1910-02-10

CUSTOMS AND FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 138) to amend the Customs, and Fisheries Protection Act. He said: This Bill proposes! to amend the Act so as to prescribe the method of proceeding where steps are taken to condemn a ship which has been seized and where such proceedings are taken, not in the Exchequer Court but in the Superior Court of a province. There is provision in the law as it stands that such proceedings may be taken either in the Exchequer Court or in the Superior Court of a province, but in some of the provinces no rules are irre-scribed for the taking of such proceedings in the provincial court and practical difficulty has resulted in endeavouring to get on. The proposal is to remove that difficulty by providing that, unless and until rules of procedure are prescribed by the provincial courts, the rules of procedure existing in the Exchequer Court shall be followed.


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


Mr. LAKE:: 1.	What was the aggregate revenue received in money and scrip by Dominion Land Offices in each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, from the 1st July, 1905, to the 31st December, 1909?
2.	Were any amounts additional to the foregoing collected at Winnipeg or Ottawa during the above period oil account of the public lands and other natural resources comprised within the area of the said land offices? If so, what was the aggregate additional amount for each province?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	Province of Alberta, $1,531,275.67; province of Saskatchewan, $1,939,271.02.
2.	Collected at Ottawa: province of Alberta, $2,181,672.92; province of Saskat-che wan, $470,983.60. Total:	province of Alberta, $3,712,948.59. Total:	province of
Saskatchewan, $2,410,254.62.



COMPENSATION TO ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN FOE PUBLIC LANDS.

Mr. LAKE:: What is the aggregate amount of the compensation paid to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively for public lands under section 20 of the Alberta and. Saskatchewan Acts from the 1st July, 1905, to the 31st December, 1909, distinguishing between that paid under subsections 1 and 2 of the said section 20?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: Amount paid to the province of Alberta under subsection
1	of section 20 of chanter 3
of the Acts of 1905. 'The Alberta Act'	$ 1,687,500 00
Amount paid to the province of Alberta under subsection
2	of said section	 421,875 00

Amount paid to the province of Saskatchewan under subsection 1 of section 20 of chapter 42 of the Acts of 1905, 'The Saskatchewan Act' $1,687,500 00 Amount paid to the province of Saskatchewan under 'subsection 2 of said section ..	421,875 00
.	$ 2,109,375 00
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-O'BRIEN, FOWLER & Mc-DOUGALL CONTRACT.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Referring to the O'Brien, Fowler & Mc-Dougall contract on the National Transcontinental railway, mile 1,531 -01 to 1,558 -17 from Moncton-
At the date of the latest estimate, what quantities of solid rock, loose rock and common excavation, respectively, had been taken out?	*
2.	What was the rate of payment, and what was the amount paid for each of the classes of material taken out down to date of this estimate?
3.	What was the date of this estimate and by whom was it made?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM:: 1. Solid rock	 344,377
Loose rock	 331,802
Common excavation	 129,057
As the classification has been found to be different from that originally estimated, it is impossible to give the quantity of each Mr. LAKE.
class of material yet to be taken out without having a special estimate for the purpose made in the field.
2.
Amount paid.
Solid rock, per cu. yd. . $1 45 $499,346 93
Loose rock, per cu. yd..	0	55	182,491	10Common excavation. . . .	0	25	32,264	25
Amounts actually paid are 10 per cent less than above, viz:
Solid rock	$449,412	24Loose rock	
164,241	99Common excavation	
29,037	833.	The date of this progress estimate is December 31, 1909, and it is in two pares, that for the easterly thirteen miles, being made by Howard Brunlees, assistant engineer, and approved by F. J. McIntosh, assistant district engineer, and S. R. Poulin, district engineer; the remaining westerly part made by J. A. Rogers, resident engineer, and approved bv H. J. McKenzie, division engineer, and S. R. Poulin, district engineer.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ALLEGED USE OF STOLEN PASSES.

Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Has the government any knowledge of stolen passes said to have been used on the Intercolonial railway within the past three years? If so, was any investigation held, hv whom, and what was the finding?
2.	What measures have been taken to prevent a similar occurrence?


Mr. GRAHAM.: On this question, perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has asked for some documents in connection with the matter. There are practically no documents so far as I can ascertain, but I am having a statement made that will cover both this question and the motion of my hon. friend from North Toronto.


Mr. FOSTER.: No correspondence?


George Perry Graham: No.



BOAT FOR HALIFAX HARBOUR QUARANTINE SERVICE.

Mr. CROSBY:: Does the contract for the construction of a boat for the quarantine service, Halifax harbour, cover the cost of bringing the boat out from England and delivering her in Halifax? If not, what will be the cost of bringing this vessel across from the place of construction to Halifax?


William Stevens Fielding: Y'es.



LIGHTHOUSE AT SPENCER'S ISLAND, NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. RHODES:: 1.	What was the total cost of the lighthouse at Spencer's island, Nova Scotia, and was it built by contract or day labour?

2.	If by contract who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	If by day labour, what amounts were paid for labour, teams and materials, respectively, and who were the persons receiving pay for same? '
}. Does the government own the site? If so, how much land was bought and from whom ?
5. If owned by the government, is it under lease, what quantity of land is leased, from whom, and on what terms?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1. Total cost $654.65; built by day labour.
2.	Answered bv No. 1.
3.	Labour, $227.62.
B. McLellan	$ 62 00
M. Morris	
43	75G. Porter	
43	75,7. Dunbar	
23	62S. McKeen	
41	00G. Morris	
4	50R. Lambert	
4	50G. Murphy	
4	50

Teams, nothing charged.
Material, $398.03.
C. R. Hoben, lamp	$ 9 50
Longard Bros., rail	
55	63Magnus & Lourdes, ventilator	
19	50Holland & Kuhn, shades..	3	30Haley Bros., lumber - - - -	85	69McAvity & Sons, hardware	130	85Walsh Bros., glass	
26	00B. McLellan, lumber [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	58	78

4.	The light house was placed on the beach and no site was purchased or leased.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



POST OFFICE AT DIXON.

Air. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Was the post office at Dixon, Out., removed about one year ago? If so, what were the reasons for its removal?
2.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition requesting that it be left where it was formerly located? If so, how many signatures were on the petition, and what distance is it from the old site to the new one?
3.	How many years was the post office in operation on the old site?
4.	Was the old site convenient to a factory and school and the centre of a division?
5.	Is the government in possession of affidavits to the effect that the petition asking for the removal of the post office was a false petition ?
6.	Will the Postmaster General, in view of the petition of April 20. 1908, and the affidavits of March 29. 1909, restore to the people their right of a post office centrally located?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1. Yes. The post office became vacant by the resignation of the postmaster. In
making a new appointment it became necessary to make a change in the location, of the office.
2.	Petitions for and against the change were received. A petition in favour of another location has some fifty-three signatures, but it was considered that this location was in too close proximity to the Northfield Station post office and would deprive the residents west of the present location of postal facilities. The distance of the present site from the former site is one-third of a mile.
3.	The former postmaster had been in charge of the office from June, 1885, to August, 1907.
4.	The department lias no specific information on these points.
5.	An affidavit to this effect was received from one person, a Air. Simon Bartle. The change in location of the office had been carried out some time before.
6.	The department decided, after careful consideration, that the public generally would be best served by having the office at its present location and that a large1 portion of the community to the west would be seriously inconvenienced if it were retained in its former location. It is not considered advisable, therefore, to make any further change in the site of the office.



BRIDGE OVER AIUD LAKE.

Air. GEO. TAYLOR:: I- AVas a survey or estimate made by any officer of the Public Works Department during the last year as to the cost of a bridge or crossing over Alud lake, in the township of Tay, county of Simcoe?
2.	If such survey work was done, what was the cost of same, and what was the name of the official or officials who performed the work ?
3.	If an estimate was made of the probable cost of such work, what was the figure or cost estimated?
4.	Is it intended to proceed with the work? If so, when?


Hon. WAI. PUGSLEY.: There was no sufvey or estimate made bj^ any officer of the Public AVorks Department during the last year as to the cost of a bridge or crossing over Mud lake, county of Simcoe.



GOLD SPECIE IN HANDS OF GOVERNMENT.

Air. LENNOX:: 1.	Is there any statutory provision in the Audit Act or elsewhere to empower or direct the Auditor General, or any other person or persons, outside of the Receiver General's office or staff, to ascertain, at stated intervals and report to the House the actual amount of gold specie at such dates found to be in the hands or under the actual control of the Minister of Finance, or in the hands or control of the several assistant receivers general.
2.	Does the government propose during the present session,' by amendment of the Audit Act or otherwise, to make provision for hav-

im; the actual amount of the gold or other specie reserve ascertained at regular stated intervals by counting, weighing or otherwise, by the Auditor General and his staff, or other independent capable officials?


William Stevens Fielding: The long established practice of the government in this matter has been that the specie in the hands of the assistant receivers general is counted and checked by the inspectors from the Finance Department. The Auditor General is not specifically required to take part in this work. It is, however, a service that he may properly be required to perform under the provisions of subsection (j) of section 63 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. The Minister of Finance lias informed the Auditor General that he desires him to participate in the examination and counting and that every facility will be afforded him and his officers for this purpose.



RAILWAY TO ELEVATOR AT PORT COLBORNE.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What: amount of money was expended in the construction of the railway to connect the Grand Trunk railway with the elevator at Port Colborne?
2.	What was the object of constructing this railway ?
3.	When was it finished and what traffic has gone over it?
4.	In what condition is this road at present, and is it to be repaired? If so, what is the estimated cost of repairs?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$34,000 was expended in constructing a siding to connect the Grand Trunk railway with the elevator at Port Colborne.
2.	The object was to provide railway facilities to the government elevator at Port Colborne and all railways are allowed to connect with it.
*3. It was. finished in November. 1909, and the traffic over, it to date amounts to 323,022 bushels of grain.
4.	The road is in good condition at present, but requires about 200 cubic yards more ballast. The estimated cost of repairs will be about $400.



THE PARIS FLOODS.

William Stevens Fielding: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to communicate to the House a telegram which I have received from Sir Francis Bertie, the British Ambassador at Paris, with reference to the appropriation of $50,000 made by parliament to assist the sufferers from the French floods. The money was conveyed to His Excellency, Sir Francis Bertie, through our financial agents, and I have now received the following communication from him:


Mr. LENNOX.: Paris, February 10, 1910. Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Your telegram of February 7, money handed to French Minister for Foreign Affairs; also requests that deep gratitude of government of Republic, who are much touched at this generous mark of sympathy, may he conveyed to Canadian parliament.
(Sd.) BERTIE.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 137) respecting the Erie, London and Tilsonburg Railway Company.- Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 136) respecting the St, Clair and Erie Ship Canal.-Mr. McColl.

Mr. BLAIN.: I desire to ask when we may expect a return to an order of the House of December 6, to which I made some reference in the House a few days ago; a return in respect of the officers of the government having residences in the House of Commons.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: The information has to be procured from several different sources. I made inquiry the day before yesterday1 regarding it, and I hone that by to-morrow, or next day. or on Monday next, the information will be furnished.



THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: In resuming the debate upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill to provide for a Canadian navy, I shall find it necessary to review, to some extent, a debate which took place in this House somewhat less than a year ago. In doing so I can hardly bring myself to believe that the opposition of to-day is composed of practically the same gentlemen who were in this House -and took part, some of them at any rate, in that debate in March, 1909. The hon. leader of the opposition and his deputy, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), waxed eloquent in that important discussion; in fact the hon. member for North Toronto introduced a resolution, which was afterwards changed into the resolution which finally and unanimously passed this House. I did not observe that any one of the opposition dissented, not even my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk); he acquiesced, at any rate by his silence, in the terms of that resolution. It cannot be said

that the resolution was passed hastily. My hon. friend from North Toronto told us on that -occasion that he wrote out his resolution before he left Toronto, at any rate, that he placed it in the hands of the clerk on the very day this House met. My hon. friend did not move the resolution for some time afterwards, but I do not question in any way his motives, I am simply pointing out the fact that there was no hurry, no undue haste, that my hon. friend took all the time that he required before bringing the important matter to the attention of the House. Without detaining the House I shall proceed to read that resolution. It is as follows:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted thereto:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House i9 of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
T may call attention to the fact that in this resolution there occurs the word 'speedy,' 'the speedy organizations of a Canadian naval service,' and that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was the man who suggested that- some word of that kind should be introduced into the resolution. He has taken great credit, properly enough, for having done so in the speeches he has made in various portions of the Dominion and in the heart of the empire itself, in the city of London. Sir, can any one believe for a moment that the hon. gentlemen who lead the Conservative party to-day are the same gentlemen who moved, who acquiesced in, who took an active part in and boasted of the active part they had taken in the passing of that- resolution,
and who supported it in every sense for many months after the resolution was passed? But some change has come over the spirit of their dreams. It is difficult to understand what could have happened. We know that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) took his vacation in the summer in England. There is an old saying that when the -cat is away the mice will play, and so it would appear that, the mice possibly played during the visit of my hon. friend to England in the summer, and they seemed to have played to some purpose, because I shall now read, and I wish to contrast with the one I have just read, the resolution which the leader of the -opposition moved here on February 3. It is as follows:
That all the words after the word ' that ' be left out and the following substituted therefor
The proposals of the government do uof 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 those 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 aid to the empire and no adequate or satisfactory results to Canada.
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.
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 au 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 su-m 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.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. the leader of the opposition^ is apparently delighted at the reading of his resolution, much more so than he was at the reading of the resolution in the framing of which he was so proud to claim a part, and which was passed here in March, 1909. I propose to read shortly some of the arguments which were presented in 1909 in favour of the resolution then unanimously carried. I shall begin by reading an extract or two from the speech of the hon. the leader of the


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: He goes back on his policy and he proposes to tax the people of this country some $25,000,000 to send Dreadnoughts he knows not where, and to place them utterly beyond and outside of the control of the taxpayers of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one more quotation from the hon. leader of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it all.


Frederick William Borden: It is not often that one has the extreme pleasure of I Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
being able to read quotations which are alike popular on both sides of the House and agreeable to all. My hon. friends opposite affect to enjoy these utterances of their leader, and I am sure my hon. friends on this side will be delighted to hear them, although we are sorry that the hon. gentleman has changed his mind. Let us hope that he may return some day to the sound opinions which he held in 1909. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) continued to say:
In so far as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister' to-day outlined the naval defence of this country I am entirely at one with him. I am entirely of opinion, in the first place, that the proper line upon which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own. I entirely believe in that.
And yet he no longer believes in it, because he now proposes to take $25,000,000 out of the pockets of the people and send it away where the people of Canada will have no control over it. Then, the bon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) said:
The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the mother country and it has not worked satisfactorily in every respect. In Great Britain the contribution has perhaps been regarded as rather unsatisfactory. In Australia it, in the end, failed to meet with the approval of the people for the reason that Great Britain felt constrained to ask Australia that the field of operations of the squadron should be extended to the China and Indian seas, and if the operations of that squadron were so extended the Australians felt that the contribution which they had been making for some years past was not really being used to give that protection to Australia which they felt it should have. So that, the policy of Australia at the present time is the policy of the submarine and torpedo boats which, in case of war, would cooperate with the armed cruisers and battleships of the British navy. It was pointed out in discussing this question that although the people of Australia provided a force of that kind they would provide a force which it would be very difficult if not impossible for Great Britain to send across the seas, and that when they were protecting themselves they were providing the best possible force for the protection of the empire.
Nine or ten months ago the hon. gentleman sympathized with Australia, which had found that to tax her people large sums of money for contribution or tribute for ships which would not be near the shores of Australia, but might be in the China seas, was no longer popular or proper. My hon. friend agreed with that view then; but to-day he wishes to tax the people of Canada $25,000,000 and to send it away out of sight of Canada where Canadians could have no possible interest in it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) further said:

I am at one with the Prime Minister as far as that is concerned. Iam one with him in this respect also that I think that an expenditure of money designed for that purpose, as far as possible, ought, in the main at least, to be under the control of our own parliament and that by making an appropriation of that kind and attending to the defence of our own coasts, by co-operation and co-ordination with the imperial forces, we would be rendering a real service in the defence of the empire and we would be doing only our duty not only to Canada alone but to the empire as a whole.
It will be seen, therefore, that the hon. gentleman expressed himself as being in entire accord with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister, and so it will be instructive to see what were the sentiments of the Prime Minister with which the hon. the leader of the opposition was in absolute agreement as he said over and over again in his speech. Here is what the right hon. the Prime Minister said:
The empire of Britain has been founded less on war than on discovery and colonization, and wherever founded in any part of the world, whether by war or colonization or discovery, it has been maintained only by the free will and consent of the peoples who now acknowledge British supremacy. To-day the British empire is composed of a galaxy of young nations proud of their allegiance to the British Crown and proud also of their own independence. And though they may have a common aim, each has reserved to itself the duty and the right to develop its own resources and to attain its aim according to its own views, and by its own methods which may be best suited to the peculiar circumstances of each.
Mow, it may be said that defence which is the duty of all nations is a matter as to which there should be a common aspiration. Yes, I agree in that, but at the same time the young daughter nations of England have insisted that even in the matter of defence they should preserve in its entirety local autonomy, and that each should approach this subject according to its own lights. Let us not disguise the fact from ourselves that at present there is a passing wave in which we can trace anger, enthusiasm and fear, and which may be calculated by some to force us to depart from our policy and to contribute at once to the British navy. Well, Sir, let us view this question as it is, let us not blink at it, let us realize that it is not the way in which in the past we have understood our duty.
And the hon. the leader of the opposition acquiesced in every word of the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister on. this line of his argument. The right hon. the Prime Minister continued:
This question is not new; we are familiar with it, it is not of to-day or of yesterday. I will not say it is as old as the hills, hut it is as old as confederation itself and it comes to the front periodically. It presented itself in a concrete form in the imperial conference of 1902 to those who were there assembled from all parts of the British empire conferring with the government of the mother country.
The proposition was placed before us that all the self-governing dominions of the British empire should contribute to the army and to the navy. The Canadian ministers who were present attending that conference did not view that project with any favour. They received it with respect but they declined to accept it and they presented their views in another form and they stated what they were prepared to do so far as Canada is concerned. Their views on that occasion were stated in a paper which has often been quoted in this House, but which I think it is opportune that I should quote to-day.
A paper 1 will not quote from, as it is very familiar-the	memorandum which
was placed in the hands of the conference of 1902 by the Canadian ministers. These are the sentiments, Mr. Speaker, which the leader of the opposition approved of in March, 1909. If they meant anything, they meant that the only self-respecting means by which Canada could in any way add to the responsibilities of defence which she was already bearing, was by the organization of a Canadian navy, but on lines which would enable it, if the people of Canada so desired, to co-operate with the great imperial navy.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend mean to affirm that, from what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said as to his agreement with the Prime Minister, that binds the leader of the opposition to an agreement with the memorandum placed before the imperial conference of 1902?


