoke: 'No representation, no vote.'
Now, there is a matter concerning which the opposition might, with better grace to my mind, have sugggested a referendum, it would have been in regard to that proposal of a gift of $25,000,000.
The hon. member for East Grey answered: 'There will be no more contributions.' How does he know? Has he consulted the augurs, the witches, and put in motion the sacred tripod to be thus in a position to utter an oracle. At the time of the sending of the Canadian contingent in 1899, it was also stated that there would not be any more contributions; barely ten years elapsed and we are called upon to contribute once more.
The question of naval defence, it is contended, is a novel one. It cannot be gainsaid that it is before the public in explicit terms since the conference of 1902, when it was proposed to provide for that defence. General elections have taken place in 1904, a new conference was held in 1907, a further general election took place in 1908, and every time that same Liberal government was kept in power, and, inferentially, its then policy which has not been changed since, may be said to have been approved.
But, to say the truth, it was not in 1902 for the first time that the question came up, it is in 1867, when the British North America Act wa3 up for discussion. As a matter of fact, it recurs in all our militia Acts which have been passed in the meantime, such as the Act of 1868 which provides for the organization of land and sea forces. So then, for 43 years, almost a half century, the naval defence proposal is grafted on our legislation, notwithstanding which a referendum is called for under pretense that the question is a novel one. Evidently, advocates of the plebiscite idea are lacking in information.
But I might submit a further consideration which is very peremptory to my mind. Is not this proposal concerned with the defence of Canada and her most vital interests? Now, is not providing for the defence of the country the primary right of representatives of the people a right undeniably implied in their mandate and its most essential feature? Even more, it is not only their right, it is their duty, the first, most sacred and the most imperative of duties, and if in this respect we were to accede to this plebiscite proposal, I am not very sure that we would not be a subject for wonder, nay for laughter, to the rest of the world.
Like many others, I had hoped that this country would not be called upon to assume the heavy burden of armaments, that when it would have reached its full manhood, warfare would have become a thing of the past. Accordingly, it was not without a feeling of pain, a sort of anguish, that we to-day talk on the floor of this House of the possibility of war for Canada,

a land of hope, a land of hospitality; it is not without a pang, without some bitterness, that still close to the cradle out of which our young country has just come to take its place among nations, we should have to evoke scenes of bloody warfare; and we mourn at the thought of adding to these precious jewels with which we had adorned it-civil liberty, religious freedom, political liberty, liberty of trade- the battle axe, not for purposes of attack, but for purposes of defence, direct or indirect. How much more we would have preferred to adorn it with olive and laurel blossoms, as symbols of peace.
But alas, the hour of disarmament, of universal peace has not yet come; and should we not despair at finding that even the most civilized nations have heretofore as a last resort pinned their faith to the effectiveness of their guns. What would be the use of persistently taking refuge in doctrines and theories of a very humanitarian character, and which all accept and admire, if, at a certain moment we are made to decamp at the point of the bayonet. War is abhorrent to all of us, but, if war is declared or waged against us, are we foolishly to let other people take our lives without a move, so as to express our aversion for such a scourge.
For six centuries past, humanity has condemned war, and during all that time nations were waging war on one another under pretense of rights to vindicate, of grievances to avenge. Will ever a means be found to ensure the maintenance of universal peace? We may at least hope so. But before that is found, are we justified in dispensing with means of defence? Would it not be almost equivalent to suicide?
Therefore, I say it is a duty incumbent on us to overcome that aversion, and to consider the present and the future as practical men who love their country. Since it is necessary, let us begin by providing Canada with the means of protection indispensable towards ensuring her safety, her advancement and the respect of foreigners in her national life, as well as in her business transactions; but at the same time, let us express the hope that we shall never be called upon to draw the sword against other peoples; should that be the sole result of armaments, it would be ample compensation for our sacrifices. Yes, God forbid that our immense plains should ever be moistened by anything else but the morning dews! God forbid that in our Canada the roaring of guns should ever be heard, except, to proclaim the benefits of peace, to echo the rejoicings of our people and proclaim the glories of our country.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is so important that I desire to say a few Mr. LACHANCE.
words on it before the debate closes. This Canadaof ours is the greatest self-governing colony of the British empire, and so far as I have been able to judge we have received in our day and generation at least, just as fair treatment from the motherland as we could reasonably wish. In the course of the debate some hon. gentlemen have referred to incidents that have happened in the days gone by, but such past events have little concern with the issue now before the country. The United States rebelled against Great Britain for grave reasons, and Great Britain learned the lesson how to govern her colonies so as to obtain their love and respect. Now, Sir, there is no one in this House more loyal to British connection than I am. I suppose that the right hon. gentleman who leads the House would possibly refer to me as a dreadful imperialist, but that appellation has many different meanings, and the proper meaning of that word is one who believes in maintaining the British empire by all reasonable means. I am a Canadian first, I am for Canada, but I believe that it is to our interest to stay in the British empire, because to my mind it is thus that we can best ensure our peace, our security, and our happiness as a nation. I need not refer to the present day greatness of the British empire or to the noble part she has played in history. Never has the world seen such a grand empire, and the dearest wish of my heart is to see it perpetuated if that can be accomplished and in a way satisfactory to all the component nations. I believe, Sir, that our race is surely capable of finding some practical solution of imperial problems, among which this one of naval defence is now presented for our consideration. The hon. the leader of the opposition has very closely set forth in his speech my views when he gave utterance to the following language:
It is not wise to prophesy what the future may bring forth, but I would venture to hope that a defence committee or an imperial conference having special jurisdiction over defence matters, composed of men from both parties in Great Britain itself as well as in the self-governing nations of the empire, would have some control over the organization of imperial defence, and as an outcome of such a committee or such a conference I would expect that in future Great Britain would engage in no great war without knowing before hand that she would have the support and the sympathy of every one of the great self-governing nations of the empire. This would give to these dominions a voice in the control of war, because I thoroughly agree that if we are to take nart in the permanent defence of this great empire wre must have some control and some voice in snch matters.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this prophecy is sure to come true, if the empire is to hold together, and if we should now ask for some representation of that

kind in the empire's councils, provided we give regular and effective assistance to the imperial navy, in what way may seem best to us, is it not likely that Great Britain would grant our request. Autonomy is certainly essential to the welfare of a colony, but not absolute autonomy in everything. The whole empire must be greater than any one part of it, greater than Canada or the United Kingdom in themselves, and the voice of the empire so expressed would carry greater weight, and have more power than the voice of any single Dominion. Each part of the empire must have control over its own local affairs, but some means ought to to be found so that in future, if there is to be a war, that war will be declared by the empire, and not by the United Kingdom as at present. And, Sir, if we are to stay in this British empire, as I hope we may, then we must do our share to defend ourselves, for that is the only thing that would satisfy Canadians who are a self-reliant, and a self-respecting people. I think, Sir, that we should do our share of the empire's defence of our own free will. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and every nation must protect itself. I do not pretend to say that it is easy to declare exactly how this should be done, or how we should do our share in the empire's defence. In my view, Sir, the question has not been long enough before the people. The Prime Minister stated that the people of Canada had the question before them since 1902, but I do not agree with the right hon. gentleman in that. It is true that in 1902 the question was raised at the imperial conference of that year, but until the past year it never came up for consideration before the people as a whole. I think I am safe in saying that not five per cent of the people of Canada ever heard of or knew what resolutions were passed in 1902, and therefore, I submit that our people have not had sufficient time to consider this very serious matter. I believe that it is to the interest of all classes and races . in this Dominion that British connection should be maintained, for I think I am safe in saying that no country except Great Britain has ever given to her colonies such civil and religious liberty as Canada enjoys. And, in this connection I may say that it is my belief that the great masses of the people of Canada, not only English Canadians, but French Canadians, are loyal to the British Throne, and appreciate the advantages which we have received from the motherland. In 1870, Sir George Etienne Cartier who is generally acknowledged to be as great a statesman as Canada ever produced was Minister of Militia, and in that year a question arose with regard to Canada providing a permanent militia to replace some of the imperial troops which had been withdrawn from this country.
Through his influence ana the influence of others the matter was arranged, and Sir George Cartier prepared a state paper on May 19, 1870, from which I quote as follows:
The announcement in the former despatch (from Lord Granville) of the 12th February last, that the arrangements therein contemplated are contingent upon time of peace, and are in no way intended to alter or diminish the obligations which exist on both sides in case of foreign war, is very satisfactory to the Canadian government, who receive with gladness the reiteration of the assurance conveyed in the despatch of the l7th June, 1665, that the imperial government fully acknowledged the obligation of defending every portion of the empire, with all the resources at its command, on the reciprocal assurances given by the Canadian ministers, then in London, that Canada was ready to devote all her resources, both in men and money, to the maintenance of her connection with the mother country.
This paper was concurred in unanimously by the Dominion cabinet on May 20, 1870, and it shows the feeling of Sir George Cartier at that time and the feeling of the people whom he represented.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that the first thing we ought to decide in connection with this matter at present is that whatever we do shall be efficient. I do not believe that this country should spend a vast sum of money without giving any real help to- the empire. Whatever differences of opinion there may be in this country on this question, we surely all agree in that. The present proposal of the government is one of no real practical value. It seems to me that it is only a farce, and will only result in our having a false sense of security, while we spend vast sums of money, which will go on increasing year by year; and we shall not have any ships which, in case of war, will be of any real benefit to us or to the empire in helping her to defend us. I believe this government has tried to deceive the people m this matter; it has tried to make them believe that it is really proposing some effective measure, that it is doing what the British admiralty wishes it to do. Last summer there was in London a conference of the self-governing colonies. I am not going into the details of this part of the question, because it has already been discussed in this House by many of the speakers who have preceded me. But in general I would say that at thiat conference the British admiralty stated that as a matter of naval strategy the best thing the colonies could do would be to contribute in money; but at the same time it was recognized that that would not be satisfactory to the colonies. Then the British minister, Mr. McKenna, stated that whiat the admiralty would really like would be a fleet unit on the Pacific. Australia had

