1910-11-22

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to lay on the table the report of General Sir John French, also copies of general orders of the appointments, promotions and retirements in the Canadian militia which have been passed and issued since the last session of

parliament under the authority of the statute.



QUESTION OF ORDER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I think it is my duty, for the proper conduct of the debates and the maintenance of decorum, to call attention to a remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) during the heat of debate. Unfortunately I did not hear it or I would have called the hon. gentleman to order. I am sure the hon. member himself will admit that these words, which were spoken in heat, were unparliamentary and should not have been used, and will take this opportunity to withdraw them.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: At your request, Sir, I withdraw the expression, if it is unparliamentary.


Mr. MONK.: I had not, Mr. Speaker, more than yourself, noticed the expression which has just been pointed out to me in ' Hansard.' I confess that I do not like the form of the hon. gentleman's retraction. If he will step outside this House and repeat the expression to me, face to face, he will there meet with the treatment he deserves.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who last addressed the House, is not in his place, it would be useless for me to occupy the time of the House in endeavouring to express my congratulations upon the speech which he saw fit to deliver last night. I have not yet been quite able to digest that speech, and perhaps I may do, as he did last night, when, in referring to the speech made by the seconder of the address, (Mr. Lapointe), he said he had not been able to fully appreciate it, but would read it over in ' Hansard,' with care and afterwards tender his congratulations. I may take the same course with regard to the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and deal with it when he is in his place. But I may say that, at the conclusion of his remarks last night, there was an expression of opinion in the House that he had not quite risen to the occasion, that he had not reached that standard of excellence in debate which he usually reaches when addressing the House, and the question most prominent in the minds of hon. members was the sporting question very much in vogue in July last:	Has Foster
come back? And many were inclined to think, that, so far as the first round at all events was concerned, he had not come back. However, I think the House will agree with me that his effort was perhaps more remarkable for what it omitted than for what it contained. He spoke in reply to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is an adept at debate He has perhaps greater facility of expression and quicker perception while on his feet than any other member of this House; and it was somewhat remarkable that he made no reference whatever to those matters with which the Prime Minister dealt almost exclusively. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, devoted himself almost exclusively to the discussion of the Naval Service Bill and the recent by-election in Drummond and Arthabaska. It was, therefore, to be expected that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would likewise have devoted some attention to that particular matter which is at present so prominent in the public mind. But upon that question, he was as dumb as an oyster. What was the reason? I am prepared to admit that the magnificent address of the Prime Minister was practically unanswerable. I doubt if there were any points in his armour which could be pierced, but still we all naturally expected that some reference would have been made to that matter in the reply of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I noticed also that when reference was first made to the recent by-election yesterday, many hon. members opposite burst into uproarious applause.
A smile of satisfaction and gratification played upon the face of my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and he thumped his desk as did also my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) and other hon. members on that side. I watched carefully the faces of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) but they sat sphinx-like in their places and gave no indication by action, word, gesture or facial expression of their opinions or feelings in regard to this matter of preponderating interest. My hon. friend from North Toronto has not always been so quiet since the recent byelection. For, in the city of Toronto, a day or two after the by-election there was a Conservative gathering. News had come from Quebec of what many in this country consider more in the nature of a national calamity than anything else. And on that occasion the hon. member for North Toronto did deliver himself ; and from his speech as reported in the Toronto press, but excluded, for some reason, from the report appearing in the Toronto 'Mail and Empire,' he seemed to