Frederick William Borden: The right hon. the leader of the government stated that that memorandum had been before the people of Canada from 1902 down to that moment, and that no one on either side of the House had ever dissented from its terms.


Mr. MONK.: The resolution of March Last undertook to carry out the plan of defence as defined by the imperi?' conference of 1907. That is what it said in very words.


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid my hon. friend has not grasped the point which the hon. member for North Torontq was trying to make. The hon. member for North Toronto, as I understood him, asked me if I thought it was right to make the leader of the opposition responsible for that memorandum because it had been read by the Prime Minister, and because the leader of the opposition had approved of the Prime Minister's words in that regard; and I told my hon. friend from North Toronto, and I repeat it now, that that memorandum of 1902 has been before the people of this country for seven years, and has never been dissented from by any member of the opposition, nor by anybody in this country, so far as I know.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not think it unfair if I

called his attention to another part of my speech to which he has made no allusion.
While I venture to think that a system of torpedo boats and submarines such as has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia would be perhaps the most effective way in which we could assist Great Britain in a stated policy of naval defence, yet I agree that the Canadian government ought to have the advice of the British admiralty and lend itself to such co-operation and coordination as will be best for the whole empire.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think the interruption was at all pertinent. The hon. gentleman was discussing the question of autonomy, and I did him the justice to read every word he said about it; and the beginning and end of his observations was that he approved of every word the right hon. leader of the government had said:
But, Mr. Speaker, there were other notable speeches made. The hon. member for North Toronto, during the vacation, after his leader had gone away, showed that he was still firm in the faith in a speech which he made at Halifax on the 25tli of August, 1909. In that speech-and I quote from the Halifax ' Herald,' which he will not dispute-he said:
This is the greatest step forward we have ever made iu Canada. We must be prepared to defend ourselves-
Not the British empire, but ourselves; it was Canada he was thinking about then. He forgot about it since.
-Canada lias a mighty future before her as a maritime power.
He was thinking about the future of Canada then, and he uttered some fine words and some splendid periods in regard to it. But to-day he and his party have become so dwarfed by this narrow policy which they have adopted that he sees nothing but blue ruin, Germany and hostile fleets, and nothing will avert that but the people of Canada putting their hands deep down in their pockets and taking out $25,000,000 and sending it away never to be seen again.


George Taylor: Nothing small about that.


Frederick William Borden: The crisis had not arrived then; there was no emergency; everything was going on placidly and smoothly, and he could think of other things besides the danger of the German navy. Another remark of the hon. gentleman :
One effect of Canada's making a navy will be to give an impetus to steel shipbuilding in this country of ours, which will make immense employment and cause immense development in this country. One navy for the whole empire, though you may have several Mr. R, L. BORDEN.
fleets, one flag, one history iu the past, one grand mission.
The hon. leader of the opposition, at the Canada club banquet in London on Dominion day, said:
The establishment of a Canadian navy, upon which both parties were united, would serve a more practicable purpose than any such offer of Dreadnoughts.
And after he had returned and had heard of the capers which the mice had been performing in his absence, but still firm in the faith, he went to Halifax, where his deputy had been, and made a speech in October. He said:
There is not and never has been for the past forty years any constitutional or other objection to the establishment of a navy by Canada whenever its people think they should adopt that course. Nationhood involves certain responsibilities from which we cannot escape. One of these is the duty of defending our borders and of taking effective steps to protect our commerce and our trade routes.
That is forgotten. Nothing now but the policy of spending $25,000,000 for Dreadnoughts or ships to be sent to the other end of the world. Canadian commerce and trade routes and harbours are forgotten; under the overwhelming dread of the impending crisis. He said:
In this connection may we not hope that there should be given a stimulus and encouragement-
This is from the leader of the opposition. He was in his own constituency then:
-to the shipbuilding industry in Canada which has long been lacking. To-day should be Nova Scotia's opportunity in that regard.
That is what he said at Halifax. What did he say at Toronto? On November 1 or thereabouts, he said in that city:
Our actions should be inspired and characterized by neither hysteria nor indifference-


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Is it now being characterized by hysteria?
-but by a solemn and abiding sense of national responsibilities.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Efforts no doubt were made of a very serious character to heal up the differences within the ranks of our friends opposite. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) stuck to his guns nobly all through the months of October. November and even December. But on the 12th of January, while I do not think he had thoroughly decided to make the new departure, he -was evidently considering it. The pistol had been held to his head, and

in his speech of the 12th January, 1910, it was quite evident that he was considering what course he should pursue. Well, there was an attempt made to provide a compromise. A blanket resolution was offered, the one which I have read and of which my hon. friends opposite are so proud, but which was a complete backdown from everything they had said and done.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


An hon. MEMBER.: Take it back.


Frederick William Borden: I am afraid I cannot however much I might like to. But there was one hon. gentleman who could not be kept within the fold. No blanket that could be prepared by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), particularly my hon. friend from East Grey-no blanket resolution was big enough to include in it the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). So we had to have another resolution, regarding which I shall not trouble the House at any length, but content myself with pointing out that after the speech my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) made in this House in which he quarrelled with British diplomacy and everything British, in which he gave no credit to British institutions or the mother of parliament for any liberties we enjoy. After speaking for two hours in that vein my hon. friend thought he would square himself by moving a resolution, which began in the following words:
The House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown-
After my hon. friend had denounced everything British, he thought he could square himself perhaps with the friends of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)


Mr. SPROULE.: Do you object?


Frederick William Borden: I do not, nor does my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), but I find that introduction most inconsistent with the speech I listened to. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not find it necessary to begin his resolution in that way, but the hon. member for Jacques Cartier did. It is quite evident that while this trouble was going on they thought that perhaps some of the artful dodger's methods, some of the peculiar methods of statesmanship which used to characterize the Conservative party in the good old days, might be brought to bear on this occasion, and one element of the country in the province of Quebec be harnessed up by my hon. friend 105
from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), while the friends of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would be kept straight and right by the course that hon. gentleman was pursuing.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) saw fit-but in this I do not think he was very serious- to cast some reflection upon the loyalty of the leader of the government by reading some extracts from speeches made by my right hon. friend many years ago, in which there were references to independence and freer trade with the United States. Well, the day has gone by in this country when the methods which were potential in former years in the Conservative party, when they could bring two extremely discordant elements together by playing on the prejudices of both-I say that the day has gone by when such methods could be of any avail, and the reason is the well known devotion, loyalty and unswerving patriotism of my right hon. friend the leader of the government. Sneers may be cast at our right hon. leader but they will be entirely innocuous. I say that when the name of every other man who sits in this House to-day is forgotten, the name of Wilfrid Laurier will stand upon the annals, not only of Canada but of the empire, as that of a man who gave his life service for the best interests of his country, and through whose efforts a reconciliation and a better understanding of the duties of, at any rate, his friends, has been made, and to-day it would be impossible to stir up strife such as was frequently stirred up in the past.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: May I ask a question? Will the hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden), while he is on the subject, say whether or not he is in accord with the sentiments concerning independence expressed by the Prime Minister in 1892?


Frederick William Borden: I am generally in accord with the views of my honoured leader, and I have absolute confidence in his leadership. Now, Mr. Speaker, viewing the condition of our friends opposite, the domestic infelicity in their political home-I do not wish to go into the internal economy of their establishment, but evidently there is trouble there-when I read the resolution of last session in which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from North Toronto took such a conspicuous part, and contrasted it with the one which they have now placed before the House for its consideration-I could not but think -how applicable to the situation of these hon. gentlemen were a couple of verses in Lowell's works that I happened to read the other day: These verses are found in ' The Pious Editor's Creed ':



I du believe in bein' this Or that, ez it may happen One way or t'other hendiest is To ketch the people nappin';
It ain't by prineerples nor men My prendunt course is steadied,
I scent which pays the best, an' then Go into it bald-headed.
In short, I firmly du believe In humbug generally,
For it's a thing thet I perceive To hev a solid vally;
This heth my faithful shepherd ben,
In pasture sweet heth led me,
An' this'll keep the people green To feed ez they hev fed me.
The resolution of the leader of the opposition, I presume, may fairly be considered to embody the policy of the opposition of to-day. The first paragraph of that resolution reads as follows:
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 those of the empire in time of war, are ill-advised and dangerous.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) says that we have not followed the proposals of the admiralty, and he spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to enforce that proposition. I have not been able to discover in his remarks, which I have carefully read, anything in the shape of argument. A good deal was said about Australia, and we were told, and the country was given to understand-for, I suppose the speech was made largely for the country- that, while Australia and New Zealand had done everything that daughter-nations of the mother country ought to do and had followed obediently the direction of the admiralty, we Canadians had failed to do so. Well, now, take the case of Australia. One of the great difficulties which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition sees in our policy-or claims to see, for I do not understand how he can see it-is that we do not automatically place the control of our navy under the British admiralty. Is that the objection?


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman desires to know what the point I made was, I can tell him in a few words. I say that the resolution of March, 1909, declared expressly and explicitly that any naval service to be established should be in accordance with the suggestions made by the admiralty in 1907, and I read-as the hon. gentleman will find at page 3061 of ' Hansard '

the words of Lord Tweedmouth, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in which he expressly declared that command must be reserved to the admiralty of all such forces.


Frederick William Borden: And nobody objects to that. When any Canadian fleet or any Australian fleet is serving with Sir FREDERICK BOBDEN.
the British navy, of course it will be under the command of the senior officer of the British navy. That is one thing. But it is quite another thing to say that, the Canadian fleet shall automatically serve whenever war is declared. The Canadian Bill reserves the right to the Governor in Council


George Eulas Foster: Who would have command in that case?


Frederick William Borden: In that
case, I suppose, the command would remain as it was.


Frederick William Borden: It is for that reason that I say it does noi follow the suggestions of the admiralty.


Frederick William Borden: The admiralty lias never suggested that the fleet of one of the Dominions shall pass automatically under the control of the admiralty. It remained for the super-loyal opposition in Canada to make the suggestion, for nobody else ever thought of such a thing. Let me prove that. But, first, my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) says that he read from Lord Tweedmouth. I know he did, and it was not very much in point. If there was any point to it at all, we were directed to follow the lines laid down in the conference of 1907, which were that we should build the smallest class of cruisers, and not even as large ships as we are building now, no large cruiser or battleship was ever thought of. But Lord Tweedmouth said other things which my hon. friend did not read. I did not intend to read this, but I have it here. He said:
Gentlemen, what I have to say is that the admiralty and His Majesty's government are perfectly ready to meet these contributors to admiralty funds in a liberal and conciliatory manner.
Speaking of Australia and New Zealand :
We do not wish to insist that the contributions from the colonies should necessarily be in the form of money only. We ate quite ready to enter into any arrangement with the colonies that may seem most suitable to them, and which may seem to bring advantage to the navy and advantage to the colonies themselves.
He was thinking of the colonies, something which the new tangled policy of the opposition does not think of:
I have here a short statement of what may be called the general principle on which the admiralty desires to meet the representatives of the self-governing dominions of the King beyond the seas.
Then he goes on:
In the opinion of the government, while the distribution of the fleet must be determined by strategical requirements of which the admiralty are the judge, it would be of great

assistance if the colonial governments would undertake to provide for local service in the imperial squadrons the smaller vessels that are useful for defence against possible raids, or for co-operation with a squadron, and also to . equip and maintain docks and lifting establishments which can be used by His Majesty's ships. ... I understand, that in Australia particularly, and in South Africa, it is desired to start some naval service of your own. Perhaps I might suggest that if the provision of the smaller craft which are necessarily incident to the work of a great fleet of modern battleships could be made locally, it would be a very great help to the general work of the navy.
What navy? The British navy. That provision should be made locally, and in time of stress and emergency in the quarter in which those ships are, they could be of immense assistance to the British navy.
You cannot take the small craft such as torpedo boats and submarines across the ocean, and for war ships to arrive in South Africa, or in Australia, or in New Zealand, or in Canada, and find ready to their hand well trained men in good vessels of this kind, would be an enormous advantage to them.
Are we not following the directions of the admiralty as proposed in 1907? It seems to me we are.
There is, I think, the further advantage in these small flotillas, that they will be an admirable means of coast defence

We- have coasts on both oceans which require defence. The British fleet has been withdrawn from Halifax and Esquimau and we propose to take its place with small vessels which the British admiralty kept at those two places, by a navy of our own, and in that way to relieve the mother country of further responsibility for our own local defence.
-that you will be able by the use of them to avoid practically all danger from any sudden raid which might be made by a cruising squadron.
Is that not of some use? A word now about Australia. I do not care to make comparisons, but comparisons unfavourable to Canada have been made over and over again in this debate, comparisons and inferences which are entirely unfounded. Now I asked the other day from the Department of Marine and Fisheries some information as to what was understood in Australia with reference to bringing their ships automatically or otherwise under the control of the admiralty, and I find the following facts. In the proceedings of the imperial conference and the Imperial Parliamentary Sessional Papers, 19th August, 1909, paragraph 3 says, after stating that the commonwealth government have exclusive control in time of peace, and while on the Australian station:
105i
Further, when placed by the Commonwealth government at the disposal of the admiralty in war time, the vessels should be under the control of the naval commander-in-chief

Mark the words:

when placed by the Commonwealth government.
Nothing automatical about that. I find in the Australia Defence Act, read first in September, 1908, cited as; the Defence Act, 1906:
In time of war, the Governor General may

The very words used in our own Act.
-subject to the provisions of this Act, place the defence force or any part thereof under the orders of the commander of any portion of the King's regular forces, or the King's regular naval forces, as the case may be.
But note in the interpretation clause of this Act what war means:
Any invasion or apprehended invasion, or attack or apprehended attack on the Commonwealth or any territory under the control of the Commonwealth, by any enemy or armed force.
That is the law of Australia, and if my hon. friend -had looked up the law he would have saved himself a great deal of trouble.


Mr. COWAN.: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether the Act he has read just now provides in any way for a navy, whether it is not merely an Act for a naval militia?


Frederick William Borden: No, it is the Defence Act of Australia, which includes both the military and the navy.


George Henry Cowan: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. I asked if that Act from which he has quoted provides in any way for a navy. I know it provides for a naval militia, I know it provides for a military militia, and I know too, that it does not provide for a navy.


Frederick William Borden: I have no doubt about it. Of course I do not want to speak too positively, but this is the information which I have, and which was prepared for me by the naval experts of the Marine and Fisheries office. Now what about an emergency?
In time of war or emergency, or upon a declaration by the senior naval officer representing the British government, that a condition of emergency exists, all the vessels of the naval force of the Commonwealth shall be placed by the Commonwealth government under the orders of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.
Paragraph 9, says:
It is, however, to be understood-

This is not the law, this is only a memorandum.
-It is, however, to be understood that if any of the coast defence vessels be desired in seas remote from Australia, the approval of the Commonwealth government shall first be obtained to their removal.
But I was not satisfied with all this and so having learned that Admiral Kingsmill had a code with the authorities in Australia, I asked the admiral to send this message:
February 5, 1910.
Captain in charge,
Sydney, Australia.
l'lease inform me by telegraph as soon as possible whether, in the event of war, vessels of Australian navy pass automatically without any action under control of admimalty.
(Sgd.) KINGSMILL.
The answer came on February 8 as follows:
Kingsmill, Ottawa.
With reference to your telegram, transfer control to the admiralty is not to be automatic but subject to approval of Commonwealth government on declaration of war.
Perhaps that may possibly satisfy my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that this first paragraph of his resolution was quite unnecessary, and that the deductions suggested by it are absolutely unfounded.
What evidence is there that there was any difference of opinion between the gentlemen who were sent to the conference to represent Canada and the admiralty, or any representative of the admiralty participating in that conference. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, Canada boasts of independence, of autonomy of nationhood. Surely when she solemnly sends a deputation to the mother country on the invitation of the mother country to take part in a conference, she is not to go there with her ears and mouth closed. They wanted consultation and they had the opportunity of consultation; we wanted advice, they wanted to know what the conditions were, their statesmen, admirals, men anxious to do the thing which would be the best for Canada, and the best for the empire. But taking the lowest point of view and looking carefully at every word in this blue-book, there is not a single word there to indicate that there was any difference of opinion whatever between the members of the British government or the representatives of the admiralty, and the Hon. Mr. Brodeur and myself. What did Mr. Asquith, the premier of England, say in the statement which he read to the House of Commons? On August 26 he said:
The conference, which has just concluded its labours, was convened under the terms of resolution 1 of the conference of 1907. In Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
the invitation sent by His Majesty's government at the end of April to the governments of the dominions, it was stated that the object of the conference would be to discuss the general question of naval and military defence of the empire, with special reference to recent proposals from New Zealand and Australia, and to the resolution passed on the 29th March, by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada. It was further stated that the conference would be of a purely consultative character and that it would be held in private. It follows that all resolutions come to and proposals approved by the conference which has now been held, must be taken, so far as the delegates of the dominions are concerned, to be ad referendum, and of no binding force unless and until submitted to their various parliaments.