promised a fleet unit, New Zealand had promised the principal ship of a fleet unit, Great Britain herself was to give a third, and what the admiralty would like was that Canada should give a fourth. The Canadian representatives demurred at that, and asked that something should be suggested that would not cost so much money. Then the British government suggested that Canada might get an auxiliary Bristol, some cruisers and other vessels, in accordance with the scheme now proposed by this government. The British -admiralty did not say that these ships would be of any particular service to them in time of war; yet this government has adopted this scheme and put it before the people of this country as a fulfilment of the wishes of the British admiralty. In the speech from the Throne last November there were the following words:
Two members of my government attended the imperial conference called by His Majesty's government, on the question of defence. A plan was adopted, after consultation with the admiralty, for the organization of a Canadian naval service, on the lines of the resolution of the House of Commons of the 29th of March last.
This clause in the speech from the Throne was drafted for the purpose of making the people believe that the plan suggested by this government was the one proposed by the admiralty. 1 submit that these words should not have been put into His Excellency's mouth when the government intended to bring down this Bill, which does not provide for any effective assistance. Moreover, the government's plan is not on the lines of the resolution of last March. That resolution has been fully discussed, and I do not propose to quote it now; but I understood it to mean that we Canadians were prepared to render effective assistance in the defence of the empire when it was required. The resolution of last March was passed under special circumstances, and was intended to show to the world that we were a unit in our desire to maintain the British empire, and to do what was reasonable to that end. At the same time, I do not argue that the exact words of that resolution are binding for ever. Circumstances change, and while our intent is the same, we may carry out that intent in a different way from what was proposed at that time. The Prime Minister has attempted in his speech to lead the country to believe that we are not ready to act up to this resolution while the government is. On February 3, at page 3035 of 'Hansard' thie right hon. gentleman said:
When this resolution was moved, and accepted by a unanimous vote, we believed that it would be binding upon the other side of Mr. PEELEY.
the House as it is binding upon this side, but in this _we made a mistake. We supposed when this resolution had been voted on, gentlemen on the other side of the House who had given their assent would at least have the small merit of consistency, but in this we were deceived. It never entered our minds that men on the other side of the House would go back on the vote they had solemnly given. In tins again we had made a mistake. We paid them too great a compliment.
I submit that the government itself has not carried out this resolution and that this proposal of the government is not in accordance with it. The resolution was passed unanimously by the House, but the government ha3 taken to itself the sole right to interpret it. In that resolution are the words:
Along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference.
This proposal of the government does not follow the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference. To establish that I shall read a part of the English report of the 1907 conference contained on page 129 where Lord Tweedmouth says:
We welcome you and we ask you to take some leading part in making more complete than it is at present the naval defence of the empire. I wish to recognize all that our cousins over the sea have done in consequence of decisions of former conferences. I know that you gave to the government and to the admiralty with a free and unstinted hand, the help that you thought you could manage to give. Gentlemen, I have only one reserva-tation to make, and in making it I ask that, as we have proved ourselves successful in the past, you should put your trust in us now. The only reservation that the admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have the charge of the strategical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attacks and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seas. We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. We want you to help us in that defence, we want you to give us all the assistance you can, but' we do not come to you as beggars; we gladly take all you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.
In other words, the only thing that Lord Tweedmouth asked was that they should have charge of the strategical question of naval defence in case of naval war, and this proposal of the government does not so provide. Therefore I say that when the right hon. gentleman who leads this House undertook to make the country believe that we. had gone back on our resolution while the government had stuck to it, he is re-

versing the true position, because this government has certainly not brought down a Bill or a suggestion of naval defence which accords with the resolution of last March. The right hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne on November 15 last, said:
Need I say to my hon. friend that whether we have such a navy or not, we do not loose our right to self-government; that if we do have a navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parliament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it there.
Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill provide that the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty the Canadian ships which this government proposes to build. Clause 19 provides that if the Governor in Council decides to place our ships at the disposal of the British admiralty then parliament must be called at once to consider it, but if the government decides not to place the ships at the disposal of the admiralty then nothing happens, parliament is not called together, and the ships do not go. It seems to me a curious distinction. If parliament is to decide as to what the ships shall do, then parliament should decide whether it is for or against. I do not see why this distinction has been put in the Bill. In any case the right hon. gentleman and the other members of thi3 government must know that these clauses in the Bill are wholly misleading. In case of a war between Great Britain and some foreign country, that foreign country will be the one to settle whether Canada is at war or not, and if the country which is at war with Great Britain attacks our vessels we must then fight or haul down the Union Jack and practically secede from the empire. So I say to the government that these clauses must have been placed in the Bill to mislead somebody, or other, because it is impossible that Canada should keep out of any war that Great Britain may be in, if the foreign country which is at war with Great Britain chooses to come here and attack us.
This seems to be too important a matter for any government to have the right to decide. I do not think that any Canadian government, I do not care who might be at the head of affairs, should have it in its power to virtually decide in this extraordinary way that Canada should become independent. We know that this Liberal government arrogates to itself great powers in every direction, but surely it is for the people of this country to decide a matter of so vital importance, and not for any government.
I was exceedingly sorry to see that the right hon. the Prime Minister in discussing this question attempted to make party capital out of it. He followed the
Liberal party press in trying to make out that this plan of the government had been agreed to by both parties. The Liberal press has in many cases referred to this Naval Bill as the Laurier-Bordenjorogram-me. For instance I find that the Toronto 'Globe' on January 3, in an editorial says:
The ' Citizen ' virtually says that Mr. Ellis is prepared to swallow the Laurier-Borden naval programme, even to the extent of leaving the control of the fleet to the Canadian people in time of peace.
I claim that this is an unfair way of putting the case as there was no Laurier-Borden programme whatever. There was a resolution passed unanimously by this House in March last, but the difficulty regarding it consists in the interpretation which might be put upon it, and in the way in which it might be thought best to carry it out. If it was intended by the government that this Naval Bill should be a joint arrangement agreed to "by both parties, then, I submit, it was the duty of the government to keep the leader of the opposition informed as to what was going on, to consult with him and to arrive at some understanding satisfactory to everybody as to what was best to do. I have always thought that that would have been good statesmanship, and that in a matter of this kind it would have been better for Canada if the government had taken the leader of the opposition into their confidence when this matter was being discussed and tried to have arrived at some programme that would have been satisfactory to both sides. Instead of that, the proceedings of the conference were kept absolutely secret, and even after parliament met it was with the greatest difficulty that we could find out exactly what the government had decided to do. When the proposal of the government in this matter did come down, it was found by our side of the House to be entirely different from what the resolution and the admiralty called for. As an alternative of this plan of the government, the leader of the opposition has suggested another, which will not only be more economical for this country, but will give a great deal more help to Great Britain than the proposal suggested by the government. When the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the second reading of this Bill, it seemed to me that he did not take the dignified course that I should have expected of him on that occasion. This question is, perhaps, the most momentous one that has ever been brought before this parliament, because the consequences which will flow from it will extend over many years and the decision taken at this time must greatly affect the course we shall have to pursue

in the future. When the Prime Minister was moving the second reading of such a Bill, it seems to me, he ought to have confined himself to a statesmanlike review of the Bill in order that every person should understand it thoroughly, and that the people of the country might have a chance to consider it carefully. Instead of that, the right hon. gentleman made a campaign speech in this House without discussing very much the merits of the Bill. He began by taunting this side of the House because, he said, we had a divergence of views, we did not all think alike. He spoke of this at some length, attempting to set one part of the opposition against the other, and to have the country know that we had some difference of opinion. The right hon. gentleman, when he discussed the question in that way, forgot that he himself had changed his mind regarding this question, and that in 1907 he had refused to do practically exactly what the government now proposes to do. In the conference of 1907, it was moved by Mr. Smartt:
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 maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the up-keep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-the contribution 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 their varying circumstances.
You will notice that this resolution does not call for any particular form of contribution; it may be given in the form of money, or the establishment of naval defence, or in other service. When that resolution was moved, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: I
I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in our respect in that country before committing ourselves to a general claim.
So, the right hon. gentleman changed his mind since 1907, and it seems to me that, when moving the second reading of this Bill, he might have occupied his lime to much better advantage than in talking of any difference of opinion there may he among members of the opposition in this House. We may have our differences of opinion; we acknowledge that frankly. Our friends opposite have as great differences among themselves, but they keep them quiet for fear they may lose control of the reins of power.


George Halsey Perley: I take great pleasure in supporting the amendment of tlie leader of the opposition on this occasion. It seems to me that in the critical state which exists at present in Europe, we ought to do something to show the mother country and the world where we stand, and that we are willing to help the mother country in case of emergency. As to whether there is an emergency or not, I will quote the words of Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, a man better fitted than any other to understand the true position of affairs:
When the German programme is completed Germany will have a fleet of thirty-three Dreadnoughts. That fleet will be the most powerful the world has ever seen. This' imposes upon us the necessity of rebuilding the whole of the fleet. That is the situation. If we were to fall into a position of inferiority we should cease to count for anything among the nations of Europe, and we should he fortunate if our liberty were left, and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger power. That is a brutal way of stating the case; but it is the truth.
These are not the words of a jingo or a scaremonger, but of Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary. Under these circumstances, I say, it is our duty to show Great Britain and the world that we are prepared to assist her in an emergency of this kind. This we can do of our own free will, and it would in no wise compromise our autonomy, which we are all as anxious to maintain as the right hon. Prime Minister himself. There would be no promise of an annual contribution, and the question as to what we might do in the future would be left entirely in abeyance. This would enable our people to have time to really understand this question before finally deciding what Canada ought to do. Wh:it strikes me, I may say, most forcibly in this matter, after hearing all the discussions in this House and talking it over with many people outside, is how little the people understand it. It has not been before us long enough for us to thoroughly grasp it, and there is no doubt in my mind that the ideas of the people regarding it have not yet been crystallized, although it is generally recognized that Canada should assist in her own naval defence according to her ability. The acute stage of this question has only lasted about a year, and there have been no debates or meetings throughout the country at which this question has been expounded so that the people might have a chance of hearing and understanding all sides before making up their minds. How can we possibly expect that the people should thoroughly understand this question when those of us who have studied it most carefully find it exceedingly difficult to make up our minds what method would be the best for us to follow? It strikes me that the question is one which

requires plenty of discussion, and I do not think that a plebiscite would be the best way in which to accomplish this purpose. That would give us no chance for discussion and explanation. The only real way in which the people can reach an understanding on this problem is to have it taken up in a general election. If we had a plebiscite or referendum, there would be no reason why any one should go out on the platform in the cities or the country districts to discuss this question from all sides and enable the people to understand it, whereas if we had it discussed in a general election, the fate of the government would depend on the issue, and we would be all out trying to have the people look at it as we do, and the people would really have a chance of learning something about it.
In conclusion, I would say that I have the honour to represent a county with a mixed population, in almost exactly the same proportions as are to be found in the Dominion. I firmly believe that both the French and the English would vote to protect their own homes and firesides if they only understood this question. I believe that the great majority of the people of all classes are in favour of the British empire and the maintenance of our British connection, but I am sure that they do not want to contribute regularly or annually_ to the defence of the empire without having some say regarding the questions of war and the methods of using their contributions of ships or money. To my mind, this is the greatest question which has been before this parliament for many a day, and consequently our decision cannot fail to be most important. It will be one which will affect the course ot events, not only in this country but in various parts of the British empire, for many years to come, and it seems to me that the people of Canada should be given ample time to thoroughly understand this question and to give it their cool and calm judgment before it is finally decided.


Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.).: I do not intend to occupy much of the time of the House at this late stage of the debate. The question has been so exhaustively discussed that it is almost impossible for one to take it up at this time without treading on ground which has already been traversed again and again. I feel, however, that I cannot allow the motion for the second reading to pass without expressing, otherwise than by registering a simple vote, my uncompromising opposition to the measure. I regard the Bill as the most revolutionary proposal, so far as the relations of Canada with the mother country are concerned, which has ever been submitted to this parliament for its approval.
I have carefully studied the Bill, and can view it in no other light than that it is a direct blow, deliberately aimed by its authors, at British connection. What proof of this, you ask?
I reply that barring clause..4, which nominally, and only nominally, vests the command in chief of the forces in the King, there is not a line or a word from the beginning to the end of the Bill, which, by the remotest implication, acknowledges that any connection whatsoever exists between this country and Great Britain and her other over-seas dominions. On the contrary, the whole Bill studiously ignores the existence of any connection and is framed upon the bold assumption that Canada is an independent nation, owing no allegiance to or interest in the British empire. As I have said, clause 4 of this Bill nominally, and only nominally, vests the command in chief of the proposed naval forces in the King. But for this one clause, the effect of which, as I will show, is completely nullified by subsequent clauses, the Bill is precisely such an one as might be passed by this parliament if it were the parliament of a separate and distinct republic. Clause 4 of the Bill is inserted for the reason that the constitution which the parliament of Great Britain gave this country makes it impossible to omit it. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), in the very telling and eloquent address which he delivered the other night in opposition _ to this Bill, quoted section 15 of the British North America Act. Let me quote that section again:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
That provision makes it impossible for this parliament to divest His Majesty of the command in chief of our naval forces reserved to him by the terms of that section; and I firmly believe that -were it not for the fact that this parliament is thus restrained by imperial enactment, the name of the King w'ould not have appeared in this Bill from beginning to end. However, it does appear for the reason I have given, and then follow immediately clauses which completely nullify and abrogate clause 4. Let me read clause 5:
5.	The minister shall have the control and management of all naval affairs, including the purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munition and habiliments of war intended for the use of the naval service.
And clauses 6, 7 and 8:-
6.	The minister shall have the control and management, including the construction, purchase, maintenance and repair, of naval es-

tablishments and of ships and other vessels for the naval service.
7.	There shall be appointed an officer, not lower in rank than rear admiral, to be called the director of the naval service of Canada. If a suitable officer of such rank is not available then an officer of the rank of captain may be appointed, who shall have the rank of commodore of the first class.
2. The director of the naval service of Canada shall, subject to the regulations and under instructions of the minister, be charged with the direction of the naval service.
8.	The Governor in Council may appoint a naval board to advise the minister on all matters relating to naval affairs which are referred to the board by the minister.
2. The composition, procedure and powers of the board shall be as prescribed.
Then we have sections 17 and 18:-
17.	The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof, on active service at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
18.	In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service, or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or. any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen by every one who carefully examines the language of those particular sections, 17 and 18, that they are absolutely inconsistent with section 4 and with the command in chief of the navy being vested in His Majesty. Take section 18. How absurd it is to say that the command in chief of the navy is vested in the King and then immediately to follow it with the statement which appears in this section that the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of the commander in chief the naval forces of Canada? The Governor in Council may place at the disposal of the King, who is the commander in chief under section 4, the naval forces of Canada and the Governor in Council may not place this navy, of which the King is the nominal commander in chief, at the disposal of His Majesty for service in the imperial navy. The Governor in Council may withhold the navy from its commander in chief, the King, or may refuse to allow the navy which is' to be established by his Bill to co-operate with the British navy in any war in which Great Britain may be involved. Under section 17 the Governor in Council, who is the government of this country and at the present time means none other than Sir Wilfrid Laurier, is authorized to send this navy to the assistance of any nation of the world without regard to the intereste of the British government. There is authority given under the terms of that section to place the naval forces, or any part thereof,


Oswald Smith Crocket: .
on active service at any time and in any place. They are given full power, if they dare to exercise it to send this navy to the assistance of France, United States, or even Germany. These, it seems to me are powers which should not be vested in the government of this country-I do not care of whom composed. Under section 17 of this Bill, Sir Wilfrid Laurier may send the navy to the assistance of any nation in the world as he may under section 18 withhold its co-operation with the British navy and prevent its participation in any war in which Great Britain may be engaged. It is very clear to me, and, I think, must be clear to any one who has carefully examined the provisions ot these sections, that they divest His Majesty the King, of the command in chief of the naval forces in Canada, and that they are, therefore, unconstitutional. I believe that if the British government is well advised, if its members have not been duped by the constant dinging into their ears by the Prime Minister and his antiimperialistic colleagues of this wearisome cry of autonomy, they will advise that the royal assent be withheld from this Bill until at least these two clauses which are clearly in violation of section 15 of the British North America Act are expunged. If these clauses stand and are allowed to become law it is as clear as the noonday sun that the Bill places in the hands of the Goverinor in Council an instrument in the form on an absolutely independent navy the use or non-use of which may be fraught with the most far-reaching consequences to our position as a Dominion of the British empire or as a nation of the world.
Let the right honourable gentleman, who has so often offended the British sentiment of this country, have his way, when it comes to the question of Canada going to the aid of the motherland in any war which mav arise, and let him refuse to send the so-called Canadian navy, if he choose or if he dare. What of the consequences?
. It is only necessary to ask the question. Beyond all doubt, his ultimatum in such a contingency would be a declaration of independence.
Is this parliament, are the people of this country willing to place such a power in the hands of this or any government or Prime Minister, especially in the hands of the present Prime Minister, who, in this parliament only a few days ago, boastfully stated that he was no imperialist, who has declared, over and over again, on the floors of parliament, in the province of Quebec and even upon the soil of a foreign country, that the goal of his aspiration was * independence ' and the severing of the tie that binds us to the motherland, who, in the imperial

conference of 1907 registered the Dominion of Canada-to the. shame of every patriotic Canadian-as the only colony of the empire which was not willing to contribute in any way to the maintenance of the naval supremacy of the British empire, and who since this Bill was introduced had had the temerity to state in the loyal city of Toronto, that the King has no rights in'this country except what the parliament of Canada has given to him?
Why does the government of Canada want a navy separate from, and independent of the British navy, repudiating, as this Bill does, all connection with the British admiralty? Is it that we know better! how to build a navy? Is it that we know better how to man and run a navy? Is it that we can build or maintain it more cheaply or more efficiently than the British admiralty? Is it that a navy constructed under the direction of the government of Canada will be more valuable and effective for the defence of the empire, or for the defence of Canada alone, if you like, than the British navy? Not one of these questions but has to be answered in the negative-no, to every one of them. 1 do not think that a single hon. gentleman on the other side of the House would contend for one moment that we know better how to build or man a navy than do the British' -admiralty or that a navy built in this country will be more effective for the defence of the empire or of Canada than a navy co-operating with the British navy and under the direction of the British admiralty. Then, why is it that the government is determined to build and run a navy on its own responsibility? It is because and only because the government is more zealous to defend Canada against even the semblance of British connection than it is to defend Canada or the empire against the ships or guns of a foreign foe.
Autonomy, autonomy, they shout when the shores of Great Britain and the integrity of the British empire are threatened by a grave and imminent peril, and when our autonomy, so-called, has never once in our history been restrained or threatened in the slightest degree so far as the full and plenary powers which have been assigned to this parliament by the British North America Act are concerned.
Then, what do they mean by this cry of autonomy? They mean, in my humble judgment, just precisely what the word in its true signification means-they mean independence, they mean separation; they mean, in short, what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has so repeatedly declared is the goal of his_ aspiration :	Independence and disunion, the severing of the tie that binds Canada to the motherland. That is the reason, and the only reason why the parliament of Canada is asked, when laying
down its naval policy, to recognize no association or connection with the greatest navy of the world-the pride of every loyal British subject-and to own no allegiance to the greatest empire in history. 'This parliament may stand for that, but I venture the prediction that the people of this country will not. Certainly, as one member of this parliament, I do not propose to stand for it. In my judgment this is the paramount objection to this Bill, that it makes for disunion. But it is not by any means the only objection. No matter from what standpoint we regard it -whether we look at it from an imperial standpoint or a Canadian standpoint, or from a purely practical business standpoint-there does not seem to be a single consideration of any kind to commend it, unless indeed the huge expenditure of money for which it provides is its commendation in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. It ignores the present threatened danger to the supremacy of the British navy, which is the only reason for our doing anything at all at the present time. It does absolutely nothing to meet this emergency, in as much as the navy for which it provides cannot by any possibility be ready for action for years after the crisis has passed and Britain's supremacy has been decided, probably once and for all. It provides for a navy whose ships will be obsolete before they are ready to be manned; a navy of such puny proportions tha't even if it were ready for action it would be incapable of attack and incapable of defence; a navy whose only function in the event of war, according to the statement of the government's principal French Canadian newspaper organ in Montreal, will be to elude pursuit; a navy which would not only be useless but positively mischievous and dangerous. But, Sir, a navy which will entail upon the Canadian people an initial capital expenditure estimated by the government at $16,000,000 or $17,000,000, and an annual expenditure for upkeep and maintenance estimated at $6,000,000 or $7,000,000; and, if the past-record of this government in the matter of financial estimates affords any criterion, these figures will have to be trebled and even quadrupled. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as was pointed out by the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley), violates all the essential principles of the resolution passed by this parliament on the 29th of March last. It completely ignores, as I have said, the present emergency. It provides for the establishment of a navy absolutely independent of the British navy, contrary to the advice of the British admiralty. It provides for a navy owning no connection or association with the Royal Navy of Great Britain, whereas the resolution of last year distinctly laid it down that if our contribution to imperial defence

should take the form of a navy to be built by Canada, it should be in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy along the lines suggested by the admiralty. For these reasons I propose to vote against this Bill.
In respect to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) though I fully agree that this parliament should not venture to commit Canada to such a novel and far-reaching policy as the government now proposes, without first obtaining a mandate from the people I cannot support the amendment of the hon. gentleman for the reason that he has moved it as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, and if it were carried it would supplant the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which not only provides that the people of the country shall have an opportunity of passing upon the question of a Canadian navy, and in a more regular and constitutional manner, before the country is committed to such a policy, but which at the same time provides for an immediate contribution of two Dreadnoughts to the British admiralty to meet the present crisis. I shall, therefore, vote with the greatest confidence for the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition, and I shall vote with equal confidence against the second reading of this Bill, which I consider, as I have already stated, is the most revolutionary proposal which has ever been submitted to this parliament so far as the relations of Canada with the British empire are concerned.


Mr. D. H. McALLISTER (Kings and Albert).: 

REVISED

[Stage Direction]
St. Anne followed the example of other hon. gentlemen on the opposition side of the House, notably the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) in making reflections upon the loyalty of the Prime Minister; but what might be excused in the hop. member for Vancouver cannot be excused in the hon. member for Ste. Anne, who at one time occupied a dignified position on the bench. These two gentlemen set up their ODinions against the opinion of His Majesty the King of England, who, on the occasion of the birthday of the Prime Minister last year, sent him a telegram, not only congratulating him on his birthday, but naying a tribute to his loyalty to the Crown and thfe empire. This is the answer to those two hon. gentlemen, and I would rather accept the assurance of His Majesty the King than the unsubstantiated vapour-ings of two disgruntled politicians.
Now, some gentlemen have insinuated that the principal object of this Canadian navy was to cause a separation or to make a wide breach between Canada and the empire. I am quite satisfied that these insinuations are very much uncalled for. The plan of the leader of the government is good-he looks farther than the leader of the opposition. The right hon. leader or the government years ago looked forward to the time when Canada would be a great nation within the empire, but he has not forgotten that Canada did not reach her present position without a struggle. Compare the policies of the two great parties. The government has one which has not only been suggested by the admiralty, but which meets the approval of the Liberal party as a whole. The Conservative plan, on the other hand, is to hand over to the British government the money to purchase two Dreadnoughts, and then submit to the people the question whether we should have a Canadian navy or not. I do not think the people will hesitate between these two propositions. The government's policy is a truly Canadian one. It helps to build up the country, it causes money to be circulated, it means that the money wall be kept in Canada; because in order to have a Canadian navy we shall require shipyards and drydocks, which will be either at Halifax or at St. John. In these shipyards a large number of men will be employed, which will mean an increase of population, which in turn will help the merchants, the lawyers, the doctors and the farmers. Then these dry-docks will be used, not only for thje construction and maintenance of a Canadian navv, but for other ships and steamers of the great transportation lines. As we have now no dry-docks in the maritime provinces, any ships requiring to be repaired have to be taken to New York or elsewhere, and Canadian labour gets no