derive the most intense satisfaction from the result in Drummond and Arthabaska and from the fact that on the streets of Montreal the cry had gone up, 'A has Laurier.' Why, after having risen to the occasion in Toronto two days after the election, he should let the opportunity offered him yesterday of saying something on the subject go by, he did not explain. But I can state the reason which, in my judgment, actuated him, and that i3, that there is, perhaps, a different feeling in the ranks of the Conservative party within the last week or two from what there was within a day or two of the byelection. Perhaps the hon. member from Toronto or the leader of the opposition have been looking over the columns of the Toronto 'News.' That newspaper is edited by one of the ablest journalists in the country, a man with whose opinions we may not all agree, but a man of undoubted ability and forethought. And any hon. members on that side who have been reading the Toronto 'News' the leading Conservative journal in the province of Ontario to-day, will not, I believe, give open expression to feelings of gratification or satisfaction over the result of the elections in Drummond and Arthabaska.
Passing from the subject, as my hon. friend from North Toronto did not make mention of it-though I may refer to it for a moment before I close-I proceed to consider what the hon. member did say. First, taking up that portion of his speech which I think may fairly be referred to as mere rambling comment, that is, the first part of his speech-not that portion which dealt with trade relations _ with the United States-the first question to which he referred was the immigration policy of the government. He only made a passing reference to it, nominally for the purpose of expressing, as he put it, the pleasure which he and other hon. members found in the fact that the immigration policy of the government was giving the greatest satisfaction and meeting with the best results. Had he stopped there, well and good. But that was not his purpose. His purpose was to insinuate that there was something wrong in the government's immigration policy and that the government were bringing into the country a class of people who were no 'Credit to the country and who could not become assimilated completely to our conditions and our manner of life. He spoke of the task which the United States had set before it in assimilating the immigration into that country, the task of a population of ninety millions assimilating a million immigrants annually, as a task of the greatest magnitude. Then he referred to Canada as having by comparison a much Mr. GUTHRIE.
greater task, our population, which he took at eight millions, having to absorb a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, two hundred and fifty thousand immigrants a year. The proportion in the United States is as ninety to one, and in Canada as thirty-two to one. So the hon. gentleman's figures would show that the task in Canada would be three times as great as that of the United States. And there he stopped, insinuating that the government were pursuing a wrong policy, that the task of assimilation would be too great for the country, and that the foreign element might, at some day in the future, dominate conditions in Canada, and, possibly, subvert our institutions. Whether he spoke for the east or for the west, or for both the east and the west, I do not know, but it is clear that his object was not to congratulate the government upon its policy, but to condemn it by inference. His statement was only half a statement; had he made all known, nobody would see occasion for alarm. I asked the Immigration Department to give me figures to show where Canada did stand in this matter. They gave me a comprehensive statement only a brief extract of which I will give to the House. Take the immigration for nine years and nine months to March 31 last-the nine months being added on account of the change of the fiscal year in 1907. The total immigration to Canada in that time was 1,453,391. And how is that made up? From the United Kingdom came 562,054; and from the United States directly-not through the United States but from that country-came 497,390. And from all other quarters of the globe, including South Africa, Australia and other British colonies, came 393,947. That is, less than 25 per cent of the total immigration is foreign population, and 75 per cent is Anglo Saxon, not population which this country must slowly assimilate, but population like our own in every respect, speaking our language, and accustomed to our laws, our free institutions and our political methods. So, the question of assimilation arises only in regard to 25 per cent of that immigration. And so with the present year. In the seven months up to 31st October last the total immigration was 227,966. Of this the immigration from the British Isle3 was 90,740 and the immigration direct from the United States was 85,563, so that the immigrants from all other countries in the world numbered during that period 56,663. That is, 77 per cent of the immigration of this year is Anglo-Saxon immigration, and 23 per cent is foreign. So, the process of assimilation which the hon. member from North Toronto so much fears applies only to 23 out of every hundred