George Eulas Foster: It speaks there of certain resolutions come to, and proposals accepted and to be referred to parliament. Were not certain resolutions accepted, and if so why have they not been brought down to parliament?


Frederick William Borden: No, there was no resolution at all. It was found at the second meeting of the conference in reference to naval matters that an agreement was impossible as to a line of policy in which all of the dominions could agree. New Zealand, as will appear from the papers, declared her unwillingness to agree to a policy of building up a navy of her own. She was determined to adhere to the plan of an annual contribution. So soon as that fact was ascertained, it was agreed that each one of the dominions should meet with the First Lord of the Admiralty and his_ advisers, to arrange each by itself the policy it would follow, and that is what was done, and every resolution and every decision that was reached is recorded in thi3 Canadian blue-book.
To resume the reading of Mr. Asquith's official statement:
I should add in special reference to the delegates from South Africa that they did not feel themselves in a position, in regard to either naval or military defence, to submit or to approve positive proposals until the union of South Africa was an accomplished fact.
With this preface I will briefly summarize the main conclusions of the conference in regard, first to military, and next to naval defence.
I.shall read the conclusions as to military defence, because I think they throw a distinct light upon the general policy of defence, which has been adopted by the mother country and by the colonies.
Military defence. After the main conference at the foreign office, a military conference took place at the war office, and resulted in an agreement on the fundamental principles set out in papers which had been prepared by the general staff for consideration by the delegates.
The substance of these papers (which will

be included among the papers to be published) was a recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of the government of each Dominion over the military forces raised with it,

In a real emergency, not in a fancied one.
-in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous imperial army.
Naval Defence.
Naval defence was discussed at meetings of the conference held at the Foreign Office on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th August. The admiralty memorandum which had been circulated to the Dominion representatives formed the basis of the preliminary conference.
The alternative methods which might be adopted by the Dominion governments, in cooperating in imperial naval defence were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundation of fleets of their own.
To lay the foundation of fleets of their own, mark that:
It was recognized that in building up a fleet a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size, in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service. The personnel should be trained and disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal Navy,

And that is the intention with reference to the Canadian fleet, as the Bill itself will show:
-in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and the Dominion services; and with the same object, the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform.
A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in far eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a Pacific fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies, Australia and China seas, each comprising, with some variations, a large armoured cruiser of the new ' Indomitable ' type, three second-class cruisers of the ' Bristol ' type, six destroyers of the ' River ' class, and three submarine of ' C ' class.
The generous offer, first of New Zealand and then of the Commonwealth government, to contribute to imperial naval defence by the gift each of a battleship was accepted with the substitution of cruisers of tne new ' Indomitable * type for battleships-these two ships to be maintained, one on the China and one on the Australian station.
Now, in the debate on the resolution which was passed here in Mnrch, 1909, there was not a suggestion from any of these gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, there was.


Frederick William Borden: No, Sir; it was not suggested that we should at that moment do anything more than we did, and there is nothing in the resolution except to take the power, at any time in the future, to give if we saw fit. But there was not a word spoken to indicate that it was in the mind of any of my hon. friends opposite that it was our duty at that time to give one dollar towards a Dreadnought for the British navy.
Separate meetings took place at the admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective governments.
We had no power to settle anything. We followed, so far as we could, what we thought were the instructions contained in the resolution unanimously passed by this House. That is what we did. We stated frankly to the conference that we had no power whatever to go beyond the policy iaid down there.
As regards Australia, the suggested arrangement is that with some temporary assistance from imperial funds the Commonwealth government should provide and maintain the Australian unit of the Pacific fleet.
The contribution of the New Zealand gov-


Robert Laird Borden: There is no provision to that effect.


Frederick William Borden: It is left to the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Left entirely open?


Frederick William Borden: But the navy is to be organized on the lines of the 'British service, and common -sense, if there were no other motive, would naturally cause the government to provide the same number of years. The British navy has had the experience of hundreds of years, and it contains the best organized fleet of any navy in the world to-day


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: And no government of any British dominion would be so foolish as to organize its fleet upon any other lines. With regard to the third resolution, we are told that there is heavy outlay and no results:

Such proposals, while necessitating heavy outlay for protection and maintenance, would give no immediate or effective aid to the empire and no adequate or satisfactory results to Canada.
And in order to get results to Canada, my hon. friend proposes that we should vote $25,000,000 of money and hand that money over to the British admiralty. Well, it does not seem to me that such a policy would bring about results of any great consequence to Canada. Canada can afford to do it if she likes, but what the hon. gentlemen wanted, as I have proved by quotations from their speeches ten short months ago, was speedy action towards the organization of a navy. But it takes something besides ships to make a navy. The most important is the personnel, and we have none of that to-day in Canada. Men and officers are required to make a navy. The machine, as compared with the man, is a small matter, and can always be got. But educated seamen are the work of years. My hon. friend has reminded us of that and he proposes to get over the difficulty by putting off the day and marking time. In fact, the policy of the Conservative party seems to be: Two ' Dreadnoughts ' and mark time.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in March last objected very strongly to any contribution. This is what he said:
The first and greatest objection which I have to a fixed money contribution is that it bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do; as though a man, the father of a family, in lusty health and strength, should pay his neighbour something per month for looking after the welfare and safety of his home instead of doing that duty himself. That seems to me, when you work it out, to be a basic objection to this form of aid. It goes still further than that. Suppose you contribute this year your sum, and next year your equal sum, and thereafter year after year. After ten or twelve, or twenty, or thirty years, you will have paid out an immense amount of money. You will have been protected m the meantime; but in Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the soil, or beginning of the growth of the product of defence. Yet some time or other, no one can doubt that with resources and with a population constantly increasing, we must and will have in this country a naval force of our own for our coast and home defence.
And yet, to-day, ten months later, the hon. gentleman wishes to put it off indefinitely and to get rid of all this responsibility by giving $25,000,000 to hire somebody else to do that which he admitted ten months ago was the first duty of this country.
And, going on, he says:
The second policy to which I would refer is the assuming by ourselves of the defence of our own ports and coasts, in constant and free


Frederick William Borden: co-operation with the imperial forces of the mother country. Let us see what are the objections to and what may be urged in support of that second policy. It has its advocates and its opponents. In the first place we begin with no plant, no expert skill, no trained cadets, no trained sailors. In those respects, Canada is a blank sheet. Whatever may be necessary has to be collected and assembled and developed with such expedition and in such abundance as circumstances will allow. Under that system our first vessels would be .British built, British equipped, British manned, British officered from stoker to captain. There is no other way in which we could proceed.
I hope we have found a better way
We are absolutely bare of the skill, the experience, the training and the machinery necessary to put one single war vessel on a proper footing; but-and it is but the begin-ning^of a circle-the first Canadian owned vessel, built and equipped in Britain, and sent out to defend our coasts would become the nucleus and the training ground of Canadian stokers, Canadian sailors, and Canadian officers, and by and by perhaps, of a Canadian admiral on the Canadian coast. How much time would be taken in completing that circle none oi us can say, but if we begin the tracing oi it and follow it fairly and faithfully, the ume must come when we get a complete circle and have an imperial adjunct to the British navy for the defence of Canada and the de-lence of the empire, in which Canada has some of her body, her bones, her blood, and her mental power.
Those were splendid words; that was a splendid policy. My hon. friend had taken days and weeks to think that out and it does him credit. But what shall be said of him now that, within ten months, he absolutely turns his back upon that splendidly-outlined policy?
I will not detain the House much longer, but I would like to say a word as to what is proposed. Very much which my hon. friend disclosed as his vision of what should be the Canadian navy will be undertaken. The first thing is to secure the personnel. It will be the duty of the department which presides over this work to at once secure ships sufficiently large for the purposes of training ships. Arrangements have been made, I understand, which will shortly result in one ship being brought to some point on the Atlantic coast and another on the Pacific coast, and then the training of the men and the officers on the lines laid down by the British admiralty will shortly be begun. I have here some notes which have been prepared by Admiral Kingsmill, from which I might read a few words, describing the uses and the character of the different vessels. I might begin by saying that the unit or parts of units which were agreed to by Canada are composed of, four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers-eleven vessels in all.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Does the hon. gentleman call that a fleet unit?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Allister Currie: He might as well call a section of infantry a company.


Frederick William Borden: I know the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) is a great authority on naval matters. I would point out that the Bristol is a cruiser of the very latest pattern, a vessel of somewhere about 5,000 tons and now being constructed for the first time-that is, the new pattern for the British navy; in fact, so new is it that the full description is not yet at hand. The Canadian Bristols will be built precisely on the lines laid down by the admiralty. The Boadicea is another vessel of latest type, which will be the parent ship of the destroyers which are also of the latest type, river type.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the river type as the latest type of destroyers?


Frederick William Borden: I understand that it is.


John Allister Currie: If the minister (Sir Frederick Borden) will merely look at the annual and other publications, he will see that the river type is spoken of as the type of 1906. There is a more recent type.


Frederick William Borden: Of course, I bow to my hon. friend's (Mr. J. A. Currie) superior knowledge. I am giving the best information I have. The uses of these ships have been mentioned incidentally in the observations I have made-mainly the protection of harbours and coasts and of lines of commerce also. But, in the early stages, before the ships are completed, there will be, as I have said, two training ships, and it is proposed to substitute for the Boadicea, a ship of somewhat older type a ship of larger tonnage and which will accommodate more men, probably all the men that can be secured at first for the purpose of training, the object being that the two ships, one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic, shall be ready, at the time the other ships are completed, with a portion of the personnel, of men at any rate, necessary to man those ships. [DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These two ships that are going to be acquired, in the first instance, to be placed on each ocean, are training ships, simply, are they not? They are not to be ships of the Boadicea type, but merely training ships.


Frederick William Borden: No, the ship which is to be placed on the Pacific is not one of the eleven, it is a ship called the ' Rainbow.'
Mr, J. A. CURRIE. Is that a battleship?


Frederick William Borden: No, I think not; she is a small cruiser.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a fighting ship at all?


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes; but she will be used in connection with others for the purpose of training.


Mr. BOYCE.: Has the ' Rainbow ' yet been purchased by the government?


Frederick William Borden: Negotiations are now proceeding with reference to it. The ship which will be used on the Atlantic is known as the ' Niobe,' of the 'Spartian ' type, a ship of some 11,000 tons, which is offered at a low price, and which, if purchased, can be substituted to advantage for the ' Boadicea,' because, as pointed out by Admiral Kingsmill, she will be extremely useful as a training ship.


George Taylor: Have these steamers been ordered to the scrap heap by the British government?


Frederick William Borden: Well, it is difficult to see the particular cleverness of that observation; I dare say my hon. friend is proud of it. We are trying to discuss a serious subject seriously.


George Eulas Foster: We are also interested in getting some information about these things.


Frederick William Borden: Well, if hon. gentlemen will wait and not interrupt, possibly they will get some; though I admit at this stage it may be difficult to give such definite information as one would like. But I am doing the best I can. This project of a navy is not an old one, and whatever is done should be proceeded with carefully. As I say, we will have on the Atlantic and on the Pacific two ships within a very short time, to be used at first for the purposes of training ships. I was about to say that a considerable proportion of the men who will be required for the * Bristols,' and the destroyers, wben they are ready some years hence, will be in training.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How long will that be?


Frederick William Borden: The Prime Minister said that if the ships were built in Canada it would probably take one year for the contractors to get ready; and in four years thereafter, all the ships would be completed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will they be manned, and so forth, in four years?


Mr. EDWARDS.: How many of these vessels do you propose to put on the Pacific coast?


Frederick William Borden: There will be two ' Bristols ' on the Pacific coast, two of the eleven ships, and t-wo ' Bristols ' on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. BARNARD.: These two ships that are to be stationed on the Pacific, are they to he used when a strike occurs, as mentioned by the Prime Minister the other day?


Frederick William Borden: Well, really, if the hon. gentleman thinks that is quite consonant with his dignity as a member of parliament, I must say I do not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the tonnage of the 'Rainbow'?


Frederick William Borden: 3,600 tons. Now I will read a few extracts from what Admiral Kingsmill has said:
Taking into consideration the matter of training, the importance of commencing at once, also the fact that building the vessels in Canada would necessitate a training ship for some time, I laid before Mr. Brodeur a memorandum as to the advisability of obtaining, if possible, a larger ship.
I have already stated that the 'Niobe' was suggested, and negotiations are now proceeding with reference to the purchase of that ship. That ship has been recommended strongly by the admiralty.


George Eulas Foster: What is the age of the vessel?


Frederick William Borden: Ten years.


George Eulas Foster: What is her gun power?


Frederick William Borden: About 16 guns.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of guns?


Frederick William Borden: 16 6-inch guns. She is a ship of 11,500 tons. Her speed is about 20 knots.


George Eulas Foster: What is she to cost?


Frederick William Borden: $1,075,000. Now as to the Bristol cruisers:
They would fill an important duty in warding off attacks against commerce or against the coasts of Canada of any enemy's raiding cruisers, and would also act as commerce destroyers. Their first duty is to seek out and destroy the enemy's destroyers. It is most imperative for a battle fleet cruising to know, when night comes on, that the ground they have to go over has been cleared of the enemy's destroyers. ... In the event of a British fleet coming over, these cruisers would have gleaned information of the movements of an enemy's fleet, and so act as an advanced screen after which they could join up with the British fleet.


Mr. HUGHES.: How many knots an hour can these ships make?


William Cameron Edwards: 


Frederick William Borden: The Bristol 25 knots and the destroyers 27 knots.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not given the gun power of the Bristol.


Frederick William Borden: These vessels are of the newest type and the details of their gun power are not published; it is not considered desirable to publish them. I think it will be evident from what I have said that the ships which have been selected for us by the British admiralty are ships of the latest type, and that the arrangement which has been made with reference to the fleet unit adopted for Canada is of a kind which takes cognizance of the geographical position of this country, and the fact that we have two large oceans separated by a distance of some 4,000 miles, the idea being, and it is the only ideal that would be considered by the people of Canada, that we should begin at one and; the same time the development of our navy on the Pacific and on the Atlantic. I may say that it did not appeal to Mr. Brodeur and myself as being desirable or at all in accordance with the views or wdth the ambitions of the people of the whole of Canada that we should place one unit upon one of the oceans; we held it was much better to begin more gradually, to begin to develop the personnel, which as I have said, is the very foundation of a navy, and to do it upon both of the great coasts of Canada, and later on it will be open to whatever government is in power in Canada to take such course as it may see fit as to the future development of the Canadian navy.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How would the minister provide for an* emergency in the meantime?


Frederick William Borden: We are
quite satisfied with the provision which is now made for an emergency.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I ask mv hon. friend how long this naval service would take to equip and make effective?


Frederick William Borden: I quoted what the Prime Minister said.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has the minister any proposal to make in regard to providing for an emergency in the meantime?


Frederick William Borden: Our friends of the opposition are doing that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I have to ask my hon. friend if the proposals of the opposition are satisfactory to him?


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware that the members of this side of the House have treated any of the opposition

speakers, particularly leading members of the opposition, in this way. I can stand any amount of heckling or nonsense, but I did not come here for that purpose to-day, and I think perhaps I might be allowed to get through with my statement and allow somebody else to follow.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I must beg the hon. minister's pardon; I had no desire whatever to embarrass him in his speech. I asked him a question and had it not been for his answer nothing further would have been said.


Frederick William Borden: I think the question he put as to an emergency is not a proper question to interject.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I can understand that if the minister did not want to answer it.


Frederick William Borden: Now with regard to the cost, I have two statements here which I shall not read in detail, but I think it is perhaps desirable that a few words should be given on this point. 1 have here a paper prepared by Admiral Kingsmill from which it appears that the cost, exclusive of construction, would be for the first four years as follows: For the first year, $1,250,000; for the second year. $1,247,000; for the third year, $1,704,000; for the fourth year, $2,250,000. Admiral Kingsmill said this estimate is only approximate and that it will probably be found rather an over-estimate than an under-estimate. It does not allow for any of the ships proposed in the government programme being completed in the four years. Should any of them be completed and commissioned within this period, account would have to be taken of their upkeep.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand these sums do not include anything for the upkeep of the proposed new vessels.