[Stage Direction]
benefit therefrom. After paying out $20 -C00,000 or $25,000,000, the leader of the opposition proposes to refer the question of a Canadian navy to the people; but he is quite willing himself to spend $25,000,000 of the people's money without asking their consent, and send it out of the country, and give it to the British authorities to spend as they see fit. They might use the money for the erection of a dry-dock in New Zealand, or a coaling station in Honduras or somewhere else, ana even though' it might be spent within the British empire it would be very unsatisfactory to the people of Canada.
A great deal has been said about the loyalty of the people of the province of Quebec. I think the people of the province of Quebec are as loyal to the British empire as they need to be, and we are proud to have a French Canadian leader, who believes in equal rights and privileges, as the Prime Minister of Canada does. I do not think anybody, English or French, should be condemned or found fault with if he is not altogether in favour of either a direct contribution or the establishment of a Canadian navy. I may say that when this matter was first talked of last year, I myself was rather of the opinion that the movement was a little premature. I did not think that Canada had any need to launch out on such a project, and I believe the great mass of the people I represent were against it, and they are as good British subjects as any of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I was of the opinion that if Canada had any money to spend it could be just as well spent in the developing of its farming interests and mining and the encouragement of proper immigration from different parts of Europe to this country. I quite realize now that with the growth of Canada, particularly since this government has come into power, with our magnificent revenue of something over $100,000,000, with our farming lands unexcelled in the world, with our timber lands and our mineral wealth yet unexplored, we have a great heritage that is worth protecting; and as a move has been made to assist the empire either in the form of a direct contribution or a Canadian navy, I am willing to accept and advocate, as my constituents will also, the establishment of a Canadian navy.
Another point that has been dwelt upon is that there is an emergency. For my part I do not believe there is any emergency. A great election campaign has just been fought in the old country, but during its course not a word was said about an emergency, the whole election was fought out on the budget and tariff reform.
The Prime Minister of England, speak-Mr. McAllister.
ing at the Reform Club in Liverpool, a few days before the election, said:
Let me say then, once for all, and I speak with full deliberation and after careful and prolonged inquiry, that the navy to-day is able to maintain, not only this year, but in the years that lie before us, our supremacy at sea (cheers), and should the necessity arise, which God forbid, to guarantee the integrity of our commerce and the inviolability of our empire. The sister service, the army, is reaping now in full measure the benefft of the foresight and the constructive power and the undefeated energy of Mr. Haldane.
That was his opinion just before the election. We have heard nothing from England about an emergency. We have in London a High Commissioner, a gentleman of wide experience, and with exceptional opportunities for acquiring information, and if any trouble of that kind were brewing our government would have been notified long ago of its existence. There is too much of this militarism in the world anyway; often fanatics get together and work themselves up until they suffer from hallucinations, a form of insanity. I have here a few extracts from a magazine article:
Tre most virulent and devastating disease now raging on the earth is militarism.
What do you think of that?
The terror of a patient who is suffering from mental derangement is often pathetic. Surround him with granite walls, ten in number, and every wall ten feet thick, and he will still insist that he is unprotected.
Like a few of our hon. friends opposite, who think we are gone, body and soul.
So it is with	the militarist. Like
many another fever, militarism grows by what it feeds on, and unless checked by heroic measures is certain to burn the patient up. Men in a delirium seldom have sense of humour. The world is fearfully grim to them, and life a solemn and tragic thing. They express absurdities with a sober face, and make ridiculous assertions without a smile. It may be that the militarists are in a sort of delirium. All the great nations are to-day facing deficits, caused in every case 'by the military and naval experts. Into what a tangle the finances of Russia and Japan have been brought bv militarists is known to everybody. Germany has, in a single generation, increased her national debt from eighteen million dollars to more than one billion dollars.
I might read more of this article, but this is sufficient to illustrate my idea that this whole thing is exaggerated.
Mr. G. TAYLOR.: From what is my hon. friend quoting?


Duncan Hamilton McAlister: The ' Atlantic Monthly.' Would you like to have it? My hon. friend's question reminds me that there

has always been a lot of suspicion, I have evidence of it myself, among hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not like to see that. It is the worst thing in the world. I do not like to see any individual member or any group of members too suspicious. You know that the fox is the most suspicious animal, and that that rascal is the first fellow to rob a hen-house.
The defence conference saw the importance of the dominions beyond the seas laying the foundations of future dominion navies of their own, which forces would contribute_ immediately and materially to the imperial defence if need should occur. The Canadian ministers then in the old country agreed in that, and the next step was to see what the admiralty would suggest. What did the admiralty suggest?
That certain vessels be constructed as a nucleus of a Canadian navy.
^ To .this the Canadian ministers- then in England agreed, and the proposals now before the House are exactly in accordance with that suggestion. There seems to be some misapprehension in regard to the admiralty's proposals. Conservative members and the Conservative press speak as if the British admiralty suggested a course that had not been carried out by this government. That is not so. I understand that these objections are based on the fact that the British admiralty asked first a direct contribution or the establishment of a fleet unit consisting of a Dreadnought and auxiliaries. A careful perusal of the blue-book shows how closely the present proposal harmonizes with the admiralty's suggestion. The blue-book says:
As regards Canada, it was considered that her double sea-board rendered the provisions of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present.
The reason for this must be obvious. A fleet unit to be any good must remain intact, and how can it remain together if it is to be stationed on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts? To divide it would destroy the object sought and the British admiralty saw the position we were in. Knowing that to create and maintain two units would be beyond the financial position of Canada, they wisely determined to adopt an alternative course:
It was proposed, according to the amount of money that might be available, that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the ' Bristol ' class and destroyers of an improved river class-a part to be stationed on the Atlantic sea-board and a part on the Pacific.
The principle of making a start was here clearly laid down:
Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundations of fleet units of their own.
155J
The scheme now submitted to the House by the Prime Minister is exactly upon these lines. Canada is making a start, and is making that start not only with the approval of but on the direct lines recommended by the admiralty. I think this reaches the objection raised by the opposition to the non-establishment of a fleet unit. As further evidence that the admiralty approved and recognized Canada's action, I refer to page 24, where it is said:
While laying the foundations of future Dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence....A simple contribution of money or material may be to one Dominion the most acceptable form in which to assist in imperial defence. Another while ready to provide local naval forces, and to place them at the disposal of the Crown in the event of war, may wish to lay the foundations upon which a future navy of its own could be raised.
I think this should be sufficient to dispose of the suggestion that Canada's action is contrary to the wishes of the admiralty. At page 24 of the report I find:
The main duty of the forthcoming conference as regards naval defence will be, therefore, to determine the form in which the various Dominion governments can best participate in the burden of imperial defence with due regard to varying political and geographical conditions. Looking to the difficulties involved, it is not to be expected that the discussions with the several Defence Ministers will result in a complete and final scheme of naval defence, but it is hoped that it will be found possible to formulate the broad principles upon which the growth of colonial naval forces should be fostered. While laying the foundations of future Dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence.
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.
Then at page 25 of the conference blue-book, we find:
It has been recognized that in time of war the local naval forces should come under the general direction of the admiralty.
This clearly contemplates that the navy should remain under local control in time of peace.
Great Britain cannot go to war without the consent of the British parliament; Canada cannot go to war without the consent of the Canadian parliament. In both cases they are co-equal. Why not?


Mr. HUGHES.: May I ask the hon. member a question?
Mr. MeALLISTER. Oh, yes.


Samuel Hughes: I won't ask it, if he gives permission in that manner.
Mr. MeALLISTER. Well, yes, Sir.


Samuel Hughes: Can Canada declare war?
Mr. MeALLISTER. She can if the cabinet says so. What more do you want?


Samuel Hughes: She can not.
Mr. MeALLISTER. Very good. That's some more information I have got. As was stated by the Prime Minister, and as cannot be denied, when Britain is at war, Canada is at war. It follows as a sequence that parliament would give the necessary authority to pass the Canadian navy into the control of the imperial power should such a misfortune occur-and I must say that I do not see that there is any need of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I announce myself as supporting the policy of the government because I am convinced that it has the approval of the imperial authorities-that is the principal thing->
and also for the reason that the Bill under discussion is made with due regard to oui constitutional rights and privileges, which it is our first duty as representatives of the people to maintain and protect.
I have listened, as I said, with a great deal of care and attention to the speakers who have preceded me. I am going to read you a synopsis of what I think the most important speeches made during the debate. The hon. member for St. Anne (Mr Doherty) thought that the time for Canada to establish a navy was when she had a voice in imperial foreign affairs. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. McGrath) would make a contribution of ten millions to Britain spread over a few years -whatever that may mean. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) wanted a Canadian navy as outlined by the government increased to the extent of two Dreadnoughts, and this should be done without delay. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) would give two Dreadnoughts at once to Britain and submit the question of establishing a Canadian navy to the people. The hon. member for Huron announced that, in view of the policy of the government, he would support Mr. Borden's amendment, though he might not be in favour of it. The hon|. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the alleged leader of the 'Conservative party in Quebec, advocated no contribution of vessels, money or anything else. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) said he was in favour of one navy, an imperial navy, and Canada should contribute to it Mr. MeALLISTER.
but have no control over it. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton advocated doing a big thing. Entering into an obligation to provide half a dozen Dreadnoughts would, he said, meet with his approval. The hon. member for Huron would give to England, would pay the interest on a sufficient sum to enable that country to spend $50,000,000 in Dreadoughts, then there would be a navy to lend to Canada in case of emergency.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: I am sure the hon. member will allow me to correct him. I never suggested hiring Dreadnoughts of anything of that kind. Perhaps the hon. gentleman misunderstood me, or perhaps he was not in the House when I spoke.
Mr. MeALLISTER. I may have the wrong constituency down. What constituency does the hon. member (Mr. T. Chisholm represent ?	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS: Huron.
Mr. MeALLISTER. There are two or three Hurons. Evidently the hon. gentleman does not represent the right Huron. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) believed that Canada should give two Dreadoughts at once or the equivalent in money. So I could go on and read half a dozen more. But I have read enough, Mr. Speaker, to show you the diversity of opinion on the opposite side of the House. I can assure these hon. gentlemen that there is no diversity of opinion on this side. I would suggest that the hon. gentlemen go into caucus and to sing. that good old song:
Why do we wait, dear brothers?
Why do we wrangle so long?
If we don't get together in one policy, We'll be hungry ever so long.
But we on this side, join with sweet accord, under the wise and ever-seeing eye of the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, in favour of a Canadian navy built in Canada; we are in favour of a Canadian navy, built in Canada by Canadian people; of a Canadian navy, built in Canada by Canadian people with Canadian money; of a Canadian navy, built in Canada by Canadian people with Canadian money, under local control in time of peace and imperial control in time of war.