those coming in this year, while 77 out of every hundred are like ourselves. Yet this is the bugaboo which the hon. member raised yesterday to frighten people into believing that the system of immigration pursued by the government was an improper system and likely to fill this country with an undesirable class of citizens.
Then the hon. member turned to the same point as that to which his leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) turned at the opening of his remarks. I do not know anything in recent times that has given hon. members opposite, from their leader down to the humblest members of the rank and file, more concern, more grave alarm, than that which must seem to most of us on this side a matter of domestic politics, namely, the tour of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) through western Canada last summer. I believe that tour has given greater alarm to the Conservative members in this parliament than any German war scare or threatened invasion ever did. And it is for that reason, and that reason solely, that the leader of the opposition and his chief lieutenant in this House at once plunged into the question of the western tour, with the object, of course, of making some capital out of it if they could. What did they have to say? What did they object to? The objections, so far as I recall them, were, in the first place, the manner in which the Prime Minister saw fit to receive the various, deputations who called upon him. They complain that this and that deputation received unsatisfactory answers, that the Prime Minister did not give them the information they desired regarding the tariff, that he gave them no definite information at all on that great question. What would they expect of the Prime Minister of a country in respect of tariff matters? I do not know that there is a man in Canada who has so full a knowledge of and so high a regard for the responsibilities which pertain to his high office as the Prime Minister himself. I do not know any one who would be less likely to contravene any known parliamentary usage or parliamentary principle. No one but a blatant openmouthed politician would tell a deputation of any kind what he would do ot would not do in regard to tariff matters. Delegation after delegation, denutation after deputation come here every session and consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and what do they find out? What would the opposition think of a Prime Minister or a Minister of Finance who would tell what they proposed to do? It would be the grossest breach of parliamentary usage that one could conceive of. So when deputations in the west visited the Prime Minister and laid before him their imagined grievances, what were they promised? They were promised, in this case,
consideration and investigation, and if it turn out that they have a good ease, I think they can make up their minds that they will get speedy relief; and if they have not a good case they will not get the relief for which they prayed. What more should a man do? That seems to me their great ground for complaint against the Prime Minister during his western tour, as judged by the speeches made by the leader of the opposition and his chief lieutenant.
Oh, but, says the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), there is more than that. What more than that took place on that tour, that triumphal progress, you might call it? Why, he says, the Liberal government has unfairly dealt with those new provinces, and the Prime Minister is chiefly to blame for the unfair treatment meted out to them. Then he struck a strange note. He says: You should have taken these new provinces into this confederation as an ' unshackled sisterhood,' with the rights which the British North America Act gave them. And then his leader began to move uncomfortably in his seat, and a seraphic smile lit up the countenance of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), for he knew why the reference was made. But the hon. member for North Toronto saw that he had made a mistake, he saw that he had stepped on a coiled snake, and he dropped the subject like a b-ot potato; nothing more was said ot that question. That was the old school question, which was threshed out in this parliament in 1905, one upon which the 'Conservative party took a narrow and untenable stand, and for which the people rebuked them as soon as they had a chance.	.
Then what did he pass to? Dropping the ' unshackled sisterhood of provinces ', he turns to the question of the public lands of those provinces. He says the Prime Minister himself was the man who was guilty of depriving those new provinces of their right to administer and manage their own lands. Why should the new provinces be deprived of that right? Why should they be treated differentlv from the other provinces of this Dominion? Once more I complain that the statement of the hon. member for North Toronto was not accurate, but was thoroughlv misleading, and the trouble of it is that his statement will probably go to the northwestern provinces, and my explanation will not. His statement was made, I believe, for the purpose of misleading. Now what are the facts? Why do the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and British Columbia own and control their own lands, while the new provinces do not? Is there not a good reason for it? The reason simply is because the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario, or Quebec, or the maritime provinces, or British Columbia, never owned an acre of land except
&3

they .had brought trade in this country; they saw the tremendous falling off that had taken place everywhere and the market to the south cut off. They made another determined effort and back again went the hon. member for North Toronto and his colleagues to put through some kind of a trade arrangement. Did they succeed? No, they trooped back again. Where is the skin of the McKinley tariff bear? It still remained at Washington, they did not bring it back. What did they bring back? They brought back a statement by the Secretary of State that if Canada would directly discriminate against Great Britain then she might have a treaty with the United States, and as my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) put it last night, as he poised his head towards Heaven with a heavenly beam on his countenance, he said: We would not discriminate against the mother land. Did he forget that from 1879 to 1891, when he went to Washington, his party and his government had consistently discriminated against the mother land in favour of the United States? Why, Sir, their tariff itself was a discrimination. They charged more on British than on American imports, they did not regard the question of the long haul, the heavy charge for water carriage or marine Insurance from England; instead of that they charged a higher average rate of duty to Great Britain and discriminated against her all that time, and yet the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) comes forward and says: We do not accept your terms because it would be discrimination against Great Britain. What was their next move? What did they think of next? Some wise Conservatives said: Let us try and see if we cannot do something with the mother land, and in the House of Commons in March, 1892, Mr. McNeill, Conservative member for North Bruce, solemnly moved his preferential tariff resolution proposing a preferential arrangement with the mother land. That resolution is known in history as the ' if and when ' resolution, and as it is a long time since it was moved in this House perhaps I had better call it to your attention. Mr. McNeill moved, in 1892, as the Conservative idea of preferential treatment towards the mother land, the following:-
Resolved, that if and when the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland admits Canadian products to the markets of the United Kingdom upon more favourable terms than it accords to the products of foreign countries, the parliament of Canada will be prepared to accord corresponding advantages by a reduction in the duties it imposes upon British manufactured goods.
That resolution was met by a resolution moved bv the Hon. Mr. Davies (now Sir Louis Davies of the Supreme Court) which was as follows:-