Frederick William Borden: No. I have also a statement of the estimated annual cost of maintenance, when the ships are completed, commissioned and fitted out. This estimate, including $100,000 for contingencies, is $3,680,000.


George Eulas Foster: Does that take into account interest and depreciation?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has referred to the memorandum of Admiral Kingsmill. Would it be convenient, if it is too long to read, for my hon. friend to hand it in to ' Hansard ' so that we could get the entire memorandum?


Frederick William Borden: I will see whether that can be done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As my hon. friend has quoted from it I suppose it is right to have it put on 'Hansard'.


Frederick William Borden: What happened was that Admiral Kingsmill gave me data and I took them down, so it wa3 perhaps scarcely correct to say it was Admiral Kingsmill's memorandum but I think I can hand it in; I shall endeavour to do so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to be a memorandum connected with this matter, and as it is probably lengthy we can claim that it should be laid on the table of the House. I think it would be a convenient way for the minister to hand it in to 'Hansard', otherwise I would insist on my right to see the memorandum itself.


Frederick William Borden: There is no objection to the hon. gentleman seeing it. It is chiefly notes which I have made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend lay it
on the table?


Frederick William Borden: Well, I will see.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1 think that document is necessary for our information, my hon. friend has referred to it.


Frederick William Borden: There is no objection, but I would not like to hand it in immediately until I have looked it over.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend must really excuse me. This is a question of order and I would like my hon. friend to let me know before he has 'finished his remarks if he intends to give us communication of that memorandum.


Frederick William Borden: The memorandum which I hold in my hand from which I gave a few extracts is a memorandum prepared bv the Admiral and which I intend to place on the pages of 'Hansard'. I have given the annual expenditure for the first four years, the estimated cost of maintenance after the ships are in hand and completed.


George Eulas Foster: I would call _ the hon. gentleman's attention-because it is important-to the estimated cost given by the Prime Minister on authority, when he moved the second reading of the Bill. He makes the annual cost, after the construction is done, and the work going on, at four

and a quarter million dollars. There is a large disparity between the two.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: These figures which I gave were in the blue-book; I gave no other figures than those in the blue-book.


George Eulas Foster: It is impossible that the up-keep should be in the blue-book, because there is no blue-book data for that kind of a unit.


Frederick William Borden: I thought the House would desire more details than
had been given, and with the best intention and in the best spirit I got what information I could. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) can understand how difficult it is to get down to very exact figures in a matter of this kind.


George Eulas Foster: I know.


Frederick William Borden: I am doing the best I can to give the estimate, and 1 am placing this memorandum on ' Hansard ' so that hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity of examining it.



APPROXIMATE EXPENDITURE ON NAVAL SERVICE DURINU THE FIRST FOUR YEARS.

[Stage Direction]
-	First Year.	Second Year.	Third Year.	Fourth Year.	Total.'Niobe' and 'Rainbow' - Cost of nucleus crew and training personnel Victualling and medicines	
Clothing gratuity	
Upkeep of 'Niobe' .. 	
m 'Rainbow'	
Recruits- (a) Pay, victualling and medicines	
Clothing	
Recruiting expenses	$ 207.000 60,000 15.000 110.000 110,000 51.000 30.000 2,000	$ 272.000 60,000 15.000 145.000 110.000 200,000 43.000 2,000	$ 277.000 00,000 15.000 150.000 115.000 370.000 56.000 2,000	$ 282,000 60,000 15.000 150.000 115.000 550.000 70.000 2,000	$ 1.098.000 240.000 60,000 585.000 450.000 1.171.000 199.000 8,000 100.000 275.000 185.000 1.130.000 285.000 150.000 300.000 549,0C0Upkeep of naval college	35,000	80,000 50.000 270,000 70.000	80,000 60,000 300,000 75,000	80,000 75,0CC 350,00c 80,00< 100,000 200,000 155,000	(b) it dockyards	
Headquarter staff	
.. Reserve stores	210,000 00,000 50,000 100,000 120,000	Ordnance stores	Contingencies	
Total	130,000	144,000	1,250,000	1,447,000	1,704,000	2,284,000	6,685,000
This estimate is only approximate, but it will probably be found that it is rather an over-estimate than an under-estimate.
It does not allow for any of the ships proposed in government programme being completed within this four years: should any of them be completed and commissioned within this period account would have to be taken ol their upkeep, &c.
(a)	Annual increase due to the increased numbers entered annually.
(b)	As the ships near completion the dockyards must expand. '
Other increases due to expansion of the service.	'
George Eulas Foster: 



ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF MAINTENANCE.

[Stage Direction]
No. of Ships.	No. of Officers and Men.	Pay, Allowances, Victualling, &c.	Upkeep.	Total.Halifax- 2 4 Bristols '	
j *1 ' Boadicea '	j 6 Destroyers	
j ^Dockyard	40 officers	\ 742 men	/ 17 officers	| 261 men	J 30 officers	\ 546 men	J	$ 413.000 226.000 335.000 100.000	s 265.000 150.000 428.000 100.000 75.000 	
80,000 265.000 115.000 70.000	S 708.000 376.000 763.000 200.000 75.000 200,000 80.000 708.000 230.000 160.000 80,000 100,000200,000	
Esquimalt- 2 4 Bristols'	j 1 * * Rainbow '	J +Dockyard		40 officers	1 742 men 	J 16 officers	| 163 men 	J	443.000 115.000 90.000 80.000		
				
				
		2,032,000	1,548,000	3,680,000
				
* Although the name ' Boadicea ' is inserted, the cost of maintenance of ' Niobe ' is actually shown, which is higher than upkeep of 'Boadicea.' This is done on the presumption that 'Niobe' .will replace the 4 Boadicea ' as parent ship for destroyers, tBased on admiralty estimate.

[Stage Direction]
Ship.
Brief description of Character and Armament of Ship.
Cost of construction based on British-build -
Bristol.
* 4 Boadicea '_
Destroyer	
ii
Protected cruiser, 4,800 tons, length 430 .... Beam 47, draught 16, horse-power 22,000. ..
Speed 25 knots, turbines	
Armament not yet decided	
Unarmoured cruiser, 3,300 tons, length 385.. Beam 41, draught 13'6, horse-power 18,000 . Speed 25, armament 6 4-in., 3 tor]>edo tubes.
Improved River Class, 935 tons, length 280...
Beam 26, draught 9, horse power 15,500.
Speed 27 knots, armament 2'4-in	
2 torpedo tubes	
}
ii
ing prices.
1.885.000
1.885.000
1.885.000
1.885.000
1.750.000
400.000
400.000
400.000
400.000
400.000
400.000
11 ships costing	$ 11,690,000
*Less difference in ' Niobe '	4	 675,000
,	$ 11,015,000
Building for naval college		150,000
Furnishing same and workshops	 50,000
Two houses, captain of college and director of studies.... 15,000
Barracks, including drill shed	   200,000
Battery for heavy and light guns	 20,000
Arming same	 110,000
Alterations of Admiralty House for officers of barracks..	70,000
Dockyards	 100,000
Total construction works	$	715,000
Total cost of construction of ships and buildings	$ 11,730,000
[Stage Direction]
Now, with regard to the cost of construction. The cost of construction is at British prices. Of course the prices I have been giving for victualling and up-keep and all that are at Canadian rates, but the estimate of construction is at British rates, and that should be understood. I am not in a position to say how much more the ships will cost if built in Canada, but they certainly will cost more. I think, from a Canadian standpoint-as had been pointed out by so many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House-it would be very desirable, if possible, that they should be constructed in Canada, if the excess of price involved is not too great. That can only be ascertained by asking for tenders, which of course will be done. It appears that the ships would cost $11,015,000, substituting the ' Niobe ' for the ' Boadicea,' which appears in this memorandum as costing $1,750,000. The ' Niobe ' is to be a training ship, and is to be procured very shortly, and she will cost $1,075,000. The difference of $675,000 between the cost of the ' Boadicea5 and ' Niobe ' will reduce the estimate, which is $11,690,000 to $11,015,000. Then there are estimates for the construction of a naval college, furnishing the same, workshops, two houses, barracks, &c.-I need not read the items, amounting to $715,000.
George Eulas Foster: Canadian figures?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. The $715,000 would be Canadian figures. It is for the construction of buildings to spread over several years. The total cost of construction, therefore, would be of ships and buildings, $11,730,000, about $11,000,000 of which is estimated at British prices.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say a single word as to the annual cost. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) referred to the inauguration of what he called the era of militarism, and he thought that this expenditure would be sure to run up from year to year as our military expenditure had, and he believed that eventually the tax would be very high. Now, the military expenditure of Canada amounts to about 80 cents per head of the present population, and I take it that when construction is completed, the naval expenditure combined with the expenditure on militia would not amount to more than $1.25 per head of the present population of Canada, and I believe that the annual increase of population will keep the figure at about that per capita rate. It does not seem to me that for a country like Canada, rich and prosperous and rapidly becoming great, an expenditure of $1.25 per head for its total cost for defence would be a very high rate. Ij therefore, think my hon. friend from East Grey may possess his soul in patience and need not worry over the expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that since the militia was reorganized the expendi-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
ture has increased to $6,500,000 per annum, when it was formerly only $2,500,000? That being so, may we not reasonably expect a somewhat proportionate increase in the naval expenditure?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think so. The hon. gentleman stated the other night, and he stated correctly, that the expenditure on militia had increased, but he did not state that a very large part of that increased expenditure was due to taking over the garrisons of Halifax and Esquimalt and to increasing the permanent force of 800 or 900 men up to practically
3,000.	That accounts for a large part of the increase in the militia expenditure, and I am sure the hon. gentleman does not object to our relieving the British taxpayer to that extent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I did object to, was that while in 1896 the officers and those who controlled the force cost the country $16,000, the men who do the same work to-day cost us $73,000.


Frederick William Borden: I am not going to be turned aside now to deal with that question, because I have stated over and over again the reasons for that, and I have laid on the table of the House a memorandum from Major Genaral Sir Percy Lake explaining fully every dollar of the increase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister object to my endeavouring to get a clear understanding as to that matter?


Frederick William Borden: I think I might be allowed to finish my remarks. I have never known a similar case of interruption in my parliamentary experience of thirty-six years. When a minister is attempting to make a statement upon an important subject, whether his statement is acceptable or not, it is usually listened to. With regard to the per capita charge I shall say no more. The hon. gentleman, in, the fourth part of his resolution, says:
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.
This is rather an astounding proposition, Mr. Speaker, after what took place ten months ago. Parliament was then fresh from the people. The hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) scarcely waited until the ink was dry upon the returns of the elections before he took up the question of considering and bringing before parliament our duty in the matter of providing for naval defence. It was seriously considered, and a certain line of policy was unanimously agreed to. At that time the question that there was any duty devolving upon us to go to the country on
33.33

this subject was never raised by anybody.
I will venture to say that no such misconstruction of responsible government was ever heard of in the British parliament or ever before suggested in this parliament. The people sent us here for the purpose of dealing with all important public questions. Is it to be said that every time an important question comes up, we shall go back to the people, particularly after parliament has unanimously agreed to a certain line of policy? Who would think of putting forward such a monstrous proposition as that? I think the hon. gentleman surely cannot be serious. I am reminded that the hon. gentlemen themselves suggested the addition to the resolution of March last, of the words to the effect that we should not wait, but get to work on a navy at once; and I have read extracts from the hon. gentlemen's speeches to prove that they were the most enthusiastic advocates of the immediate construction and organization of a navy. Yet we are told to-day that we should go back to the people. But I do not observe that the hon. gentleman thinks it at all necessary to go to the people for their approval of the proposal to tax them to the extent of $25,000,000 to buy two Dreadnoughts. Why, Mr Speaker, everybody knows that the Militia Act of Canada for the last fifty years, and I dare say ever since Canada has had responsible government, has made provision-and it is there to-day-for the organization of a militia navy. So this is no new policy. It is there authorized by the people; and it has always been perfectly understood that Canada had there the authority at any moment she felt financially able to undertake the additional responsibility of naval defence.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick William Borden: I wish simply to add to what I have said with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that I observe he is opposed to military expenditure or defence expenditure of all kinds. A3 I understand him he is against militarism, and seems to think that any expenditure of the kind is to be classed under that head I can understand therefore why my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) should support this resolution. The other evening he said that he favoured our expending $25,000,000 on Dreadnoughts, and doing nothing else, because possibly that would be all the expenditure necessary. In his view, that would be a happy way of escaping from all future expenditure because perhaps another call would not be made on us for at least a generation or
twenty years. Therefore it was from motives of economy that my hon. friend supports the resolution of the leader of the opposition. The gift of $25,000,000 might be a cheap way of getting put of our obligations because we might never have to put up any more, and in any case there would not likely be another call for the next twenty years.
The last part of the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition reads as follows: -
That in the meantime

That is before the creation of a navy was submitted to the consideration of the people

-that in the meantime the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the empire can best he discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposition 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 such sum at such time and for such purposes on naval defence as, in their judgment, may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire and thus insure its peace and security.
So that it is not necessarily Dreadnoughts which the hon. gentleman advocates-it is anything on which the British government may choose to expend money for the British navy. My hon. friend and his supporters based this resolution upon the idea that a crisis or an emergency exists. Otherwise there is no ground or excuse for putting such a proposal before this House. Because there is an emergency, the hon. gentleman proposes that we shall hand over $25,000,000 as a present to the British admiralty to buy two Dreadnoughts or anything else they might see fit in the way of naval defence. But when did this crisis or emergency arise? I have pointed out that in the mind of the hon. gentleman and of his lieutenant, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) there was_ no crisis or emergency in March last. I have read the speech of the leader of the opposition delivered in London in July last, from which it would appear that, in his opinion, there was no crisis then. Wa3 it because my hon. friend had been looking at that magnificent array of battleships in the Thames which he spoke about so eloquently here a few weeks ago, that his mind was then kept in the due equipoee which it enjoyed in March last? Was it on that account that he did not see any crisis then although he was in London, the very heart of the empire, where it might be supposed to be found if it existed anywhere. On the contrary, the hon. gentleman then said he was for a Canadian navy and against a contribution of Dread-

noughts. Was it in August? Certainly not. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us, as late as August last in Halifax, that the proper policy was the building of a Canadian navy. There was no indication then of any impending danger. Neither was it in October, because in Toronto both these hon. gentlemen assured the people that they were still strong in the belief that a Canadian navy was the proper thing. It was certainly not in November, because we had the same assurances then. Nor'was it in December because in the city of Montreal I had the honour of listening to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, making a strong and effective speech in favour of the adoption of a Canadian policy and the creation of a Canadian navy. When then did it come and whence did it come? As I have said, it showed its first symptoms on the 12th of January last when my hon. friend indicated that there were in his mind some germs which indicated a coming attack of blue funk-shall I say?-or the dread of some impending crisis. We have in England in the navy what has been known a long time as the blue sea school, and I have observed during the recent elections there that somebody has said that another school has taken its rise in England, and that is the blue funk school. The threat of German invasion was used, as we know, during the recent elections in England.
Well, Sir, the hon. gentleman has seen fit to launch hi? policy. That policy is, to give the admiralty of the mother country a sum of money sufficient to buy two Dreadnoughts. Now, what does that policy involve? It certainly involves delay in the matter, of proceeding with the real work of beginning, constructing and organizing a Canadian navy to co-operate, when required, with the British navy. But more than that is involved. As I have pointed out, it involves a heavy expenditure without any direct benefit whatever to Canada in the way of building up a navy. We are a people of seven and a half millions. Years ago we undertook the defence of this country on land. Everybody agreed ten months ago that the time had arrived when we should undertake that defence upon the waters adjacent to bur country. But this proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite means a begging of the question, it means expending $25,000,000 without contributing in any way whatever-as to personnel, as to shipbuilding, as to docks or anything else which is important-to building up a navy or educating the people of Canada towards co-operation with the mother country in our own defence.
Now, I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments while I read some authorities upon this question of whether or not there is an emergency. It seems to Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
me to be a very important question. For, if there is not an emergency, then my hon. friend's resolution is not to the point. And I think I can show without very great difficulty that there is no emergency. This is a serious question and one which we should approach seriously. We should make the effort by every means in our power to inform ourselves with reference to this question. I propose first to read briefly from a statement of Sir William White, who is ex-constructor of the British navy, a man who might be presumed to have very considerable knowledge as to the power of the British navy itself and as to the strength and character of the other navies of the world. Sir William White said:
German activity in warship building attracts most attention for the moment and there is a tendency to treat existing conditions as if they were unprecedented. Every one familiar with the events of the last half century (since the iron-clad area began), knows that this is not true. That period has been marked by a succession of struggles for supremacy in sea power, and more critical situations have occurred in the past than that which now exists. From 1857 to 1870 France was a formidable competitor; indeed, for the first ten years of that period, her war fleet was stronger, relatively to the British navy, than any single power has been since. The combined strength of French and Russian fleets furnished the standard of strength adopted by British governments from 1887 onwards; and the great programmes of ship-building embodied in the Naval Defence Act of 1889, the Spencer programme of 1893, and the Goschen programme which followed, were frankly based on that consideration. There were times when the relative strength of the royal navy and of the allied fleets of France and Russia gave more reason for anxiety than any present or immediately prospective condition would justify.
Then, I propose to read a passage or two from the London 'Times'. For many weeks past, at any rate during the election in England, the London 'Times' has been publishing articles calculated as far as possible to alarm the people of England and to make them believe that the British government of to-day had not done and was not doing all that it ought to do and that there was a certain amount of peril in the preparations being made by Germany. I have here an article by a very able writer, written upon the occasion of the sixty-ninth birthday of Lord Fisher, who has recently passed out of the navy, and who, as everybody knows, was the first sea lord, for five years. I quote from the 'Times' of January 28, last.