Mr. JOHN HERRON (Macleod).: The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. McAllister) accused hon. members on this side of favouring a navy for imperialism and protection. I am prepared to admit that hon. members on that side have no desire for protection or they would not put faith in this Canadian tin-pot navy they propose. Rising at this time to address the House on this important question, I feel that I owe the House an apology for taking up

4S90
time at this stage of the debate. I would not do so but for the fact that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) alluded to myself, with some other hon. members on this side of the House, in his first speech after the opening of parliament this year as having gone back on our position of last March as expressed by the resolution passed by this House unanimously at that time in regard to helping the British empire in what seemed at that time to be a crisis in naval supremacy. I did not altogether approve of that resolution when it passed the House, but I was present when it was passed and am prepared to take my share of the responsibility for anything that was wrong in that resolution, even of anything I objected to at that time. The reasons why we let that resolution go through unanimously have been very well explained by previous speakers. This matter has been dealt with very thoroughly by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and several other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. So I w'ill not take up time to discuss that phase of the question. But, having been present, I am prepared, as I have said, to take my share- of responsibility. I would have stood by that resolution, and intended to stand by it, and did stand by it until after our delegates returned from the imperial conference last summer. But at a reception tendered to them on their return to this country the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) gave a synopsis of what had been done in the *old country, and expressed great faith in this idea of political autonomy. In stating what had been done at the conference he said they had agreed upon a Canadian navy. I gathered from reading his address that it was either by extraordinary strategy or else by threats or force that Canada had wrested from Great Britain her political autonomy. This idea of political autonomy seems to me a mania with hon. members on the other side. They talk about it, and how we have practically wrested it from Great Britain by force or otherwise. I have never heard of Britain trying to prevent us from exercising the full powers vested in us under. our constitution, until I heard hon. members on the other side talk as they did. As I have said, I intended to stand by that resolution, and would have done so but for the reasons I have stated. They compare their Naval Bill with the resolution of last March and accuse us of going back on the resolution which we unanimously supported last session. According to that resolution a navy was to be built, but it was to be built immediately, and to act in co-operation with the British navy, whereas the navy proposed by this government is not to be any part or parcel or to
have anything to do with the British navy, so that on that score I do not think that this Bill in any way attempts to carry out the resolution unanimously passed last March. The navy then contemplated was to fly the British flag, but I understand there is quite a question to-day as to what flag we are to fly on our navy when built.
As regards employing our own labour and our own material, while I admit that we have the material in this country to build a navy and the brawn and the brains, while we have mechanics and labouring men just as capable, if properly directed, as any in the old country, our experience in the past has not been such as to give our people any confidence in the capability of our Marine and Fisheries Department to build a navy with any efficiency or economy. The report of the investigation into that department has not been assuring in any degree to the people, and consequently we may well hesitate in trusting that same department with the building of a Canadian navy. There is another assertion which I am prepared to make regarding the administration of that department. The other day I listened to a debate on the estimates between my hon. friend ' from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) -and the Minister of Public Works with reference to a dredge which was built last year, in which the Minister of Public Works denied a statement made by the hon. member for East Grey, although I think the minister only cleared himself by a technicality. For my part, I am going to make this statement on a rumour which I believe to be well founded, and if it should turn out t-o be untrue, I am prepared to apologize to the House .and withdraw. Within me last year or year and a half, the Marine and Fisheries Department built a dredge in the docks at Sorel, which cost in the neighbourhood of $200,000. AfteT it was launched, they started putting in machinery and anchors and chains, and the vessel would have sunk to the bottom of the river, before even a pound of coal was put into it, if she had not been taken hold of with grappling irons. She was returned to the dock, and is there now getting a false bottom put into her. I have that statement on good authority, and I would like to have any minister, speaking for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, state whether it is true or not. Things of that kind and the other things we all know of that department are not reassuring to the people and not calculated to give them confidence in entrusting the building of a Canadian navy to that department. Not only would there in all likelihood be a great waste of money, but the lives of the crews, British subjects and Canadian citizens would not be safe in a navy built by these gentlemen.	_
As regards the cost of construction, that


John Herron: city necessary to such an enterprise, I would say: Go on and build the navy. But, by all means, give the people who are going to pay for this navy a chance to express their opinion with regard to it. No one party or government should determine whether we should enter into this enormous expenditure for the building of a navy, but I think that the people who are going to pay for it should have the right to a voice in the matter and should be given the opportunity of saying whether they are going to have a navy or not. If this navy that we are proposing to build was going to be part of the British navy and was going to meet an emergency, I would be prepared to make any sacrifice and take the responsibility upon myself of voting for it, but at the present time I do not feel like doing so. With reference to the cost, I mentioned what the government figures are in connection with the navy that they propose to build. I _ noticed that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said that what is proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in his amendment is to contribute $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 to Great Britain as the price of two Dreadnoughts I listened with a great deal of interest to the statements of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who went to a great deal of trouble to establish the correct figures, and their estimate was that the price of two Dreadnoughts would be about $1Q,000,000.
I -would be prepared to say that if we could build them for $19,000,000 or $20,000,000, or even $25,000,000, I would be in favour of the proposition, because I would like that whatever we do for the British navy may be well done, and that if we build Dreadnoughts for Britain we will build ships that are able to go into the front of the fighting line. With reference to the question as to whether an emergency exists or not, I would like to read to the House a portion of a letter received by me from one of my constituents last November, just after the House met. If the House will allow me, I would like to read the extract from this letter and to withhold the name of the man who wrote it. If any one on the other side of the House wishes to see the letter, I will be pleased to hand it over to him. The writer of this letter is a German by birth and served as an officer in the German army. He says:
Now, as you know, I came from that nation which has caused that justifiable scare in England, and, therefore, I know something of my old Fatherland, its spirit of patriotism and also its coasts along the North Sea. Should the time ever come when the German people felt strong enough and felt that they had a justifiable cause to attack England at sea, the attack will be so swift and so sudden and the results so decisive, either one way or the other that it would be childish to think of sending for the ' political fleet' of Sir Wilfrid

Laurier. You must be aware that owing to the natural conditions around England, should she lose this first battle, and her ports blockaded, starvation and surrender would be the end of this war, while on the other hand, Germany is far more favourably situated. So in face of these facts it is the merest hypocrisy for any honest Canadian to talk of having a navy of our own for the purpose of helping England. The Monroe doctrine up to now has been the fighting asset to which the Liberal government has pointed with pride to defend our shores. Why now a Canadian navy? Time and again in the past Britain has sent her cruisers to protect single individuals in foreign countries, and we, up to now, have not paid one cent for this protection (more shame to us). We should now make a start to maintain this fleet. If the utterances of our public men, of loyalty and devotion to the flag are not a screen behind which they pick the raite-payer's pockets, then by all means let us send our contribution in cash. Then we will know our money is spent in an honest and efficient manner, which we could never expect under the government proposal.
These are the views of a naturalized German. How much more strongly should a born Briton feel on the subject.
I would commend this opinion to those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have been so emphatic in the declaration that there is no naval scare and no need of Canada doing anything at the present time. I promised that I would only speak for a few moments and I am about done. I would like to see the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition put through, the Navy Bill thrown on the scrap heap for the present, and an appeal made to the people, whom you will find British to the core. ' One King, one flag and one British navy,' is good enough for me.


Mr. JOSEPH TURCOTTE (Quebec County).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to participate at any length in the debate that is now in progress and I intend to be as clear and methodical as possible in the few remarks I have to make. When the time comes, after the speeches have been delivered, to read the resolutions or the motions which are before the House, you will first take up, Sir, the resolution brought down by the government and than the amendments moved by the two factions which sit at the left. This will bring us back to the sitting of February 3rd last, over a month ago. You will then read No. 43 of the Votes and Proceedings, -which contains the following r
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved, That the Bill No. 95, An Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada, be now read the second time.
Mr. Boxxlen moved in amendment thereto, That all the words after the word ' That ' be left out, and the following substituted therefor ' the proposals of the government do
not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty and in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from of the empire in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
' That no such proposals can safely be accepted unless they thoroughly ensure unity of organization and of action without which there can be no effective co-operation in any common scheme of empire defence.
' That the said proposals while necessitating heavy outlay for construction and maintenance will give no immediate or effective add to the empire, and no adequate or satisfactory results to Canada.
r That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditure of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
' That in the meantime the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the empire can best be discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposal of the imperial authorities as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battleships or armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum .at such time and for such purposes of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.'
And a Debate arising thereon;
Mr. Monk moved in amendment to the proposed amendment, That all the words after the word ' That ' be struck out and the following substituted thterefor:	' this House,
while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion that the Bill now submitted for its considerbtilon, changes the relations of Canada with the empire, and ought, in consequence, _ to be submitted to the Canadian people, in order to obtain at one the Nation s opinion by means of a plebiscite.'
And tbe Debate continuing;
As will be seen, there is first the main motion in connection with the second reading of the Bill and then the two amendments. As under the parliamentary rule, the vote has to be first taken on the amendment to the amendments, I am going to consider it first.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says in his amendment that the Bill now under consideration changes the relations of Canada with the empire and that is the reason why he is of the opinion flint the question ought to be submitted to the people.
Sir, there is in that phraseology something incomprehensible. It is stated that this Bill changes the relations of Canada with the empire. What is the empire referred to bv my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and how could you submit in such a shape to the Canadian people a question so imperfectly yporded? Canada is part of the empire and how could the

provision is found in section 37 of the old Act.
Secton 8 provides for the appointment of a naval board. This is a new provision.
Section 9 is similar to clause 28 of the Act of 1886, and provides for the appointment of a permanent naval force.
Section 10 is a reproduction of clause 22. Section 11, concerning the ,rank and authority of officers of the naval force is similar to clauses 48 and 49 of the old Act.
Section 12 relates to the commissions of officers. It is similar to article 42.
Section 13 refers to relief from duty and retirement from the naval force. It is clause_ 15 of the old Act.
Section 14 relates to conditions of discharge from the service at the expiration ol the time of service. Similar provisions are to be found in clauses 79 and 80.
Sections 15 and 16 deal with the uniforms and equipment of officers of the naval service. This section is similar to clauses 51 and 52 of the old Act.
Section 17 is a reproduction of clause 78, *while section 18 is similar to clause 79 of the old Act.
In connection with this section 78, which provides that in case of an emergency, the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty for general service m the Royal Navy, the naval service or any part thereof, it is proper to remark that the new section restricts and lessens the obligations and responsibilities which devolved on Canada under the old Act.
Although under the Militia Act of 1904 the land militia is not to be called out to serve beyond Canada, section 70, which is now the law in force, enacts that the Governor General may place the militia on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency, in case of war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, and the militiamen called out for active service are required to serve at least during a period of one year. Doubtless the present law, in empowering the Governor in Council to place at the disposal of His Majesty the naval forces or any part thereof, improves considerably the nature of our obligations; for, according to the theory developed by my hon. friend from Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance), who has thoroughly mastered this question, the Act of 1886 clearly gives to the King, without the participation of the Canadian ministers, the right of directly, commanding the Governor "General his representative, to place the navy at the disposal of the admiralty, while the proposed Act requires the intervention of the Governor in Council and the ratification of parliament. Such is the essential difference between the old Act and the proposed legislation. Therefore, there is no change in the relations between Canada and the Mr. TURCOTTE.
mother country, or rather I should say that the proposed legislation constitutes a material improvement.
Section 19 is new. It provides that if parliament is not in session, a proclamation shall issue for the meeting of parliament -within the fifteen days following the action taken by the1 Governor in Council, should he, in case of an emergency, place the Canadian fleet at the disposal of the admiralty.
The other night, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not in his seat, I asked the hon. member for l'lslet (Mr. Paquet) what he meant to do, should the people be called upon to express their opinion by a plebiscite, approve of the proposed legislation including section 18. He told me, not without some hesitation, that he would consult his conscience and that if he couhj not make up his mind to vote in favour of this Act, he would bid adieu to public life.
I may here remark that the very same gentlemen who in this House and outside of it, advocate a plebiscite, have already decided, as shown by their statements and their acts, to undertake a campaign in the rural centres in order to inflame public prejudices and induce the electors to vote against this legislation. They are acting very unfairly and they remind me of those misers who, when you ask them to contribute to some good work, plead as an excuse that they have nothing to do with such work and then they refer you to their wives. But before the solicitor has had time to see the wife of the miser, he has already directed her to give nothing. Such is the rather mean position taken by the advocates of a plebiscite. They only aim at embarrassing the government, in order to climb into power.
Sections 20, 21 and 22 of this Bill, concerning the naval reserve, are an exact copy of clauses 12, 116, and 80 of the old Act.
Section 23 is a modification of clause 69.	[DOT]
As to section 24, it is declaratory, in so far as it enacts a principle of common law, namely, that the King is the owner of everything that is appropriated to the use of the navy.
Sections 25, which provides for the notice of all general orders issued to the naval forces in a copy of clauses 119 and 120. Section 26 is textually clause 121.
Section 27 gives the* Governor General the discretionary power to transfer to and from the naval service, any vessel belonging to His Majesty. The old Act contained no similar provision, as there were no fighting ships.
The provision of section 28 is taken from the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1906, chapter 111, which was itself borrowed

from chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of 1886.
Sections 29 and 30 provide for the creation of a naval volunteer force. It is a condensation of sections 12, 26, 27 and 30 of the Act of 1886, with this improvement, that enrolment or drafting by ballot, that scarecrow of Canadian families, is done away with.
Section 31 enacts that the Governor General may make regulations. It is a copy of clauses 116 and 117.
Section 32 which is a condensation of clauses 13 and 14 of the Act of 1886, provides for the engagement and discharge of naval volunteers.
Section 33 contains a provision analagous to the provisions of clauses 56, 60 and 81. This section 60 of the Act of 1886 calls for special consideration. It reads as follows:
Her Majesty may order officers aiid men of the naval militia, or of any detachment of such militia, to drill or train for a period of not more than sixteen days and not less than eight days in each year.
That is proof conclusive that the fathers of confederation, since that clause is found in the Militia Act of 1868, had already in contemplation the organization of a naval department for military purposes.
Section 34 is a reproduction of clause 79 in its first part, and a copy of clauses 80 and 81 for the second part. It refers to active service in the case of an emergency.
Section 35 should be read in conjunction with clause 13 of this Act. By comparing both clauses, one finds that the Governor in Council, under section 13, may at any time relieve from duty any officer or seaman, and that under section 35, the minister is given a similar power. It may be supposed that, under certain circumstances, it w'ould be desirable that the minister should exercise that right, in a case of emergency.
Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 are new enactments. They are printed in italics and show that the government is anxious to reward the brave servants of the state, the maimed soldiers, the old seamen, the invalids who are entitled to the protection of the state which they have faithfully served. I do not suppose that our hon. friends opposite would feel like insisting on a plebiscite before voting such pensions.
Sections 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 provide for the establishment of a naval college, with similar provisions to those governing the military college of Kingston.
Sections 45, 46 and 47 are almost an exact copy of clauses 116, 117 and 126.
Sections 48 enacts that the provisions of the Acts of the United Kingdom shall apply. Its wording is similar to that of section 82 of the Act of 1806.
Section 49 enacts certain penalties for [DOT]desertion. It is the old article 109.
Sections 50, 51 and 52 provide for the execution of warrants and sentences and for the incarceration of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the common jail, in the penitentiary or any other prison or place of confinement, as the case may be.
Finally, section 53, which is the last, repeats chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of 1886. _ .
Such is the analysis which I deemed it my duty to undertake, to show that there is nothing new in this Bill 95 which is but copy, with slight changes, of the Militia Act now in force; whence I infer that the statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that this Act aimed at changing the relations of Canada with the empire is not grounded on facts and exists only in his imagination.
But this Act, we are told, you_ are not going to be content with placing it on the statute-book; you are going to enforce it by creating a navy. True, we are going to create that navy, in spite of the criticisms of the hon. gentlemen opposite. But let us see what is to be the immediate effect of that lgislation. If I look at the estimates for 1910-1911, what do I see as the outcome of this legislation? I find that we are invited to vote a sum of $3,000,000 for the naval service, including the purchase, construction and maintenance and upkeep of dockyards at Esquimault and Halifax and the establishment and maintenance of training schools.
Granting that the proposed legislation which hon. gentlemen wish to submit to the electorate entails this immediate consequence provided for in the estimates a vote of $3,000,000 for the naval service, I confess that I do not understand the objections raised by those who oppose the Bill. 1 should like to know where is the man of common sense who could pretend that this legislation, even with the consequence I have just pointed out is going to modify the relations of Canada with England? I do not think that any man endowed with an average intelligence would find that even the practical enforcement of this Bill could warrant such a statement as the one 1 have just referred to, namely, that our relations with the mother country would undergo a change.
I have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that those three million dollars could be voted and spent for the same purposes, even should we not pass this legislation. All we should have to do would be to invoke the provisions of the Revised Statutes of 1886, chapter 41, which is the law in force. Both Acts produce the same effects; the Act in force and the proposed legislation are identical as to the power conferred.	-
Hon. gentlemen opposite are no doubt going to sa" that they do not oppose the

passing of this Bill, seeing that it is. with a few slight changes, similar to the Militia Act, but that they are opposed to voting these estimates. Well, my answer is: that ' Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.' Wait till the estimates are voted and then you mav urge objections as you see fit, and so each question will be settled in the proper time.
They will urge all the same, that the people is entitled to have a voice in the matter, although we have the power to pass this Bill and these estimates. In my opinion, Sir, we should not at this moment, hold such popular consultation as suggested. It is neither our right nor our duty, as representatives of the people who are here, not as holders of an imperative mandate, but of a general mandate.
I say that we have neither the right nor the duty to try to elude, so to say, our responsibility and our oath of office and to saddle with such responsibility the electors of this country who are not in a position to investigate those questions. If, as representatives of the people, we have not the power to legislate, even wnen we are satisfied that we are acting in the interest of the people, then I say that, in many circumstances, we should have to abdicate our rights and privileges and what is the very essence of constitutional government, and all that, in the sole view of creating an agitation in the popular mind.
In this connection, I may say that other important issues have come under discussion in the past, but the most considerable debate was the one that took place, at the time of confederation. If I trace this question back to its origin, in 1865, I am but quoting a page of history well worth reading and which affords as good food for thought as the one we are now writing. To-day, we have the honour and the privilege of being called upon to solve a question of vital imDortance, which was already foreshadowed at the time of confederation.
_ When they met together in view of bringing about the federation of the province, the fathers of confederation aimed at re-miting those scattered provinces, so as to create a common entity and a great empire, a powerful nation on this American continent; they foresaw that such an agglomeration under one government, would result in developing the wealth and -all the resources of the country, in increasing the nucleous of population and in making the people contented, happy and respected not only in America but in the whole world.
It was on the 3rd February, 1865-and there is here a coincidence of dates, since this debate was opened on the 3rd of February-that the debate on confederation began. Consulting the ' Debates on Confederation ' I find that Sir Ettiene Pascal, Tache, who was then prime minister, pro-


Mr. TCRCOTTE.: tiong do not follow the suggestions of the admiralty, contains an unwarrantable error in point of fact on tihe part of a jurisconsult like the hon. gentleman. And he continues :
The proposals of the government do not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty, and so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire, in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
I have to say right here that this is a false statement of facts, the more so as the proposition made by the government tallies with what I read at page 38 of the report of the proceedings of the imperial conferences.
Let us read the statement made in the sub-report of the conference on lmncary defence: -
The representatives of the self-governing Dominions at the Imperial Defence Conference having signified their general concurrence in the proposition-' That each part of the empire is willing to make its preparations on such lines as will enable it, should it so desire, to take its share in the general defence of the empire.'
It is expressly said, granted and agreed to by all the interested parties, by the representatives of the various sister nations that_ participation in the wars of the empire is to take place only in so far as each party should so desire. Therefore, the participation of each colony and particularly that of Canada, will be determined and defined by the competent authorities, by parliament, prior to such participation.
In view of those facts, how can the leader of the opposition assert that this Bill empowers the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire in time of war.
The third paragraph of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition reads as follows:
That no such proposals can safely be accepted, unless they thoroughly ensure unity of organization and of action, without which there can be no effective co-operation in any common scheme of empire defence.
Well, I think that the resolution of the 29th of March last fully answers that objection when it states that parliament cordially approves of any expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with the imperial navy, whenever the need arises.
Paragraph 4 reads:
That the said proposals, while necessitating heavy outlay for construction and maintenance, will give no immediate or effective aid to the empire and no adequate or satisfactory results to Canada.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: Such is the opinion of the leader of the opposition, but the admiralty is. of a different mind and I think the people of this country will share the latter opinion.
Paragraph 5 reads:
That no permanent policy should be entered upon, involving large future expenditures of this character, until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
The leader of the opposition also favours an appeal to the people, but not on the same grounds as advanced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his small group of* followers. These gentlemen clamour for a plebiscite, in the hope of smothering this Bill and preventing the passing of any legislation concerning the navy. The leader of the opposition is also trying to kill the Bill, but with another object in view, he aims at coming into power, in order to saddle the people with much heavier expenditure. That is what he says in paragraph 6, which reads:	.
That, in the meantime, the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the empire can best be discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposal of the imperial authorities, as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada, such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battleships or armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purpose of naval defence as, in their judgment, may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.
_ That is what we should have, Sir, were the leader of the opposition to change sides -which is altogether impossible-and sit at your right, Mr. Speaker, in order to shape the future policy of the Canadian government concerning the creation of a naval service.
I have now to point out a somewhat extraordinary statement in the first part of his amendment. He says that the proposals of the government do not tally with the suggestions of the admiralty. It would be quite easy to retort the argument and say that his offer of two Dreadnoughts is absolutely at variance with the suggestions of the admiralty. In fact, the following statement is found at page 24 of the report of the imperial conference:

The fleet unit to be aimed at should, therefore, in the opinion of the admiralty, consist at least of the following:-
1 armoured cruiser (new 'Indomitable ' class, which is of the ' Dreadnought ' type.)
3 unarmoured cruisers (' Bristol ' class.)
6 destroyers.
3 submarines.
With the necessary auxiliaries, such as depot and store ships, &c., which are not here specified.
The admiralty wants an armoured cruiser and the leader of the opposition offers two

Dreadnoughts. Why should he try to substitute his opinion to the wisdom and experience of the British admiralty?
The hon. member for Ste. Anne's, Montreal (Mr. Doherty), after having carefully weighed and computed everything, told us that the cost of two Dreadnoughts would not exced $20,000,000. Now, $20,000,000, that's a pretty round sum of money, and before voting such a sum methinks we should first consult the people. That money is not going to come out of the pocket of the leader of the opposition, but out of the people's pocket. It is the ratepayer who would have to pay those $20,000,000, an expenditure by no means extraordinary, in the opinion of the leader of the oposition, but which will prove absolutely useless, as it is expressly stated in his resolution that the admiralty is given full discretion to spend the said sum as they think best, and without consulting us, even without defending our territory. For, supposing that such an emergency should arise in England and in Canada, and that our two Dreadnoughts should be in English waters, do you believe that the admiralty would detach a squadron to come to our rescue.
All this, in my opinion, is altogether irrational and illegal. There is in the position taken by the leader of the opposition and by his assistant leader, a concatenation of contradictions and of absolutely illogical statements which one is astonished to find simultaneously in the speeches of a jurist and those of a professor of constitutional law in one of our great universities.
I think we had better abide by what we have now, namely, the proposition moved by the leader of the government. As circumstances would have it, the Minister of Marine was denied that honour and the leader of the government was called upon [DOT]to introduce this Bill. Now, the Prime Minister has the assistance of the Finance Minister, who, for the last fifteen years, has held that important portfolio which he has always found well filled with money to supply the needs of the country. Do you believe that previously to submitting this Bill to the House, there have not been held many contradictory meetings of the cabinet and that the Prime Minister did not ask the Finance Minister how we were going to meet those responsibilities? We have the guaranty that the new liabilities will be met without a single cent being added to our public debt and without our taxation being increased. The experience of the last fifteen years shows that the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, as well as their colleagues in the cabinet, made no mistake in tlhe past. In my opinion, that is a guaranty for the future, and we who represent here the people, relying upon the experience of those fifteen
years, may loyally and honestly discharge our mandate in the interest of the people and of the greatest good of the country.