Hugh Guthrie: Inasmuch as Great Britain admits the products of Canada into her ports free of duty, this House is of the opinion that the present scale of duties exacted on goods mainly imported from Great Britain should be reduced.
That resolution was moved in March, 1892, and I refer to the date particularly because last night my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) stated that in 1892 the Prime Minister had gone to London, Ont., and in a speech stated that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of mutual preferences with Great Britain and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) meant to convey the impression that the policy of the Liberal party implied that a tariff should be imposed by Great Britain in favour of the products of Canada. Well, the position of the Prime Minister at that particular date is a matter of record in this parliament, because he voted for that resolution moved by Sir Louis Davies and that resolution stands to-day as the guiding principle of the policy of this government in regard to trade with Great Britain. But, Sir, look at the ridiculous position wThich hon. members of the Conservative party in those days took upon that question. What did they ask Great Britain to do and for what purpose? Bear in mind that in the year 1892 our imports from Great Britain, which represented all we bought from Great Britain, amounted to $41,000,000. There was then a paltry importation of $41,000,000 worth of goods from Great Britain and for the sake of that infinitesimal trade, Mr. McNeill and the Conservative party had the effrontery to ask Great Britain to tax the food supplies of her people. Of course, in that day, when we were able to speak of millions at all, it looked a large sum, especially when it rolled under the tongue of the hon. member fort North Toronto. We imported $41,000,000 worth of goods from Great Britain in these days, but to-day without that duty, which was pronosed by the Conservative party, Great Britain sells us $217,000,000 worth of goods or more than five times what she sold us in 1892. How consistent, too, of these ultra loyalists of the Conservative party those navy-league loyalists of the Conservative party ; those gentlemen who at public banquets and Canadian Club lunches in particular, tell us what enormous burdens England has to hear to support that navy which protects us, and wrho calk on us to pity the poor mother land groaning under the weight of the taxes which she imposes upon herself; how inconsistent it is that those same ultra loyalists, those same navy leaguers, those men some of whom sit on the opposition benches to-day, should deliberately and solemnly in 1892 and continually since then ask Great Britain not only to tax herself for her navy, but to tax herself for her very food stuffs for the benefit of Canada. We have, therefore, set out in these two resolutions which I have read the

respective policies of the political parties in 1892, and each party has lived up to its policy in that respect pretty well ever since. Certain it is that the Liberal party has up to the present day carried out the policy proposed by Sir Louis Davies in 1892, and certain it is that whenever the Conservative party has pronounced upon that policy it has pronounced in accordance with the McNeill resolution. Now, did my right hon. friend the Prime Minister deviate in regard to the tariff policy; was his course a devious one between 1890 and 1896? I admit that in some respects it was. I have no hesitation in saying that he made several suggestions, and every Liberal in the country who gave any consideration to the inatter also made suggestions. The Liberal party, and particularly the present Prime Minister knew that something must be done or this country would be prostrated. No one knew that better than my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster); no one felt it more keenly than he, and I do not know that any one was more responsible than he for the disaster that impended over the land. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) did not institute the National Policy, but he was one,of the main factors in administering that policy. I have always noticed about the hon. member (Mr. Foster) since he and I have been in the House together, that he lacks initiative, and I trust he will not mind my telling him that so plainly. He is a wonderful critic, he is an able and active critic: possibly no better critic ever sat in opposition than is the hon. gentleman, but his criticism is entirely of the destructive as opposed to the constructive kind. The hon. member (Mr. Foster) shakes his head and I take it that he shakes it with approval.


Mr. FOSTER.: It must be a very eloquent shake.