George Eulas Foster: Not an editorial?


Frederick William Borden: No, it is not an editorial. But it is written by a

well known writer who is constantly writing military and defence articles for the 'Times':
The most striking, though, in our judgment, by no means the most important, achievement of Lord Fisher has been the introduction of the Dreadnought type of warship. Not much need be said upon this subject. It is full of technicalities little fitted for popular discussion, and it positively bristles with controversy. There are those who hold that the introduction of the Dreadnought type in 1905 was premature, that it was too hastily adopted-as is held to be shown by the large modifications introduced into the succeeding vessels of the same type both in this country and abroad-and that it has involved this country in a vast increase of naval expenditure which might have been postponed, if not avoided altogether. It would carry us too far into the kind of controversy which we desire to avoid on the present occasion to discuss these criticisms. The broad facts are indisputable-first, that all the great naval powers have now adopted the Dreadnought type with no greater modifications than time and experience have suggested to ourselves as well as to others; secondly, that the introduction of the type effected a marked pause in the development of the constructive programme of other powers; and, thirdly, that the duration of this pause gave this country a lead in the construction of Dreadnoughts which we still retain and can lose only by cur own craven default.
And again from the same article:
Any one who takes the trouble may, by consulting the navy list and other official documents accessible to all the world, institute for himself a comparison between the strength of the naval forces actually in commission in home waters at the end of 1904 and at the beginning of 1910. These dates cover the whole period of Lord Fisher's tenure of office. The figures are as follows. A similar examination of intervening periods would show that the development has been continuous throughout
1904. 1910.
Battleships	
16	44First-class cruisers	
13	37Smaller cruisers and gun boats.. 30	58Destroyers	
24	12Torpedo boats	
16	88Submarines	
50
Here we must make an end, though we have by no means exhausted the tale of reforms effected by the admiralty in nearly all departments of naval administration during Lord Fisher's tenure of office.
That is the position which England occupies to-day in comparison with the position which she occupied in 1904.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the author?


Frederick William Borden: The article is not signed, but I fancy it is written by Mr. Amery. We may accept it, I think, coming from the ' Times ' as a reliable authority, and this is a table which the ' Times ' would not publish if it had not verified the figures.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: W'as not the person who wrote that article a Mr. Amery and who advocated those views, defeated at the last election?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot tell what views he advocated; but I know the London ' Times ' did all it could to excite public opinion in England to the view that all was not being done that ought to be done for the navy, and that there was some danger from Germany. Now I propose to read some other authorities, and I intend to begin with the Prime Minister of England. On the 10th of November at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Mr. Asquith said:
When I addressed your predecessors in this place last year the internation sky here and in Europe was somewhat clouded and there were signs in the horizon which might well have seemed to foretell a spell of stormy weather.
I am happy to be able to speak to you to-niglit without any lurking apprehensions which it was then not wholly possible to lay aside.
My hon. friends ought to have introduced their resolution last March and got ahead of this trouble which the Prime Minister says existed about that time but fortunately had disappeared. He goes on:
If I speak for one moment of Germany, it is to say again that I know of nothing which need stand in the way of a full and friendly understanding which it is, I believe, a cherished object of the wisest statesmanship and of the best moral and social forces in both countries to promote.
That was at the Lord Mayor's banquet. And again on the 21st of December, Mr. Asquith said:
Let me say once for all that the navy is able to maintain not only now, but in future years, our supremacy at sea, and to guarantee the integrity of our shores, the protection of our commerce, and the inviolability of our empire. I do not believe that ever since the close of the great war nearly a century ago the navy and the army have been better organized than they are to-day.
And again Mr. Asquith, on the 19th of January:
Let me say once for all, and I speak with full deliberation and after careful and prolonged inquiry, that the navy of to-day is able to maintain, not only this, year, hut in the years that lie before us, our supremacy at sea, and, should the necessity arise, which God forbid, to guarantee the integrity of our shores, the protection of our commerce, and the inviolability of our empire.
Mr. McKenna, the Frst Lord of the Admiralty, has expressed himself recently as follows:
It is said that we are being left behind in comparison with Germany. At this moment Great Britain has got 7 Dreadnoughts in commission; Germany has got 2. When Germany has 4 in commission, Great Britain will have



10. When Germany has 5 in commission, Great Britain will have 12. When Germany has 9 in commission, Great Britain will have 14. When Germany had 11 in commission, Great Britain would have 16. When Germany had 13 in commission, Great Britain would have 20.
That carries us up to March 31, 1912.
Up to the present no programme in other countries has gone beyond that period. Next year will see its own programme, and I have no doubt that the figures will be equally satisfactory, and equally giving absolute security to this country with regard to subsequent years.
Sir Edward Grey, as late as January 11, said:
As far as relations between the British and the German governments were concerned there never had been less reason to talk about the prospects of war than there were at the present time.
It is the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in England who says that:
At no time have we found a greater disposition on the part of the German government to handle these questions which arise between us in a friendly spirit than we have found during the last year. It may be that in time there will be some agreement of a perfectly voluntary nature, but if any such is arrived at, it cannot be the result of pressure on either side. It must be simply the result of an equal amount of free will on either side.
Then I have here an extract from a leading German newspaper:
If we had not taken to ourselves a good measure of Shakespeare's world of humour, who knows whether we should not long since have sent a diplomatic hint to Downing Street asking politely that the German ' bogey ' might be omitted in these domestic party conflicts; but on our side of the channel we have long perceived the aim of this English election manoeuvre, and only thank the .leaders of the present British government for the honourable endeavour to place all the Conservative and Unionist allegations as to Germany's nefarious designs in their proper light," and to expose them as a dubious election dodge not quite worthy of gentlemen.
Next I have here the Edinburgh ' Review ' containing an article from which I would like to read. It is an article reviewing several German works and entitled ' Anglo-German Relations.' The fact that it is published in {he Edinburgh ' Review ' is, I think, a sufficient guarantee for its respectability. The writer says:
Nothing therefore so cut and dried as a convention between two nations is required, since we have no actual dispute to settle. What is chiefly needed to induce better relations are-more insistence on the interests and glorious memories that we have in common, and a fuller comprehension of each other's history, of our good as well as bad qualities, and even the real grievances each has against the other.


Frederick William Borden: Above all we should avoid thinking that each nation is plotting against the other. There are, no doubt, people in England anxious to destroy Germany's fleet and smash her commerce, just as there are people in Germany w-ho would like to do the same to England. But in every country there are generally to be found people of the same extreme views. Every Russian has certainly not yet given up the dream once cherished of annexing the Indian empire, and there are plenty of American citizens still anxious to twist the Lion's tail. In the same way there are still Canadians

Not many now, I hope.
-who feel no loyalty to the British empire, and a few back-country Boers who would hoist the republican flag to-morrow if they could. But it is undignified for a great people to take all such vapourings or such sullen discontents as the expression of another country's deliberate ambition, or to treat the theories of Pan-Germanism or Pan-Slavism or of British imperialism dn their most blatant forms as constant menaces to one's own security. Moreover, it ds well not to take every extreme expression of national ideals too seriously, even when uttered by a Bismarck. No doubt every considerable nation thinks or has thought that it would be better for the world if its own influence were supreme, and theoretically would be prepared to secure this supremacy. It is a natural and very pardonable instinct. But its existence by no means implies that such a belief would at any given moment necessarily manifest itself in action, even if such action might conceivably be successful. Our extreme jingoes themselves would not be such fools as to paint the map of the whole world red, even if they could; much less the average Englishman.
We have heard, and I think it is well to go as far as we can to the bottom of this scare question. I wish to qpote from an extremely able article from which the leader of the opposition quoted in his speech on January 12 last. It appears in the last Navy League Annual, edited by Alan II. Burgoyne, and is written by a distinguished German, Graf Ernst Von Reventlow. It is entitled ' the Naval Policy of Germany and her Relations with England.' The writer says:
I now return to the main question-the object which is pursued dn the German shipbuilding programme, viz., the protection of commerce the colonies and oversea interests; this, of course, includes the protection of our own coasts. The words in the preamble of
the Navy Bill: '	that even the greatest
sea-power must hesitate to attack us unless she is prepared to jeojardize her international position,'

Words which the leader of the opposition quoted for a different object:
-do not in any way assert that our fleet requires to be equal or superior to the British fleet. If we desire fully to comprehend the sense of this sentence, we must consider it

from two points of view, viz., in the event of war, and, secondly, as a means for the avoidance of war.
And then again:
The relation between onr fleet programme and warfare itself we might in broad lines describe in tbe following words: it is sufficient for us Germans if England recognizes that she cannot in the long run carry out a blockade of the German coasts. This object of ours is thus also purely a defensive one. At the same time, however, there appears at first sight to be an irreconcilable duality of conception and view, for England regards it as her defensive right to push forward her line of defence as far as the coasts of the opponent. It was recently even stated in an English paper that in the future European war the line of defence of British interests would have to be pushed forward as far as the valley of the Meuse. We Germans, on the other hand, cannot accept that view, and on our part consider it to be a defensive action to make preparations in order to make it impossible in a future war for the line of defence of an enemy to be brought up to our coasts. I am of opinion that the uneasiness and apprehension of prominent British politicians and experts is precisely based on this idea. None of these prominent and experienced men will ever have believed in the nonsense about invasion, excepting, perhaps, a few fanatics. It is, after all, only a right of politicians if in England the spectre of invasion is made use of for purposes of agitation and in order to influence public opinion in favour of the navy; it becomes a wrong only where it produces greater harm than good. At all events, in England the fear of invasion has proved an effective means of agitation in favour of the navy, and, strangely enough, many people in Germany think that even admirals and statesmen seriously believe in this spectre, whereas it is probably only the blockade question that occupies them. It is well known that the prevention of a blockade, or the harassing of a blockading is not the work of small ships; the defending party must have at its back a strong fleet of battleships. An example of this on a small scale was furnished at the time by Port Arthur, where the Russian torpedo boats never approached the enemy's fleet, as they themselves were not backed by a fleet of battleships.
I wish now to read a very short quotation indeed from a speech made by the German ambassador in London only a few days ago on the occasion of the Emperor's birthday. As reported in the ' Times ' of the 29th of January, Count Wolff Metternich said:
We are building our fleet in accordance with the programme which has been known for ten years, and which has been fixed by Act of parliament. In spite of the commercial reasons which impel us to wander far abroad, the pivot of our existence is in the Fatherland, which the army is called upon in the first place to protect. It is, therefore, neither necessary for us, nor have we any pretentions to be or to become the strongest on the sea. The ocean is free and according to the conceptions of all civilized nations, belongs 1064 .
to no single power alone. We do not wish to rule the seas, but we desire to occupy a position commanding respect commensurate with our commercial and colonial interests. But neither our fleet nor our army threatens any one so long as we are not threatened ourselves. And since we have no intention of competing for supremacy on the sea, is it reasonable to suppose that we seek to become involved in a naval quarrel, while we know that we are much stronger on land?
If we stop for a moment to reason, it seems to me that we should admit that Germany, with its great interests, its rapidly expanding trade, its vast commerce, is doing nothing but what any great power should do, looking to the necessity of defending her lines of commerce and her great and vast development. That is what Germany should do as a matter of duty, and it is what Germany has an absolute right to do. In view of these authorities, which I respectfully tajke leave to qonsider are superior to any in this House at least, in view of the reasons set for.th by them, in view of the statements of the Prime Minister of England, of the First Lord of the Admiralty in England, of the British Foreign Minister: that there is no danger, and that the British navy was never stronger or better able to compete with the navies of the world than it is to-day, it seems to me we should accept these assurances in preference to the scare resolution of my hon. friends opposite.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a single word in conclusion. Nobody on this side of the House doubts; we have affirmed it over and over again, and we believe that British naval supremacy is in the first degree essential not only for the maintenance of the British empire, but for the maintenance of peace and for the best interests of the world at large. I have spent some time, which I hope has not been lost, .in endeavouring to establish that British naval supremacy is not in danger at the present moment, nor for many years to come. Now, Sir, we wish to assist in every way in our power the mother country, upon' whom unquestionably the strain of maintaining her position, which is essential td our existence as well as to hers, has become very, very great. It is for us to coni sider how we can best do this. Is it by the means suggested in the resolution of the hon. gentlemen opposite, spending $25,000,000 now and receding from the proper policy and effort which we should make to build up a line of defence upon the sea which will be of some use immediately, but which will be of greater and greater use as the years go on when perhaps it will be more needed than it is now or during the next- ten years? The suggestions made by _ the statesmen of the mother country, and her admirals and generals for years past all tend to show that the true way of as-

sisting the mother country in the matter of defence is by making each one of the great nations which form part of the British empire strong within itself. That is the line which has been followed in this country, to some extent at any rate so far as our land forces are concerned. It has been in contemplation to organize gradually a naval force, and we believe the time has come now. We are 7,500,000 people with an annual revenue of $100,000,000, and we should be prepared, we should be anxious to relieve the mother country from the responsibility of defending our coasts and our harbours. Let us then take this moderate step which we have proposed, of carrying out lines of local defence, a policy which is no new policy here, and which after years of experience of the other methods has been returned to and is now being followed by the great sister dominion of Australia. And so, my suggestion would be, and I think it will meet with favour among the great majority of the people of this country: that we should take up seriously the question of local defence of the sea, that we should follow it on the lines of local autonomy so ably pointed out by the right hon. the leader of the government in March last and so cordially approved then by the leader of the opposition. It seems to me that autonomy cannot be best utilized by the course which hon. gentlemen opposite now suggest. Autonomy does not consist simply in possessing the power to govern ourselves; it consists in utilizing that power and these rights and these privileges to develop ourselves in everything which goes to make up nationhood. It is no use to boast that we are autonomous if we do what the hon. gentleman from North Toronto so deprecated, and spoke of in such contemptuous manner a few short months ago: if we go and hire somebody to do the thing which, as free and independent and autonomus British subjects we should do ourselves. That, Sir, would mean, not autonomy; it would 'mean atrophy in the worst sense of the word.
Now, we hear in these days a great deal about imperialism. I have not been in the habit of boasting very much about it, although I may have as good right to do so as any man in this House, or any man in Canada. I have made some sacrifices, and I have endeavoured to do some work for the empire, and in the cause of imperial defence. But, Mr. Speaker, my notion of the way to build up the empire,' my idea of true imperialism is for each one of the great dominions that make up the galaxy of nations constituting this great empire, to enter upon the task of developing itself to the utmost. Let each one of these domin-; ions make itself strong by improving its trade connections and its trade routes, and' bv developing the great natural resourced within its limits, and, not forgetting at the' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
same time its duty in reference to defence. In that way we wall make ourselves strong. I go so far as to say that I believe in Canada first; I believe that idea should stand out prominently in every mind in this country; I believe that all our children should be taught that it is their first duty to make their own country strong. If that course is followed, in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, and in the Dominion of South Africa-which is one of the greatest triumphs of British diplomacy and British institutions-if we cultivate a better acquaintance with each other and with the mother country; if we close up the ranks in friendly rivalry, in commerce and in the arts of peace, not forgetting to make all reasonable provision for emergencies, along the line of co-operation with the great centre and heart of the empire, our watchword shall be * local autonomy with imperial unit '; for imperial unity, mark my words, depends absolutely and entirely upon local autonomy.
Hon, GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). I am sure my hon. friend will not take it amiss of me if I do not commence and continue in a seriatim reply to his somewhat long and, I am afraid I shall have to say, not very illuminating address. All that I have been able to pick out that I think needs answer I will try not to miss as I carry along my remarks in a more connected way than I could do if I followed seriatim my hon. friend, for I have a little to say about the remarks made by the right hon. gentleman who moved the second reading of this Bill, who Lincolnized himself, according to the sane and judicious judgment pronounced upon the matter by the member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke), and whose speech, no doubt, is to be the piece de resistance in this Dominion generally, in the province of Quebec especially, during the campaign which is now opening, and which may continue for a greater or less length oi time. I thought, as I looked at my right hon. friend and listened to him, that his speech was, after all, an apology addressed to different wings of sentiment or opinion in this country, as to which of the two were the stronger he himself was in doubt. It had to me the semblance of a speech made by a man who feared on the one hand that he was offering too much, and -on the other hand that he was offering too little, and expected animadversion on both sides. It seemed to me the halting step of a man who had not based his policy on deep and long abiding conviction, but who trod the shifty ways of compromise, and consequently, instead of drawing upon the founts of strong and deep feeling and sentiment, had to seek the flimsy consolations of a rhetoric often glittering, and as deceptive in many points as it was glit-