Mr. DAVID MARSHALL (East Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, two questions in this discussion are being confused. The question of beginning the foundation of a Canadian navy, and the question of rendering immediate and effective aid to Great Britain are not the same. It is with the latter that we are called upon at this juncture to deal. The government declares its readiness to assist the mother country, but the proposal contained in the Bill outlined by the right hon. the First Minister provides for the creation of a war instrument which cannot be made effective for many years to come, until the present emergency has been met by Great Britain, and its consequence to Canada as part of the empire already determined. This is not a question which should be decided one way or another for party political profit. The. question is a simple one, a question of determining what is our clear duty to the empire and of our readiness to do that duty. We must look first of all to the question: Is there an emergency? That question has been answered. I am within the mark in saying that were it not that a crisis was known to be impending the government of Canada would not have considered itself compelled to take even such meagre action as is contemplated in this Bill. The right hon. Prime Minister has given good evidence that he appreciates the futility of this navy scheme as an instrument of immediate and effective aid. That proof is to be found in a speech made to his own political followers only a short time ago in the city of Toronto, in which to make this project if possible more acceptable, he declared his conviction that no such thing as a German peril existed.
Is there in the great German preparations now being carried on, a menace to the naval supremacy of Great Britain. We are told that within two years Germany as a sea power may have caught up to Great Britain or surpassed her. The London ' Times ' a few days ago declared that if the present way of construction resulted in a German triumph, no blood need be shed, that Germany would simply impose her will upon Great Britain as she has done it upon various European countries within the past decade. German preparations are unquestionably directed against Great Britain. We cannot read the preamble of the German Naval Bill of 1900 without reaching that conclusion. It says:
Germany must possess a battle fleet so strong that a war with her would, even for the greatest naval power, be accompanied with such dangers as would render that power's position doubtful.

The ' greatest naval power ' is Great Britain, the British empire, of which Canada is a part.
Why did the British admiralty's whole plan of defence change a few years ago? Why were the most powerful of her fleets concentrated in home waters? What compelled the withdrawal of the British fleet from the Pacific? It was not because no fleet was needed there. The British admiralty to-day is anxious to see a fleet upon the Pacific flying the British flag. Why then were these ships withdrawn? The an-_ swer is already history. They were placed in waters adjacent to Great Britain to guard the shores jof England from a threatened descent by a hostile European army, a German army. The statement that we cannot have a navy in commission for many years to come even if we start to-morrow, i3 one that cannot be attacked. We have not the yards in which to build the ships, nor the men to build them. Moreover when you have built your ships you have only begun the work. The task of arming them is still before you, and this cannot be done in Canada. The creation of a navy, however small, involves years of building and years of training, and an outlay of which no man can see the end. We are told that the fleet will cost eleven millions. We were told that the Grand Trunk Pacific would cost thirteen millions, and it has already passed the hundred million mark. We may take it then that the creation of a Canadian navy is not intended as an aid to the mother country in a crisis present or immediate. I say then that this navy scheme stands by itself and must be decided without regard to the question of immediate peril to the empire, with which question it Iras nothing to do. There is no hurry then, about it. That being so, I believe that no ' action should now be taken in regard to it, but that it should be submitted to the people of Canada to be decided by them.
What, in view of these things, is the best for Canada to do? The duty of Canada, I take it is to render such aid to the mother country as will meet t.he demands of naval strategy, because upon this the safety of the empire and the supremacy of Great Britain at sea must depend. What that aid should be is set out within the' four corners of a short paragraph in the memorandum of the First Lord of the admiralty, submitted to the naval and military defence conference in August of last year. That paragraph reads:
If the problem of imperial naval defence wore considered merely as a problem of naval strategy, 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 unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal, the maximum of Mr. MARSHALL..
power would be gained if all parts of the empire contributed, according to their needs and resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.
The principle is laid down by a man whose business it is to know. If that is generally a sound principle, it is equally sound as applied to the emergency which undoubtedly exists. It is ' the maximum of power ' upon which the safety of the empire depends, and that ' maximum of power ' would be best obtained, so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, by a cash contribution for immediate use in augmenting the strength of the British navy. This is the new view taken. I believe, by a majority of the people of Canada. It is the view held by a great majority of the people of the constituency which I represent.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I mailed to every voter in East Elgin, a circular letter inclosing a slip covering three questions, asking the electors to indicate their views by answering these questions. Between five and six thousand was the number of these sent out, and I had replies from about 75 per cent. I would like to give the House an idea of the result of this work.
In answer to the first question, which was:
Are you in favour of the establishment of a Canadian navy, to be under the control of the government at Ottawa?
To this question 269, or six and one half per cent, of the replies were in favour of a Canadian navy; 3,836. or ninety-three percent, were strongly opposed to it, and twenty, or one half per cent, were quite different.
The second question was:
Are you in favour, as a Canadian, of taking any part in the naval defence of Canada and the empire?
To this question 430 answered they were not in favour of taking any part in the defence of Canada or the empire, while 3,570 were willing to do their share.
The third question was:
Do you believe that the time has come when Canada, should, in answer to the call of the motherland, and in answer to the threats of the enemies of the British empire, perform her share toward ensuring the continuance of British naval supremacy, by the direct contribution of a Dreadnought or its equivalent in money?
The result of this is that: 430 were not willing to take any part; six and one half per cent or 269 were in favour of a Canadian navy; one per cent or 41 were in favour of a Dreadnought being contributed; one and one half or 61 per cent "were indifferent as to what means were adopted, though they were opposed to a navy being

established; 91 per cent or 3,754 were in favour of a money contribution.
These replies come from a people who are in a position to give voice to sensible ideas, for with the present improved rural mail facilities, they are in receipt of the daily papers and the vast majority of them keep in touch with the doings of the outside world, and know as much of what is going on as do people residing in our large cities, and in that way, they are quite capable of judging and giving opinions on matters of this kind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would consider this a fair criterion of the sentiment of the Canadian people. Judging from the results which I have laid before you, it is my opinion that were the entire electorate of Canada called upon to answer questions similar to the above, the result would be very much the same, and, therefore, I am strongly of the opinion that a national question of such wide importance, involving as it does such large expenditure of money, should, before being undertaken by the government, be submitted to the people and, therefore, I will support the resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher).: Mr. Speaker, I have no hope that I shall be able to add anything new to what has been said in this debate, which is now worn threadbare. I might remark that it appears to me strange that on a subject so well threshed out, some hon. members should see fit to speak for two hours, three hours, and three and a half hours, covering ground which has already been well covered, adding nothing to the'debate but adding something to the expense of the country. In view of what has occurred here, I believe that whenever the question of the amendment of the rules may come before us, I will vote for closure; I will vote for what may be called the gag; I believe I would vote for a chloroform chamber for some of the hon. members of this House. One reason why I speak at all is that it appears to be fashionable, but whether that be so or not, I believe that every hon. member has a right to speak his thoughts briefly on this question. I would not for a moment advocate that hon. members should not be at liberty to express their opinions on every subject that comes before the House, but I believe that something should be done in some way to shorten the debates, even on such momentous a question as that which we are now considering. As a Manitoba man I desire to say a few words on this question also, because when the local government will have time to act on the Bill sent to them by this government about a year ago, and the boundaries of the provincce are extended, Manitoba will become a maritime province; and then it will have more interest 156
in the question of a Canadian navy than it can have, so long as it remains an inland province, for it will be on the line of a new and shorter route to the motherland.
Another reason why I speak on this question is that we have in the province of Manitoba the greatest naval experts to be found on the continent of America, at least in their own opinion. They care nothing for the opinions of the British government, the admiralty, Lord Charles Beresford, or any of the other British naval authorities. A year ago they put forth their policy, which was simply a policy of direct contribution. This is as near as I can see the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite; and I compliment my province on having in the Conservative party men strong enough to practically force their policy on the opposition in this House. At the same time, in putting forward their policy, they have taken every opportunity, in the belief that they were making it stronger, to attack the loyalty of the leader of this government and the loyalty of everybody who sees fit to support a policy different from theirs.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the issue between gentlemen on this side of the House and the bulk of the gentlemen on the other side of the House is one merely of terms. I am willing to give credit to those on the other side who honestly believe that the policy of a contribution would better answer the situation, so far as Great Britain is concerned at the present time, than the policy of a Canadian navy. I am always willing to give to those who honestly believe, even if they are wrong, credit for the opinions that they hold. I am also aware that there is in the ranks of the party opposite a third party, or a. separate party; I refer to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and those who support him; and I wish to say this for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, that, judging by some of the press reports, he, as well as the leader of the government, and the members of his cabinet, and his followers, have been charged with disloyalty. I hold that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is just as much within his rights, and is just as loyal in expressing his opinion, whatever that may be, so long as he believes that he is putting forth a policy in the best interests of Canada, as any other member of this House. Therefore, I for one, will never charge the hon member for Jacques Cartier with disloyalty.
On this question the Canadian people are handicapped through lack of experience.- We have never been called upon to have anything to do -with a navy, in spite of our enormous sea-board, bounded as we are by the ocean on three sides. The only experience Canadians have had with a navy has been in the war of 1812, and



that was so long ago, and was fought so entirely by British ships that from that we gained nothing in the way of experience -only this, that from that time the American people and the Canadian people have been at peace, and I believe that it is the hope of the whole Anglo-Saxon race that they shall for ever remain at peace. There are some who say that we are building a tin-pot navy for the purpose of fighting the United States; but I believe that nobody expects that that will ever iiappen, while the people of both countries hope that we shall never settle by force any differences between the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race.
It is not necessary for me to deal with the origin of the so-called German scare. About a year ago the premier of England made the announcement that Germany was outstripping Great Britain in building battleships. That was before the British elections. I do not charge that-that statement was made for the purpose of influencing the elections. But since that time the British elections have been held, and the same man and his party have been returned to power. The same peril that faced England then is facing her now, but we do not hear anything since the election in regard to the German scare. In fact, one would judge by the reports that the scare has completely disappeared. Allow me to quote in this connection the following despatch:
Berlin, March 6.-Chancellor Von Bethmann-Hollweg made a strikingly pacific speech on international relations, during the course of a debate on the naval estimates in the Reichstag yesterday. Replying to the arguments of Herr Sudekums, the Socialist member, that Germany's great fleet was not called for by commerce or the colonies, and that Great Britain was justified in the belief that it was directed against her, the chancellor spoke shortly, but vigorously, saying:-
Our relations with Great Britain lie clear and open before everybody's eyes. It is not necessary to repeat that our fleet is not for aggressive purposes, but for the protection of our coasts and commerce. The limits of our naval programme are known to every one, with the dates for the completion of our ships. Nothing is secret about the programme and nothing is done in such a way as to arouse suspicion or belief that a threat is intended against anybody.
Finally, it is our wish to cultivate unprejudiced, straightforward and friendly relations with Great Britain. (Cries of hear, hear.) I do not see why the existing friendly relations should be disturbed between Germany and Great Britain, with whom we are so closely connected, both economically and in culture. No nation on earth can divert or suppress free competition of other nations. We must all proceed on the same lines as an honest merchant, and on this foundation I am convinced that the relation of confidence existing between Germany and Great Britain will develop favourably, and that public Mr. MOLLOT.
opinion of both countries will be influenced in the same way.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say there is an emergency. Perhaps they may say it for political reasons, in their desire to force their policy upon this government. We on this side have just as much right to say there is not an emergency. It is now a year since we first heard of it, and we are no nearer to a crisis to-day than we were then. For my part I do not believe that an emergency exists, and if it did, Great Britain would be as well able now as she has been in the past to take can* of herself and defend her sea-board against all comers.
With regard to the question of control, I wish to quote the London ' Times,' a good Conservative paper, and surely hon. gentlemen opposite will not charge it with disloyalty. The London ' Times ' says the Canadian government is taking the proper course in keeping control of the Canadian navy, and adds:
In principle the proposition is indisputable. It applies to all and every form of co-operation of contribution towards imperial defence.
Now, allow me to quote Mr. Balfour, the leader of the Unionist party in the British House of Commons. In speaking last year, before the Imperial Press Conference, he said:
I think it was one of the speakers from Canada yesterday who said in my hearing that there was a certain jealousy existing- I am not sure I have got the exact words- a certain jealous anxiety amongst sections of the population in Canada lest there should be any attempt on the part of this country to accept any organization which would interfere with the complete control by Canada of everything that Canada desires to do. Well, in the earlier days of the colonial empire that fear might have been justifiable. There was a time when the relations between this country and the offshoots of this country were like the relations between parent and child. But let every man who hears me, who comes from any colony, understand that no politician of any party in this country holds that view any longer. (Cheers.) On that let there be neither doubt nor hesitation. Everybody recognizes, so far as I know, that the parental stage is over. We have now reached the stage of formal equality, and nobody desires to disturb it.
What did Mr. Haldane say on the same matter:
If the empire is to become one it will not be by the imposition of any outside will or of any one part of the empire; it will be with the evolution of the will of the empire as a whole under these unwritten constitutions which represent one and the same spirit, which took their origin in the mother country, but which mean absolute freedom for every constituent part of the empire.
Mr. Balfour spoke of the difficulties of the old war-office notion of controlling the forces