tering. Consequently my right hon. friend involved himself in contradiction, and descended to devices of argument which would do credit to the everyday hustings man, but which certainly to my mind does little credit to a statesman of twenty-five or thirty years' standing. If that appears to be a somewhat strong word, let me point out what I mean. Here was a man of long experience, putting, as he said himself, the capstone on to the many stories of the policy which he and his party had advanced in the Dominion of Canada. The final, the crowning stone was to he laid. Whatever he may try to persuade others, he himself knew quite well that he was standing in an epochal period in this House of Commons and this Dominion of Canada. He was proposing a policy which was absolutely new to the people of Canada, say what he may to try to convince others that it was old and well known. To-day, Mr. Speaker, there is no subject of importance which is less understood and which has been less thought out and less canvassed in this wide Dominion of intelligent electors than this very question, which, launched by the Prime Minister some few weeks ago, is to be decided in the space of as few weeks to succeed. One would have expected, when a Prime Minister, under these circumstances, stood before a House of Commons and before a people like the Canadian people of seven and a half millions, he would in statesmanlike way have gone directly to his subject, have pointed out the necessity of his policy, have noted its strong points, and, as he laid before his fellow members of the House of Commons and his fellow electors of the Dominion of Canada and asked for these wide powers and this departure, would have given to them solid and well based reasons why they should support that policy. Did he do it? There was no shifty device that the shiftiest of politicians could have recourse to, that my right hon. friend did not have recourse to. It is an old and well known design and usage of the man who occupies a weak position, to endeavour to put up bogies and suppositions and men of straw, and fight old battles that have been fought half centuries ago, in order to distract the attention of people from the real weaknesses developed in his plan.
My right hon. friend did that to perfection. In the first place instead of advocating his own policy, he, the premier of this Dominion, he, the statesman, on the subject of national and imperial defence, on which there should be no party division, on which all men should be approached in the most non-partisan manner-forgot his duty in that respect and launched at once, hot under the collar, into a tirade against members on this side for lack of consistency and of unity. Consistencygreat Heaven! If there be any man in this wide Dominion who has the right to talk about political consistency, it is certainly not my right hon. friend. What difference did it make, as to the strength and soundness of his policy, whether A, B, or C, on this side had different opinions with reference to the policy that ought to be pursued? Did that add intrinsically to the strength of the right hon. gentleman's case? No, but he brought it up, as the wily politician, in order to produce an effect in favour of himself or at least to the disadvantage of the party opposed to him. Let me say to my right hon. friend, when he talks about unity and diversity of opinion, that I would rather have diversity and difference of opinion coupled with manhood and individual independence than uniformity of opinion coupled with servility and loss of independence. One thing let me tell my right hon. friend and that is that upon one point there is no division on this side of the House, and that point is a complete and unanimous disagreement with the policy proposed by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh.


George Eulas Foster: That, I think, will be quite well understood and agreed to. There are ways in which uniiormity can be brought about. This afternoon when the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) was making his most important speech, and when I looked over the multiplicity of vacant seats on the other side of the House, I could only draw one of two inferences. Either there was a total lack of heart in the matter on the part of the supporters of my right hon. friend or else there was a very deep disagreement among them with reference to his plans and policies. One or the other must be true. But there are ways of producing uniformity, and my right hon. friend knows them quite well. He has the caucus; he has the thumb-screw; he has the rack; and he has the composing room. If the composing room does not make uniformity, the thumb-screw is applied. If neither be effective, the rack is used and the man is stretched. 140 men at the back of my right hon. friend, once independent men; many of them educated men ; sturdy men coming up from their individual constituencies where they stand for much, trooping into caucus have, I should think, some differences of opinion, but when they come out of caucus, there is none. Look into the register, if you please, examine it, tote up the results of your examination, and in ten long years how many of the 140 men-take all the iniquitous measures proposed all the rights denied, all the investigations refused, during those ten long years-how

many of these 140 or 150 men have been down in the register for a single protest at any single time? The composing room or the thumb-screw or the rack has done the business. Although the dogs may troop into the caucus yelping as loudly as they please, silent back to the kennels they go, and they are mum and bay not by a single sound. There is the composing room-some one is recalcitrant is taken in. ' I understand you would like a judgeship; sometimes there are judgeships; I think you are a likely looking man.' This takes place in the composing room, and the recalcitrant comes out perfectly in accord with the most objectionable proposition. To another: 'You are looking for a commissionership, well you are a very likely man; there are eom-missionerships occasionally and wise caution may bring its reward.' The composing - room does its work, and so the pressure goes on throughout the whole list. But I find I have made one mistake. I said that not one man had registered as an independent; not one had registered a single protest. I was wrong, there was one, Frank Oliver, a sturdy independent from the wild and woolly west. Oliver was quickly nlaced in office and ever since has uttered no protest. Richardson was another, also from the wild and woolly west. He spoke out his opinions, and he was cast into the outer darkness, where he has ever since remained. Lavergne was another who had a mind of his own on some things and ventured to express it. He was stripped, as naked as when he came from his mother's womb, from all patronage, and is to-day in the dark shadows of opposition. Bourassa had a mind of his own.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


George Eulas Foster: I shall have to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. These gentlemen, usually silent, are learning to bay now. Bourassa had a mind of his own and spoke it. Bourassa is outlawed, and to-day every one of the minions of my right hon. friend has a commission to hunt him as they might hunt partridge, on the mountain side.
So I say that my right hon. friend was unwise in raising the question of division or otherwise.
Well, Sir, he brought out another favourite bogey of his. He knows quite well that there is, or has been, fostered a feeling of dislike and suspicion of what they call the imperialists in certain parts of this country. And so he next attacked the imperialists: they were shortsighted, they were wrongly led, they were Pharisees, who broadened their phylacteries and worshipped in the temple thanking God they were not like other men. What quarrel has he with the imperialist? Does he himself know? He thanked God that he was not an imperialist; and yet, being I Mr. FOSTER.
afraid that he had for once taken too solid and uncompromising a ground, he immediately thanked God that he was not an antiimperialist. Who is the imperialist, and what does he profess? The imperialist is a man who, while doing all his duty to his own country, always remembers that his country is part of an empire into which it was born and in which he desires it to remain for ever. The imperialist is not the shortsighted creature that my right hon. friend would have us believe. He is a man who loves his country, gives up not one whit of its proper responsibility and proper obligations and proper autonomy, but at the same time does not go down to the market places of Boston and New York to declare that, he is in favour of independence for this country of ours. But my right hon. friend was wise in his generation; he lifted this bogey in order to influence votes in the province of Quebec, and wherever else it might be possible, against the resolution introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) and so to bring men to his own side in regard to the policy of naval organization. That was his purpose and that alone.
The right hon. gentleman went on to argue that this policy which he has launched and which is embodied in his Bill has been before the country for at least eight or ten [DOT] years, and that consequently there is no reason to give the people time to consider it and make up their minds with regard to it. What policy has been before the country for eight or ten years? The policy, says the right lion, gentleman, embodied in the memorandum which was presented to the delegates of the imperial conferences of 1902 and which is embodied in the report of the conference. That memorandum was the embodiment of no active policy, but was merely an expression of opinion and the negation of certain things-and that is all it was. I have it -here in my right hon. friend's speech of last year. At a certain time in the conference of 1902-towards the end of it-my right hon. friend and his colleagues had this memorandum prepared, and it was read and , embalmed in the records of the conference:
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side.
That was the first- item.
The Canadian government are prepared to consider the navai side of defence as well.
That was the second.
On the seaeoast of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that, at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to

the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that, while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the increased population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which he now bears; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experienced imperial officers so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self-government, which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
And this is dignified as a policy. It is simply an expression, partly of facts, partly of abstract opinions and partly of hopes and aspirations which have never been framed in any policy. That is the policy, and it is on all fours with the measure produced 'before this House and country and which the Prime Minister says is therefore justified because it has been for eight or ten years before the country. I deny that it has been before the country. It is embalmed in the English blue-book which was presented to parliament here in 1902. But I would like my right hon. friend to point out to me any discussions which took place upon that memorandum in this House, or any policy that was founded upon it) for the consideration of parliament or any discussion that has taken place upon it in this country. I make the assertion that there is not one person lb a hundred thousand in the Dominion of Canada that ever saw that memorandum or that knew or knows anything about it. And yet, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a democrat of democrats, thinks that this is sufficient reason for saying that his plan of building an independent Canadian navy has been before this country since 1902, and that no time need be taken to consult the opinions of the electors upon it.
But he goes on then to charge us with broken faith, and my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has repeated the same argument. Let us see on what this charge of broken faith really rests. In 1909, I introduced a resolution which it might be just as well to read now:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and self-respect which alone be6ts a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
This resolution related to matters absolutely inside of Canada's own borders; it has not the slightest thing to do with the duties of this country with reference to sharing the burden of defence of the empire at large. That and that alone was in my mind when I drew the resolution, and that and that alone was the burden of my discourse in support of the resolution. As to the question I said:
It is therefore not one which has arisen out of the later events and circumstances which are in the minds of all present.
It related to the duty which I thought was incumbent upon Canada. Having seaports on the Pacific and seaports on the Atlantic at the present time, entirely at the mercy of the smallest armed gunboat of a hostile power, I thought that was an unworthy position, an unsafe position, and that what Canada ought to do was to assume her own proper work, and make some provision, some adequate provision, for the defence of her seaports and her exposed harbours and coasts. That is all that I argued for. In the last part of my address on that occasion, and in the light of the events which had afterwards occurred, that is after my resolution was put on the order paper, 1 alluded to the question of emergency, and to the duty of Canada in that respect towards the empire as a whole, and I challenged my right hon. friend to stand up as a Canadian and to lead this Canadian parliament in making a contribution of Dreadnoughts, or of what was equivalent to it, at a time of crisis, and to meet the emergency; and that being so, I for one, and I thought every member on this side of the House, wouid stand in support of him if he undertook to carry out such a policy as that. Now, my right hon. friend and others may misrepresent that position as much as they please. I have carefully read that speech, I have carefully gone over those arguments; my position is absolutely tenable, and absolutely consistent with the position I take to-day.
Now, when it came towards the close the larger question intervened, and my right hon. friend moved an amendment which practically cut out my motion. That afterwards was amended and in the end the resolution was passed, which I will read. Now, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that the motion which was ultimately passed was carried upon absolutely different data and conditions than the motion which I introduced, that it introduced broader and wider issues than I pretended to discuss ixr my resolution, and that it affirmed and conveyed the opinions of the members of both sides of the House as to. our duty,

not only to Canada herself, but to the empire at large, and that was a very different thing. Now, Sir, what are the terms of that resolution which finally passed?
That this House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada as they increase in numbers and wealth to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
By national defence I understand the defence of Canada. That, then, covers the gist of my resolution, the part of it that relates to Canada and Canada alone. It goes on to say.	]
a policy I do not believe in; emergency contributions I do, and that resolution affirms the right of this parliament to make emergency contributions to the defence of the empire when necessity arises.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy

That is one condition.
-along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference

The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada was concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
We agree to that. By implication, if not stronger, that means that the question of emergency remains absolutely open and free to be dealt with at any time this House thinks it ought to provide for it. That the policy of regular and stated contributions is not the best, is what is in the body of that resolution and upon which the two sides of this House agree. There is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, on the whole, upon that. Upon both sides we do not believe that regular and stated contributions continued from year to year, is the best method and the best means, and I elaborated that in my address. I said: You may give this year your contributions, an 1 next year your contributions, and the year after your contributions, and after ten or twelve years of giving contributions you have founded nothing that has taken root I gave the reasons why I did'nt like that But there is an express reservation there- who will deny it?-that if an emergency should arise we are free to meet it with a contribution adequate to the purpose, and we do not break faith with the resolution when we do it. Let my right hon. friend deny that. The Minister of Militia and .Defence has argued for that to-day, my right hon. friend has argued for it, And he did declare, with an apparent good faith and sincerity, that if a time of emergency did arise in future he would meet it as an emergency by stumping the province of Quebec and other parts of this country* Therefore, there is no breaking faith with reference to that; my right hon friend himself will not sav so, it is undeniable, there is no repudiation of faith Equally with reference to the first clause] that of national defence, there is no repudiation or change on my part and the part of others. Regular contributions as


George Eulas Foster: mat is a second condition, is another;
nut tnere
-and in full sympathy with the view that the nava] supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the s-afety of the empire and the peace of the world.
You cannot leave out a single one of those conditions, you cannot leave out one and ignore another. Now, Mr. Speaker, who has broken faith with reference to that part of the resolution? My right hon. friend who sits there, and his party, and I will show that before I get through with my remarks.
1 ne House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people .Mil be round ready and willing to make any -aerifies that is required

There are emergent contributions of many kinds and forms with which to meet tho need when it arises.
w!igiV0,t? th! imPerial authorities the most and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.	s *
Sir, I say that in the light of that they cannot accuse my hon. friend here or myself, or any member on this side of the f	-thiHks with us, of breaking
taitn. We have taken the ground and will maintain it, that the proposals of my hon. friend do not square with those resolutions.
1 lie resolutions themselves are abstract, and to the test of these resolutions must come tile proposals of my hon. friend. Are we to take any proposals that he makes simply because if we do not take them we might reel that we would be accused of breaking faith? The faith-keeping is the fidelity of the proposal to the principle which is. laid down in the resolution and, as I shall show this House and my right hon. friend, he has negatived the spirit and intent of those resolutions and is himself the faith-breaker Then my right hon. friend had a tilt with sundry windmills. He knows the story of "e old knight and his doughty squire, filled full of the spirit of battle if not of conquest, hound for adventure, if not for human gore, who went around tilting at windmills. My right hon. friend tilted be-

fore this audience and the wider audience of Canada, and he did it to perfection. What were the windmills with which he tilted? He tilted, Sir, against the windmill which he took as an enemy to responsible government, and he drove his spear through all the wings of the mill. He then went to the next windmill which represented in his mind's eye a sturdy opponent of Canadian autonomy, and he pierced the wings of that mill. He proceeded until he met another enemy, conjured up, on the shape of centralization of power in Downing street, and he tilted against that, and then, filled with a lust for still further battle, he found another windmill which was taxation without representation, and he glutted his desire for warfare until he had demolished that one. There are some few things about which my right hon. friend ought to be careful; they are the statements that he makes. At page 3040 he makes these statements. Mr. Speaker, are they true?
But now we are told that in matters of naval defence we are to abdicate the principles of responsible government.
Who told him so? Did the British government tell him so? Did my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) insinuate that? Did any man anywhere in this House make a statement of that kind? And yet, Sir, to the men who read that speech, and it is his design that hundreds of thousands of people shall read it, he represents that somebody in power and authority has made it a sine qua non that the principles of responsible government shall be abdicated in the matter of
naval defence.
We are told that we can have responsible government in anything else, we can make our own game laws, we can administer our own affairs and even have control of our land forces, but on matters of naval defence we should have no power of our own.
Who made that statement? The British government, the British admiralty, any person in a responsible position in this House or in the country? My hon. friend knows that when he made that statement it was a complete fiction of imagination. But he went further; he did exactly the same with reference to autonomy, he did exactly the same with reference to centralization, and he did exactly the same with reference to taxation without representation. He trotted out the old ghosts of Baldwin and Lafontaine, overworked already by my right hon. friend. Will he ever give them a rest? He trotted them out and went over the whole course of the history of responsible government and the acquirement. of English liberties. Then he raised the idea that there were some men somewhere responsible for wishing to smother and destroy all those things. Autonomy, he said, is ours. That
is true. Responsible government is ours. That is true. But both the., autonomy and the responsible government have their orbits and apply in these orbits and in these orbits alone. When responsible government was granted to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or Ontario and Quebec, it was granted by the Crown, but it did not give' either of those provinces under the exercise of responsible government any claim to exercise for themselves the prerogatives of the Crown which were not included in the grant of responsible government. Autonomy, said my right hon. friend, was given to us, and when it was given to us, no bounds were set to it, and to-day it is free to inclose the whole world. Fine as a figure of speech, but utterly fallacious as a statement of principle or of law. Autonomy for your province and for our Dominion is autonomy with an orbit of its own, complete therein and legitimately opposing any that would gainsay or cross it within its own orbit; but the very moment that it goes further, it is no longer autonomy; it becomes something very different, it may become separation, independence, rebellion even. So, when my right hon. friend talks about centralization, there are some things in which it is sensible to centralize, and if there is any one thing on which competent opinion declares that it is sensible and economical and only safe to have centralization, it is the matter of defence of the empire. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) knows that, because from the time that these conferences commenced until to-day that has been the one steady principle held in view, enunciated over and over again. What folly it is to try to persuade any thinking people that the battle of responsible government, that the battle of autonomy, that the battle of centralization in the authority of Downing street has to be fought over again to-day and is involved in this question which is before the House. These are only bogies' that have been raised by my right hon. friend to prejudice his opponents and if possible draw support to himself.
Then, Sir, he went a little further; he quoted naval experts, he quoted Sir Charles Tupper. Since when has Sir Charles Tupper held such sway and power with my right hon. friend and his colleagues that to-day they swear by his wisdom and by his opinion? I am quite willing that Sir Charles Tupper should look at this abortion for imperial assistance and even for local defence as it has been brought down, and I am very certain that Sir Charles Tupper would not put his imprimatur upon it. Who else has been called in witness to-night by the Minister of Militia, as previously by the First

Minister? Sir William White. But, Sir William White, I believe, expressed an opnion with reference to Esquimalt and Halifax that my hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) repudiated and paid no countenance to. Sir William White may be a good expert in his way, but there are others. Lord Charles Beresford is quoted, and the right hon. gentleman said that no better authority than Sir Charles Beresford could be found! But if you take Lord Charles Beres ford's advice on one point because lid is a good authority, how can you refuse tci take his advice upon another point? He is the same Lord Charles Beresford. And, Lord Charles Beresford does not tell the quiet and pleasing tale that was told us tonight by the Minister of Militia. Sir Charles Beresford announced it as his opinion, and he is ready to maintain it: That the British navy is not to-day where it ought to be, and that many tens of millions of pounds must be spent just as soon as it possibly can in order that the British navy may take its rightful position. And, on the matter of control, where is Lord Charles Beresford? In London, on June 29,	1909,
Lord Charles Beresford said:
_ The vessels should be under the administration and control of the Dominions, but in case of war ready to join the imperial fleet.
There is no better authority than Lord Charles Beresford, says the right hon. gentleman, and that is what Lord Charles Beresford said, and he said further:
Remember the best defence is the defence that can be used as an attack. Your defence should be one that can instantly be turned into attack. There is one point, I think, you should insist on: when it comes to war you must act under the great strategic bureau which will be at the admiralty.
Now, I apply that to my right hon. friend in two ways-you are talking about making an adequate defence of Canada. But, the vessels that you propose some time to have completed, complete them all and put three of them on one coast and the rest on the other coast of this Dominion, and you have absolutely no force with which you would dare to attack, and consequently you have not an adequate force to defend. Lord Charles Beresford's authority is as good on one point as on the other. But, leaving these quotations of authority, the resolution of 1909 and the speech of my right hon. friend do not affirm that it was necessary to go to Lord Charles Beresford, and to Lord Milner, and to Sir William White, to find out what is best to be done. That resolution and the whole spirit of last year's talk on the resolution, sent this government direct to the admiralty of Great Britain. They were your experts, and they were your specialists. It was their opinion that you were to take, and the very fact that my right hon. friend and the Minister Mr. FOSTER.
of Militia have quoted these men to support their case is because they cannot get the support of the admiralty. My hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) to-night said that the British fleet was the greatest fleet of history. It is. He said it has in it the best personnel that the historian has ever recorded. It has. It has the best experience, and the best matured regulations of any fleet that ever existed in the world. There in that repository is to be found the expert knowledge of long experience, and I tell my right hon. friend there is where you were sent to get your instructions, and there is where you were sent for opinions on what you should do. You went there, you got their opinions, you told them flatly to their face: We know more about it than you do, or, if we don't know more about it than you do we are not going to do as you tell us we ought to do. That assertion cannot be denied, as I shall show. All this quoting from these individual scattered experts does not amount, Sir, to the mist of a summer morning. What you were told to do, what you pledged yourself to this parliament to do, what was the faith and pledge of that resolution that was passed by this House: That you should go to the admiralty, that you should find out what the admiralty thought was best and that you should conform your plans to that. ' Is there any doubt about that? There is one expression of my right hon. friend that I got from him after the resolution was passed, and I will read it. In answer to a question of mine as to the conference and what they proposed to do, the right hon. gentleman said:
I quite realize that Canada has reached a period in its history when as a nation and as a part of the British empire we should acknowledge the fact squarely and prepare as far as we can for our own defence, and that we should make all adequate preparation to that effect. Iam not prepared to say to what extent we should go, I do not think it would be wise for us to take isolated action.


George Eulas Foster: The resolution forbade that, really.


Wilfrid Laurier: to, what do you do with it? You so arrange it, that it is not now, nor ever can bev in the shape in which you propose it, of any earthly advantage in the arbitrament of the fate of the British empire. You do still less. You get an expensive toy, which, in the course of twenty years, when your vessels are ready for the scrap-heap, will have totalled up in cost from $90,000,000 to $100,000,000 against this Dominion. And not a single arm of that fleet on the Pacific or the Atlantic will ever dare face a contest on the seas with a war vessel of any other nation armed and ready for action,
I wish now to come to a more important matter, but before doing so, I want to jog the memory of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. I want to compliment him, I want to tell my young friend that he shows up splendidly as compared with the right hon. gentleman, his leader, and the Minister of Militia and Defence. What did my right hon. friend the Postmaster General, say? He said that the Munroe doctrine was a myth, and worse, it was an unpatriotic myth. He declared that Canada could not rely on it in the case of any invasion, that it was simply a delusion and distortion of facts to say that any obligation rested on the United States in virtue of the Munroe doctrine, and that the man who advocated it for Canada was unpatriotic as well as foolish. Well, Sir, I have two of those unpatriotic men in my eye now. The right hon. gentleman who leads this government, when in the city of Boston, in the home of men at that time not very well disposed to this Dominion or the British empire, told them that he subscribed to the Munroe doctrine; and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), who first apologized for the independence sentiments of his leader


Frederick William Borden: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: And then, when asked whether he would stand by them or not, swallowed it all and said: Yes, whatever may be the opinion of my leader, I have such confidence in him, that I will back them all-I commend specially the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to the tender mercies of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lem-ieux), for in the city of Ottawa, discussing the Munroe doctrine, on the heels of a lecture delivered by Professor Leacock, the Minister of Militia and Defence, (Sir Frederick Borden) said:
Behind that doctrine were the guns and warships of the United States and the whole power of 80,000,000 souls.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear. Mr. FOSTER (reading):
Surely that doctrine, if it meant anything, meant that Canada was safe from foreign Mr. FOSTER.
aggression. It meant that neither Germany nor Russia, nor any foreign power would for one moment, whether England were strong or weak, be permitted by the United States to place a hostile foot in this country.
Does my hon. friend still hold to that?


Frederick William Borden: I am very much of that opinion.


George Eulas Foster: 336S
money, the establishment of local naval defence, or snch other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
Could anything be broader, could anything give greater freedom, could anything get further away from trenching on responsible government and the autonomy of the Dominions? One would have thought that such a resolution would have been acclaimed by everybody. It was acclaimed by everybody but one. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
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 that respect in our country before committing ourselves to a general claim. The government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter.
It was not a uniform policy, it gave to each of the Dominions the right to make a contribution in any way it liked, all it called for was to do something.
The disproportion is too great between the mother country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise; in the mother country, you must remember, they have no exnenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.


Dr. SMARTT.: But the public works to which you refer are of a reproductive character which are vital to the interests of your Dominion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Some of our railways have never paid a cent of interest or expenses.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Still, it is developing and opening up the country to an enormous extent. All the colonies are building developing railways of a character which may not be revenue producing for years. I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your views, because towards the up-keep of the navy it may take the form either of a grant of money or the establishment of a local defence force or other services. I understand Canada suggested strongly the other day that some of their other services were in the nature of local defence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have said all I have to say on the subject.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the empire.


Mr.   DEAKIN@: I have no hesitation in entering into the discussion if desired; hut if we are not going to pass the resolution, is it worth while?


George Eulas Foster: 


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much in the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.


Wilfrid Laurier: It can he passed if there is a majority. For my part I must vote against it.


Sir JOSEPH WARD.: To do any good we would require to he unanimous about it.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Yes, I suppose so.


Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL.: It is not much good to have a resolution at all if we cannot be unanimous.


The CHAIRMAN.: I think we had better not proceed any further just now.


Wilfrid Laurier: We, of the different dominions beyond the seas, have tried to be unanimous up to the present time. I am sorry to say this is a question upon which we could not he unanimous. Therefore, Dr. Smartt can move it if he chooses or withdraw it, but if he presses it I should have to vote against it.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I am absolutely in the hands of the conference. I do not want to press a. resolution that is not likely to meet with the general approval of practically everybody on the conference, especially a resolution of this particular character. We might, perhaps, let it stand over until the next sitting. Between this and Tuesday I may be able to modify it in some way to meet Sir Wilfrid's view.
And Dr. Smart withdrew it. Are we proud of Canada as thus exhibited?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Are hon. gentlemen oppo site proud of Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Are they?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: They are?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sure.


George Eulas Foster: I don't believe it-at least they were not until after they had gone through the composing room.


Mr. CONMEE.: We have heard that before.


George Eulas Foster: Now, Sir, what I have said about these two conferences brings me down to this: That the policy of 1902, the settled policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is: That not one.man, not one dollar, not one ship of Canada shall go towards imperial defence, and that whatever is done must be done in Canada and for Canada alone And not only the right hon. gentleman but the men upon whom he relies for support say the same thing. The statesman from the Yukon declared:
Even though Great Britain should lose her navy and he in such a position that the New Zealander can stand on London bridge and view the remains of this old Dreadnought grounded on the Thames, I do not be-

lieve that Canada would be in the slightest danger from foreign aggression.
The member for Nicolet, Mr. Turcotte, put the case thus:
I am in favour of having a sufficient fleet for protecting our fisheries and for nothing more.
Mr. Earnest Roy of Dorchester said about the same thing and then he added:
The Monroe doctrine imposes upon the United States the obligation of protecting us against the attacks of conquering spirits either from the east or from the west.
1 hand him over to the tender mercies of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). The composing room may bring him in all right or it may take the thumb screw or the rack. Mr. Beauparlant agrees largely with the others and he says:
I would agree to a Canadian fleet but only for the purposes of the creation of a navy to remain under our own exclusive control and for us alone.
And, Mr. Ecrement, I forget his constituency, who so eloquently moved the reply tp the address,*gave his version of what it meant, saying that:
He had the assurance that that was the meaning, that this was to be a fleet ' Cana-dienne dans sa construction, son utilisation et sa direction/
Which means: It must be built in Canada


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: That it must be under the control of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, -hear.


George Eulas Foster: And that it must do nothing outside of Canada

I notice the ' hear, hears ' stop just there. And Mr. Brodeur who spoke afterwards made precisely the same statement if not in exactly the same words. He said: What we were to do we would do for Canada; Britain and her supremacy was safe, and we could go along very well developing our country and making progress ourselves.
Now I come to the conference of 1909 and I am not on exactly the same ground there. I have only what I can read between the lines as to the conference of 1909 and what is expressed in the documents that have come to us, and my knowledge of the preceding conferences. This conference of 1909 was an important one. It met on July 28, Mr. Asquith was in the chair, Mr. Asquith announced the purpose for which the conference was called:
The grave condition; the response of New Zealand and Australia, which has filled their hearts with gratitude.
And he asked:
What can be done to complete and perfect the system we have at present. We wish your advice and co-operation.


Kir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: from amongst our fishermen and our lake-men men ready to go on board one of these cruisers or Dreadnoughts and do sailors' work. That, of course, is not true. It takes at least six years to drill a boy to make him efficient for such service. Watch these divisions of the English fleet as they are perfecting themselves for war. How do they perfect themselves? By scrubbing clean and keeping polished the decks of their vessels? That is one thing. By turning out in clean and natty uniform? That is another thing. By drilling on deck? that is another thing. But to find out the secret of efficiency, consider the fleet when inky blackness envelops the sea, when all lights are out. and when every ship is in its place with its servers and satellites in their proper places, and, in the inky darkness going full steam ahead. That is where they get their training, that is where they perfect themselves to steal upon the enemy and strike first. Could you get anything like this out of these vessels that these gentlemen pretend to build? The natty uniform, the well-filled table, the drilling on deck, the manning of the guns to a certain extent-these things can be taught, but these vessels would no more be allowed to go in as a portion of the British fleet going into war than you, Sir, would be taken as the general of an army. And my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agrees with that.
Now, I approach another subject. I propose to speak what I think. I have shown this House that, from the entrance of my right hon. friend into these conferences, commencing with 1902, on the question of defence, he has taken one position and one only, a position of absolute antagonism to any effective help of the British empire as a whole. I have followed the history of this branch of the navy which he proposes to build for Canada itself and have shown by his own expressions and those of his followers that it is to be built in Canada, kept in Canada and used for Canada and Canada alone-an utter negation of anything like contribution or help for imperial defence. And he says that, unless you can prove an emergency, you should not get anything else. I take exception there and then. I say that, if for nothing else but the almost intolerable burden which the British taxpayer has been carrying and is to-day carrying, and which will be made heavier upon him with each succeeding year, for which he and he alone pays, but as the result of which we have the security of our commerce, the security and peace of our country, the peace of the empire and the world;-I say that, for this Teason and, outside of all emergencies, Canada with her one hundred millions of revenue, with her strength and wealth and power, ought to contribute immediately toward that navy from which she has taken the benefits and Mr. FOSTER.
to which she has given nothing in men or money. Well, I am led to conclude that my Tight hon. friend has taken this stand from the old-time conviction personal to himself. I do not think you can separate a man from his whole political experience. In Australia no man on either side has piped up with this tune of ' invasion of responsible government ' or ' maintenance of autonomy.' No statesman on either side of the Australian House could be twitted with having spoken independence sentiments of having given utterance to any other sentiment than that of loyalty and fealty to the empire. Their men stand on the platform and in the House of parliament and declare that their fleet goes to the empire's support when the empire calls. Whatever order in council we have to pass, they say, whatever pro forma authority we have to give, these vessels shall go when the mother country needs them. If we had a government in Canada such as they have in Australia, we should have little doubts upon this matter. But, under the present government of Canada, led absolutely' as it is by one man, we have a right to ask ourselves something as to the past history and past public record of this gentleman.	.
And first I have a quarrel with my right hon. friend, this pink of a British .citizen, this example of an English Liberal, for doing what no British statesman, no English Liberal that I ever heard of, would do-going to a foreign country and animadverting unfavourably upon the conduct of his own country and of the motherland. Sir, in the city of Boston, over and over again, my right hon. friend, though he was under the oath of a privy councillor, stood before audiences and criticised the conduct of Canada and England in the civil war of the United States. And, in that troublous time, when we were asserting with courtesy and perfect fairness the rights of Canada to the waters that were given to her by the treaty of 1818, what did the right hon. gentleman say?
In the civil war the English people and the Canadian people did not show then the least sympathy.	.
England fitted out armed cruisers to prey upon and destroy American commerce.
We allowed American filibusters to raid Vermont and New York frontier towns.
Canada failed in her duty.
In my opinion the conduct of England, of Canada, towards the United States during the war was a disgrace to the civilization of England, of Canada. The American people could fight their own battles; they required no help, hut when they were engaged in a supreme struggle for the life or death of this great nation; when they were fighting for a cause as great, as holy, as ever engaged the devotion of men; when they had reason to expect the outspoken sympathy of those nearest to them, it was galling that southern privateers could be built, manned and equipped in England,

with the passive connivance of the British government, to destroy American commerce on the high seas; it was galling that rebel refugees could find shelter in Canada, and there, with impunity and without provoking condemnation, plot abominable crimes to help secession.
I find no fault with my right hon. friend for holding these sentiments if he so reads history. What I say is that you would search far and long to find a British statesman who would take such an occasion, before a people that were not over-friendly at that time, to call in question the acts of his country.
Well Sir, I have another thing to say with regard to my right hon. friend. His frantic attempts to tack Canada on to the United States in its fiscal policy, and in 1891, to drive the wedge of discrimination and of separation between the mother country and Canada in favour of the United States, does not show to my mind that he is very much in favour of British connection. 1891 has a history fore and aft. It was preceded by continental union and commercial union, in both of which my hon. friend participated, it was preceded by statements made in tin province of Quebec when my right hon. friend said of Mr. Mercier, ' Mr. Mercier is the greatest Canadian since the time of Papineau. I believe with Mr. Mercier, and I am here to make Mr. Mercier prevail.' And Mr. Mercier did prevail in 1890; then Mr. Mercier turned around in 1891, and he says to his people. ' I am fighting for the supremacy of Mr. Laurier my friend in the Dominion House. When we put. him there. Quebec will get all that she asks.' If there ever was a treaty entered into and publicly ratified, it was between Mr. Mercier and Mr. Wilfrid Laurier of that time. Now what happened in 1885? A memorable day was seen in the city of Montreal, and on the Champs de Mars, Mr. Mercier, and a gentleman by the name of Wilfrid Laurier, both spoke; and this gentleman by the name of Wilfrid Laurier, who was a sworn Privy Councillor at that excited period, and before that excited congregation declared that if he had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan he would have shouldered his musket and would have levelled it at the soldiers of the Queen. Immediately after that, two things took place. Mr. Mercier became an apostle of independence, and travelled the United States in 1892 and 1893, delivering hundreds of lectures, all in favour of the independence of Canada, declaring that only by being independent could we get our rights, amongst others the right to make treaties with such countries as we wished. He, (Mr. Mercier), was allied with men in the United States of America, he drew his salary from them, he paid his expenses out of their collections. He travelled the country, as I said, enlisting French Canadians, and men of other nationalities, prominent American citizens, all 'in favour of the independence of Canada; and along with it was the propagation of continental union, and the union of Canada with the United States. While this was going on, where was my right hon. friend? In Boston preaching the same doctrine in 1892; in the House of Commons preaching the same doctrine in 1891 and 1892, the doctrine of separation and independence. You have heard his words read,
I need not read them again. Mr. Mercier's cardinal doctrine was:	' What we want is
the power to make our own treaties.' He was outside parliament. My right hon. friend was inside parliament, and my right hon. friend was doing inside parliament what Mr. Mercier was doing outside parliament. In 1892 he advocated and tried to have passed by this House the following resolution :
It is expedient to obtain the necessary powers to enable Her Majesty the Queen through her representative, the Governor General of Canada, upon the advice of his ministers, to appoint an agent to negotiate commercial treaties with other British possessions or with foreign states, subject to the prior consent or subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada.
And the parliament of Canada alone. Now, I ask my right hon. friend, and I ask this House:	What would have happened
in .this country if my right hon. friend had been successful, and Canada had demanded and had obtained that power? There would have been no guarantee for the union of Canada with the empire for a single five years. It was a demand, not for autonomy, it was a demand for sovereignty, and a sovereignty which, if it were exercised, would make two nations where now there is the mother country and the Dominion under the mother country. They were working together, and in those ways. Well Sir, what more? We find that my friend, before confederation, was inoculated with this same virus. Here is what he wrote in 1866:
We (of the Papineau school) do not care a fig for the English colonies. When any change [DOT]whatsoever is proposed in our political or social institutions, we do not look to see whether this change will be of use to the English colonies or to any other neighbour; we think only of Lower Canada and the French race. What have we in common with the English colonies? What interest, what relations bind us to them? Is it a matter of origin, religion, language, national aspirations? No, not at all.
In 1888 in the House of Commons he says:
The time is coming when the present relations between Great Britain and Canada