of the Crown overseas, of the self-governing dominions. I agree with him that that is an absolutely impossible enterprise, although one quite sees the reason why from the military point of view it was desirable.
This policy was the policy of the opposition as well as of the Liberal party. From the opposition we first heard it argued that Canada should in some way assist the empire, from the resolution passed unan-j imously in this House last year it is evident that the intention was to establish a Canadian navy. It is well for the opposition that this is their policy, for 15 or 20 years from now, when these gentlemen will be entrusted for a time with administration of the affairs of Canada, this policy will have been initiated and developed by this government and yet these gentlemen, having supported that policy in the first place, will be able to carry it out without-prejudice, justly, and in the interests of Canada and to the credit -of their party.
I view this policy from two standpoints, from an imperial standpoint and a Canadian standpoint. It must be a good policy from the imperial point of view because it has the support of all parties in Great Britain. There are grave practical difficulties in the way of giving Dreadnoughts. For instance, we are told to-day that Britain experiences great difficulty in manning the ships she is building, that there is a shortage of experienced A.B.'s. Therefore if we should accept the policy of the opposition, the policy -of money -contribution, and should send that money to England, could she to-day build and man those Dreadnoughts? I rather think not. We know that the British shipyards are now working overtime and no matter how many ships you might order or contribute to the main battle fleet -of Great Britain, they would be of little assistance to the imperial navy if they could not be properly manned. Therefore the manning question itself is of great importance in considering this matter. Each Dreadnought takes from 800 to 1,000 men, who are taken in as youths and trained up. In that way the British seamen have become the most proficient in the world to-day.
Again, the British navy must be at all times strong enough to seek out the enemy in his own harbours or waters and crush him by sheer weight and strength. To do that it is well that the main battle fleet should he as strong as possible, and that is a problem that has never - been solved by the British admiralty. In other words, the main battle fleet has always been short of cruisers that would guard the trade, routes. The immense strain, the financial burden of keeping up the main battle fleet, and the demands of the moment has always caused the fleet to be short of cruisers or river craft to protect the trade routes and 156i
commerce of Great Britain. Therefore by the establishment of a Canadian navy, the interests of Canadians in time of war in place of being protected by ships from the British navy, we will in time have ships to protect our own trade routes and our commerce in our own waters without in the least weakening the main battle fleet of Great Britain. From the Canadian point of view the mere giving of a sum of money, $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 and that borrowed money, would not be relieving the Canadian people of their responsibility to the empire. Would it not be the vain-glorious, the easy, the selfish way of doing our part as Canadians towards the defence of the British empire? Would it not be only a temporary gift, the gift of a Dreadnought, no matter what it cost, because the life of a Dreadnought is only a certain number of years, 12 or 15, and then the Canadian part of the British navy would -disappear. What is to be done then? As far as I have followed, no member of the opposition has answered the question of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Lake). How many Dreadnoughts are you going to give, how often are you going to give them? On the other hand, will any man argue that the giving of two Dreadnoughts, if we are going to take part in the building up and strengthening of the British navy, is all that we should do? I say no. Then, let us give something as soon as we have built it, as we must pay for it, something which we will control, which will become stronger year by year, and will increase in cost year by year, at the same time becoming of greater importance to the British empire.
I say that the policy of the government in building a Canadian fleet is the one that I believe will be most acceptable to the Canadian people, and to the British people, and in the years to come will certainly be more acceptable than- the policy of simply giving one or two Dreadnoughts. As time goes on, as our commerce increases as it will increase, hundreds of fold in the next score or two of years we would be taxing the British navy for its protection, adding to the burdens of the British taxpayer, and doing nothing to protect ourselves. As the country grows and cities of wealth and importance spring up along our coasts, it will be a greater burden to the British people than it is now to protect us, if war takes place either between England and Germany or England and any alliance Germany may form with any other power. Therefore we will have our navy, a Canadian navy on the ground to protect our own coasts, our own commerce, because it is bound to increase, and whether the navy is built now or later, the Canadian people would in time be compelled, as I believe they are now compelled, to do something in that direction. We know what can be done by one

ship. For instance, in the war between the north and the south the ' Alabama ' destroyed untold millions of commerce. The same thing might happen to Canadian commerce, and no doubt would be attempted in the effort to starve out the British people in the British Isles. In that case who would suffer? The Canadian people generally, the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the farmers of eastern Canada. Wheat would be seized, and destroyed, beef, butter, cheese, eggs, hogs, the products of east and west alike, would meet the same fate, so it becomes the duty of all of us to defend our own commerce in our own waters, and England in time of war would have enough to do without convoying Canadian ships. Therefore I say as every man says, although we differ as to the means, that Canadians must do their part-so long as Canada is under the British flag, and I hope it will always be under the British flag, Canadians must do their part, and must do it manfully. That I believe is a patriotic, a sentimental, and at the same time a sensible view of this question.
Any contribution in money is so much money sent_ out of the country that will be expended in England employing labour there. If the money is expended here on a Canadian navy it will mean that in a short time we will be employing ship-wrights, joiners, fitters, platers, plumbers, boiler makers, electrical workers, and other mechanics, and in that way tend to the prosperity of the Canadian people. It will mean the building of docks, and the maintenance of shipbuilding yards. It will mean that the men who build our ships will be Canadians. If the Canadian people are contributing to the British navy, let us be represented by Canadian flesh and blood, and not by money contributions towards our own defence. It means that in time we shall build our own guns and projectiles. This will not be in the beginning -nobody expects that it will. This is a great undertaking, and a national question. It is bound to enlarge, and, as time goes on, the Canadian people expect that this parliament will decide upon a policy that will mean that ultimately Canadians shall build, equip and man the Canadian navy. This will give opportunity to Canadian brains and muscle. It will bring into use our own coal, our own steel, the minerals and metals with which we have been so bountifully supplied, and in that way it will develop the resources of our own country, and tend to the prosperitv of our own people. Let me give briefly seven reasons why this policy of the government should be supported:
1.	Because the imperial aumorities approve it, and they are the best judges,
2.	Because for imperial reasons the pro-Mr. MOLLOY.
tection of trade routes is the most difficult part of the British navy's work, and it can better be done by home squadrons in home waters.
3.	Because as Canadians we should be proud to bear our own bumens and not pay others to bear them.
4.	Because though we may never seek war ourselves we incur dangers all the while we are under the flag, and we want to prepare to defend the flag.
5.	Because it is true that much of the money spent on warlike equipment is wasted in times of peace, but if we have to spend this money we might as well be utilizing Canadian resources, and building up Canadian industries with it.
6.	Because in this work of protecting our own commerce and our own coasts we need only the light, small and speedy craft which are known as third-class cruisers and river craft, and we can in a short time put ourselves in a position both to build these and train our own men to man them.
7.	Because we Britishers beyond the seas should feel ashamed to think that the Britishers at home have to worry about the protection of our thousands of miles of coast line when we can do it ourselves.
I cannot speak of this matter from first knowledge. But I believe that, in spite of the expressions of the more fanatical party organs, no man doubts the loyalty of the Prime Minister or of any member of his government, no man doubts the loyalty of any man on this side, no man doubts the loyalty of any hon. member on that side of this House. Future generations will say that the men of our day and time builded wisely and well when thev decided upon this policy, a policy which I believe will be of great benefit to Great Britain and a policy worthy of Canada.
Now, I desire to say a few words with regard to certain remarks made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) when speaking on this question. As usual, he was unkind and ungenerous. He tried to lead the country and hon. members of this House to understand that every man on this side had to do simply what he was told-in other words, that he was a slave. Mr. Speaker, I would have the hon. member understand this, that there flows in my veins the blood of the Irish Canadian, and I will not submit to the 'composing room,' the thumb-screw or the rack. The hon. member should let charity begin at home. When this question was before the Canadian people, as it has been since last March, it happened that the hon. member was in Winnipeg, where was moulded the policy which I believe hon. gentlemen opposite have accepted, because it is one and the same. There was held what might be called a political powwow. The hon. member (Mr. Foster) was

to be the chief speaker. Did he utter one word in defence or advocacy of ihe policy v'hich he himself advocated on the floor of this House last March? Not one word did he say, though everybody expected it from him. Why did he not speak in the way expected? As we understand the situation, those of us living in Manitoba, explain it in this way: The premier of Manitoba and the gentleman who is now acting premier of that province, saw fit to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) that, in the city of Winnipeg at least, no matter what his leader might say and no matter what he himself might say in other parts of the country, they would not submit to his putting forth the policy accepted by this House a year ago this month. Instead of the 'composing room,' instead of the thumb-screw and the rack, it seems to me the hon. gentleman was introduced to the garrotte, and that he got the Spanish twist, so that he dared not say a word because these men were in absolute control. They believed and he believed, and I believe, that they were strong_ enough and powerful enough to make him accept, so far as they were concerned at least, the policy that they had promulgated, and that their' organ, the Winnipeg 'Telegram,' has advocated since its introduction a year ago.
I should be remiss, as representing the greatest number of French electors in any constituency west of the great lakes if I did not say a word with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I would have that hon. gentleman understand that, from what i have seen and what I know, the French Canadians do not have to go to him or his seed, breed or generation, for lessons in loyalty. The French Canadians are a loyal people. It is but a short time ago, in the province of Manitoba, when the Tory party was catering to the French electorate in that country, that orator after orator-they had some then and they have some yet-declared that we should, not forget that, in the war of 1812, four hundred French Canadians saved to the British empire this Canada, the brightest jewel in the British Crown. So, I resent the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac, and I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Ste. ..Anne (Mr. Doherty) practically repudiate everything he said. If the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) thinks, or any other gentleman thinks, such remarks as he made are in the interests of the Canadian people, they are welcome to their opinion so far as I am concerned. The French Canadians are loyal; they are loyal to their families, they are loyal to their country, they are loyal to their church, they are loyal to the sovereign and they are loyal to their God; they are a brave, proud and brilliant people, and do not need to make apologies to anybody or to any section of the country.


Haughton Lennox: On behalf of the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare), I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.	[DOT]
Richard Blain: Shall we continue the Navy Bill debate to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned, at 12.40 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 8, 1910.