must either become closer or be severed altogether.
At the Club National, on the 2nd of July, 1890, he made another profession of faith:
I do not mean to say that we should always remain a colony; on the contrary, the day is coming when this country will have to take its place among the nations of the earth. But I do not want to see my country's independence attained through the hostility of one race to another.
That was directed against the attempt to form the Parti National.
I do not want my country's independence to be conceived in the blood of civil war. I want my country's independence to be reached through the normal and regular process of all the elements of its population towards the realization of a common aspiration.
JVell Sir, when we come down to 1892 he says:
I hold out to my fellow countrymen the idea of independence. But whenever the day comes it must come by the consent of both countries, and we shall continue to keep the good feeling and the good will of the mother land.
If we are true to our record we will again exhibit to the world the unique and unprecedented example of a nation achieving its independence by slow degrees and as naturally as the severing of the ripe fruit from the parent tree	I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada, to see Canada an independent nation, in due course of time.
These were not the outpourings of a youthful and immature imagination, these were the studied statements of an old and seasoned public man, uttered in Boston, and repeated in the House of Commons of Canada, and up to this day my right hon. friend has not disavowed that that is still his goal. I invite him to do so now.
He will not do it, he still maintains that opinion; that is still his goal. We can quite well see why in 1902, in 1907, in 1909, and now in 1910, he refuses absolutely to link up with the British empire, he declines absolutely to do anything else than to build what he builds in Canada for Canada, and to be used alone in Canada, with the exception of words-and of words my right hon. friend is prodigal. He makes his declaration that that is his settled policy, settled in 1902, settled to this day; yet on the face of it, he declares that the supremacy of the British empire is necessary to the security of this country, as well as to every other part of the empire. He declares that it is the only security for the commerce and the peace and prosperity of the British empire and the peace of the world. These are his words; those that I have been describing are words plus deeds and deeds in the tenor and line of the words,


George Eulas Foster: And to-night, when I put his record before him and challenge him as to whether or not as Prime Minister of this country, leading the foremost Dominion in this empire of ours, he still adheres to his statement of doctrine, over and over made, that he believes and cherishes as his goal the independence of this country and a severing of the ties that bind us to the old land, I think this House and I think this country will come to its own conclusion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: But that is not all. My
right hon. friend has never missed an op-portuntiy of belittling and deriding the diplomacy of the British empire, never.
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy?
Mr. right hon. friend is responsible for that statement.
\\ hat has been British diplomacy to us, Sir? British diplomacy, so far as Canada is concerned, has been a I'ecord of failure, of surrender, and of sacrifice.
Up and down this country he has preached that doctrine. Why? To lessen the respect of a British country for its home country and its home government, to instill the insidious poison into the minds of young and growing citizens that the old country does not know what it is doing and has not treated us fairly. To-night, Sir, I cannot go into the matter of the record of British diplomacy, but I am willing to dp it at any time, and I have not much use, I say it straight, I have not much use for a public man representing the highest position in this country who finds nothing better to do than to go up and down this country deriding and misrepresenting British diplomacy and wishing for the day when we may be rid of it. My right hon. friend will not deny that.
But he has done more than that. He has never given up an opportunity, during the last 10 or 15 years, of representing Canada as engaged in deadly conflict, wrenching from the British government tyrannical government, rights and privileges, and he has stretched to the very verge of a very vivid imagination the rights and privileges which we to-day enjoy by virtue of the concessions of the British prerogative. And so his Minister of Marine afterwards comes back from the conference of 1909 and says: We have wrenched from Great Britain our political autonomy, we have wrenched from Great Britain our treaty-making autonomy, we have wrenched from Great Britain our fiscal autonomy, and now I come back with our naval autonomy. All these things my rieht hon. friend speaks, lesser men echo

what he says. These are but the results of teaching. The Postmaster General said the other day that a bad canvass was being used against the government in Quebec, that the government were represented as sacrificing on the altar of Moloch the youth and vigour of the country for the sake of European wars. I think I am not misrepresenting my hon. friend. My hon. friend knows the story of old, about the one who ploughed the furrow and who sowed the dragon's teeth therein and found himself straightway confronted by armed men. These are the armed men which were sown by my right hon. friend and his colleagues in 1896 and later. Don't I know it, don't I know that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. L. P. Brodeur), and Mr. Monet, since translated to his reward, and sundry others, went up and down the lines in the province of Quebec and represented to audience after audience that we had actually made a grant to get rifles for our soldiers and artillery for our troops, and that the babes were to be torn from the mothers' breasts, and the lovers to be torn from their sweethearts' arms and carried away to be sacrificed in this vortex of militarism? It was all very nice to erect Moloch's altars then and sacrifice on them, but the armed men have sprung up and thev aTe confronting my right hon. friend and his lieutenants at this very moment.
But what more, Sir. Not only that, hut then comes this last straw which breaks the camel's back. We have a good old song which often we have sung, thousands of throats have sung it throughout the length and breadth of the empire and de-liehted to do it:	God Save Our King.
But, now, we have got to substitute another word, and hereafter our song will be: God save our suzerain, long live our suzerain, God bless the suzerain. That may be a light thing for my right hon. friend, but it is exactly in line with every other effort to weaken the respect for sovereignty and the respect for the ties that bind us to the old land. Are these things of little moment coming from a man of high degree and of high place? I do not think so. This country is filling up with men who are foreign to our institutions and who have to be taught to become good British subjects. Is this the way to teach them? I do not think so. This may be a little thing to my right hon. friend, but is one of the things which in unison with the others shows the trend. Now, my deduction from all this is simply: If in Australia and New Zealand there is no unrest in the public mind, that when war time comes their fleets will go to the defence of the empire, it is because they have not been blessed with public men who have given utterance to diverse sentiments such as these I have been quoting. In 1899, this
country knows what took place. It knows that the deliberate intention of my right hon. friend was to prevent a single Canadian being sent to South Africa. We were the laggards, and if it had not been for the power of public opinion outside we would have been so far laggard that we would never have been in the race at all. I listened the other night to the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) in his desire to Lincolnize the head of the government, and I asked myself what in the world is he after that he puts it on so thick and so often. My hon. friend from South Ontario in comparing the Prime Minister to Lincoln, said that all the progress of this country in all its great epochs was due to the policy and the effort of my right hon. friend.


James Conmee: Quite correct.


George Eulas Foster: Quite correct says the hon. gentleman. Now, to this eminently sane and sound and unprejudiced hearer, let me invite the consideration of four dates. There is the date of 1878, there is the date of 1882, there is the date of 1891, and there is the date of 1899.


Mr. TALBOT.: And there is the date of 1896.


George Eulas Foster: I never have treated my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) who has just interrupted me as being a serious subject; he is so good natured and has been so often through the composing room that I will not lose time dealing with him.
1878 saw the institution of the industrial life of this country under the influence of protection, which alone brought into existence and kept in its development to 1896. In 1878 where was my right hon. friend and the Liberal party? If they had had their way in 1878 would you have had industrial Canada as it is to-day? That is one epoch. The other date is 1882. In 1882 the splendid project of uniting this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific with a great transcontinental railway was launched, and it took stress and strain and money hardly to be got to carry it through. Does anybody dispute the proposition that the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway and its work has been one of the prime elements in the progress of Canada? Where would that railroad have been if my right hon. friend and his party had had their way?
In 1891 it was a struggle, life and death, 'for the perpetuation of British connection in this country. There is no doubt about it. My right hon. friend laughs at British connection. Edward Blake was a man intellectually far superior to my right hon. friend. He had so much imagination, he was not gifted with so

much levity of thought, he did not depend so much on airy rhetoric, but Edward Blake had a brain of tremendous power; Edward Blake was loyal. And when the 1891 propaganda of the right hon. gentleman was driven to its conclusion, Edward Blake left him and his reasons for leaving are on record to this date. He left the right hon. gentleman, because, he said, that if the right hon. gentleman's policy were to be successful it would end in severing the bonds that bound Canada to the empire. And, that the right hon. gentleman was not successful was due to the work of the Liberal Conservative party. The last date is 1899, and what happened in 1899? The Boer war broke out. The other colonies jumped into the field, the governments trying to keep ahead of their people and the people trying to run close to their governments. There was no schism between them. But in Canada the constitutional bogey was put up. Parliamentary sanction was invoked. There was no power to do this and do that, and if my right hon. friend had his way not a Canadian would have been sent to South Africa. Now, Sir, I hold that taken by and large, no one event that ever happened in the Dominion of Canada has done so much to elevate Canada in the plane of action, to widen its horizon and win it greater place and prominence in the wide world than resulted from Canadian volunteers going to South Africa and fighting as they fought on the plains of Africa for the old flag. For many a long distant day Canada will not cease to find the beneficial effects accruing to her from our part in that transaction. And, Sir, if my right hon. friend had had his way that would never have happened. Therefore, these four dates may well be conned over by hon. gentlemen and may well be thought out by the people of this Dominion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken longer than I intended.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


George Eulas Foster: I have other things I would like to say.


Samuel Hughes: Adjourn the debate.


George Eulas Foster: 
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Before moving the adjournment of this debate, I think that the remarkable speech which has fallen from the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Foster) deserves a word or two of comment from hon. gentlemen on this side. I want to say a few words regarding the unique position he occupies to-night. I have heard him on numerous occasions since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, but rarely have I seen him in a more desperate frame of mind. After having been compelled to eat every word he said a year ago, when, with all the adjectives and invectives he had at his hand he declared that it would be unwise and improper thing for Canada to give a contribution, and that the proper thing for her was to build her own navy,-after he had been compelled to do this by the men who supply the sinews of war during election times and who applied the thumb screw and the composing room to himself and his leader in order to make them withdraw from the position they had taken -after he and his leader had performed a feat, the like of which has only been heard of in history once before when ' the King of France with twice ten thousand men marced up the hill and then marched down again,' the hon. gentleman sought to cover his disgraceful retreat by endeavouring to discredit the right hon. gentleman who has guided the destinies of Canada so success-fullv since the Liberal party took office in 1896. If I wanted to go into ancient history, I could tell some home truths about the man who was premier of this country and leader of the Conservative party and who declared himself in favour of annexation, I could bring into prominence again the Pacific scandal and the notorious nest of traitors and moments of weakness, but I shall not be lead away by the example of the hon. gentleman. I say that it was undignified and unbecoming for a gen-

tleman occupying the position the hon. gentleman does, to talk as he did about the man who governs this country and whom every Liberal in Canada is proud to follow-to talk about his being an enemy of the empire and a separatist. Why, the fourteen years of his administration is a sufficient answer to the slander. What record has the hon. gentleman to show? When he was Minister of Finance did it ever enter into his head that Canada should show some slight appreciation of England's great watchfulness over her by giving a preference in the Canadian market? No, that was left for the Liberal leader to do. When there was a war in the Soudan, what course did the Tory government, of which my hon. friend was then Finance Minister, take? They said to the English government: We will allow you to enlist our young men in this country, but we will not give you a dollar. And yet this hon. gentleman talks about his party having forced Sir Wilfrid Laurier to send Canadian troops to South Africa. Sir, we all know it was left to a French Canadian, at the head of the Canadian government, to see that Canadians, for the first time in the history of this country, were sent by their government to fight the battles of the empire.
Let me give you an evidence of the opinion in which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is held in England. You have all heard of Mr. Richard Jebb, the gentleman who ran as a Liberal Unionist in St. Pancras and whom the imperial federationists of this country asked Mr. Balfour to select as a candidate. Well, Mr. Jebb says, in his ' Sketches of colonial nationalism,' speaking of the Prime Minister of Canada:
Reviewing the events which have taken place since the passing of the Transvaal resolution by the Dominion parliament in the summer of 1899, Canadians, after all, have no reason to think that their country has failed to keep her accustomed lead in the steady movement towards imperial co-operation. On the contrary, in the end as at the beginning, Canada figures as the resolute guardian when others were tempted to turn aside of that mutual independence which is the sure foundation of imperial union. Prominent amongst nationalist statesmen stands Sir Wilfrid Laurier successfully applying to the constructive problem of the empire the fearless and progressive spirit of this political tradition.
When Mr. Jebb, with his record on imperial subjects gives that certificate of character to the leader of the Liberal party in Canada, my right hon. friend need not care about what the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says. One remark more before I move the adjournment. When listening to the hon. member (Mr. Foster) talking about the motherland and what Canada
. Mr. MACDONALD.
owed the empire, I asked myself whether his judgment would be as good as that of a young man, a son of Nova Scotia, who led the Nova Scotians at Paardeberg, who wears the decoration of Her Majesty for the distinction he won in fighting the battles of the empire in South Africa. Would not the judgment of such a man be worth far more than that of the hon. gentleman who has used up the time of this House for purely partisan purposes? To-night I received this letter from the young gentleman in question, whose devotion and patriotism cannot be gainsaid :
Dear Mr. Macdonald,-Canadian attitude on the naval question being in the forefront, I hope you will not think me presuming upon your time and patience if I venture to place before you the situation as it appears to one who is not in the active political field.
The first thing to be settled is to find out at what objects we are aiming.
It seems to me that the only contribution truly acceptable to the Canadian mind must be in the form of Canadian flesh and blood, that is to say in trained Canadian seamen. If Canada is to pay Englishmen to do Canada's share of the fighting, we had better step down and out.
Our immediate object should be to commence the training of a body of, say 2,000 Canadian sailors. These men can be drawn from inland cities and counties of Canada just as well as from the maritime ports, because the crew of a modern warship are not so much sailors in the usual sense of the word as they are artillervmen, riflemen, mechanics and engineers of all kinds, and the inland cities and towns can furnish their quota just as well as the maritime provinces.
The reason that the South African War was of such vital interest to Canada, was because she had some 8,000 men there, all of them writing home, and every city, town, county and street in Canada could say that it had a representative fighting in South Africa.
Had the contribution of Canada in the South African War taken the form of a cash contribution or the contribution of magnificent batteries of inanimate guns, Canada's enthusiasm would have been insignificant.
Canada's proper contribution to imperial defence must be in trained Canadian men, and to train these men we must commence a navy.
If war should be declared to-morrow, a contribution of $10,000,000 or five times that amount, if you like, can be voted by the Canadian parliament and placed at England's disposal.
Outside of all this there is the constitutional question, and the Liberal government deserve the thanks and the everlasting gratitude of every member of the British empire in its refusal to be stampeded into committing a false step in our imperial relations.
The surest and quickest way to an effective form of imperial union is the maintenance by Canada of a dignified attitude, and there is no occasion for us to lapse into the colonial position which our ancesters did so much to extricate us from.

If the process of giving Dreadnoughts is commenced the English people will expect a continuation of such policy, and its discontinuance will cause more friction than ever exists at present.
I entirely disapprove of any action which will lead to condition of affairs from which Canada will find it difficult to withdraw, and have not the slightest hesitation in saying that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy is merely a logical step in the process of colonial and imperial development at which we have heen busy for so many years.
The surest aid which Canada can give to the development of the empire is the establishment qi a robust Canadianism, able to place in the fighting line of the empire trained Canadian seamen as it has already placed trained Canadian soldiers.
And, after all this long harangue in which my hon. friend descended to the old game of abusing those who did not agree with him-because he had a poor case- and before moving the adjournment of the debate, I wanted to give the opinion of Richard Jebb, the imperialist, as to the estimation in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier is held in England-aye, and wherever the English language is spoken; and I wanted to give the answer from a man who knows- a man who went out and fought the battles of the empire, not one who stayed at home and dotted 'i's' ^nd crossed 'tV and twisted words and distorted ideas. These are an answer sufficient for to-night to the address of my hon. friend, and so I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow is Friday and it is not likelv that we shall have a full House. We will not take up this debate, but will go on with estimates.


George Eulas Foster: What estimates?


Wilfrid Laurier: Public works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.23 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 11, 1910.