Hugh Guthrie: backwards. Perhaps I should give the figures, though I do not think my hon. friend from North Toronto will contradict me. The total foreign trade for the year 1893-4 had fallen off some $4,000,000 from the year before. The same year showed the highest record in business failures and the poorest for the accumulations of the people in the banks. In every line of industry and commerce there was the same falling ofi. Canadian Pacific Railway stock was selling at between 80 and 90, whereas to-day it is up to 200. The deposits in the chartered banks of Canada to the credit of the people, of which my hon. friend used to boast, showed in 1896 $183,000,000 only. Everything was going down. That was the condition which confronted the hon. member when he sweated those drops of blood. There was not sufficient initiative, either in himself or in his colleagues, to reach out and see what could be done in other parts of the world, when, by their policy of nonintercourse they found Canadian products kept out of the United States by hostile tariff laws.
Well the people rose in their might and cast out those unfaithful stewards who had made government a by-word in the land. A new order of things was established, and the hon. member for North Toronto may talk till he is black in the face, may use all his ingenuity and all his force of expression to denounce the devious course of the Prime Minister in tariff matters since 1896 ; but I ask him to judge of the policy of the Prime Minister in tariff matters by its results. Let me adduce a few of those results. Our foreign trade, which, as my hon. friend boasted, amounted to $239,000,000 in 1896, will amount this year to over $800,000,000. In eighteen years of Conservative rule the foreign trade of Canada increased by $66,000,000, whereas in the fourteen years of Liberal rule it has increased by nearly $600,000,000. Has the fiscal policy of the Prime Minister served its purpose in regard to our national finances? In 1896 the hon. member for North Toronto had a revenue of $36,000,000 ; this year we have a revenue of over $105,000,000. There has not been a deficit since 1897, and the deficit of that year this government could hardly be charged with. It has been a tale of surplus, surplus, surplus. A reasonable surplus is all right, but a surplus may become too great. I am prepared to maintain that we have at present a tariff for the purpose of revenue. It has yielded us an abundant revenue but it has not yet yielded us enough revenue to enable us to pay all our annual expenditures and to provide all the public works which this country requires. But we have a fiscal policy which has made a far better showing than the fiscal policy of my hon. friend. Take that policy in its operation regarding the indi-Mr. GUTHRIE.
vidual. Take it as shown in the bank accounts of the people ; that is a fair test. In the last year in which my hon. friend from North Toronto was in office, the deposits in the chartered banks to the credit of the people of Canada amounted to $183,000,000. By the bank statement for the month of October, 1910, which is the very w'orst month of the year for this purpose because the banks are shorter of money in that month than in any other month in the year, owing to so much being required to pay for wholesale purchases of goods and to move the crops, the returns show deposits in the chartered banks of Canada to the amount of $829,000,000 ; and if to that you add the deposits in the government savings banks, you will find that the total deposits of the people of Canada amount to probably $950,000,000. Putting our population at 8,000,000, that is equal to about $120 a head for every man, woman and child in Canada in the banks of the country irrespective of the business that has been done. Has the fiscal policy of the government yielded well with regard to private individuals as well as in regard to gcfvernment finances? What are the figures of trade? Our foreign trade on a population of 8,000,000, amounts to $100 per head as against only $35.50 in the United States and $105.25 in Great Britain. If we come down to the actual population of Canada, which is probably somewhat less than 8,000,000, it will show that the foreign trade of this country to-day is at the top of the list, greater than that of Great Britain itself. Judging, then, these policies by their results, can my hon. friend condemn the devious course in tariff matters of the Prime Minister? If he were fair and candid, he would say to the Prime Minister, your tariff policy has worked out well, to the great advantage of this country and in no sense to its detriment.
The hon. member next pursued a line of argument which I think was a little premature, in regard to Washington negotiations. I must say that from his point of view he argued his case with remarkable force and energy. I would not like to say a word either in favour or against his argument until I know more about the circumstances. I think he was premature. Hr expended half an hour or three-quarters in doing something which in others he has frequently called most reprehensible. He spoke of similar conduct on the part of the Prime Minister last session as most reprehensible. He engaged in tilting at windmills if I may use the expression. Time and again he set up for himself imaginary difficulties with regard to trade arrangements with Washington, then he would mount his charger, put on his arm-

our, poise his lance, strike spurs into his steed and tilt at a windmill.


George Eulas Foster: I must correct my hon. friend. The windmill I was tilting at was the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).


Hugh Guthrie: That is evidently an after thought on the part of the hon. gentleman. No one who heard him could douht that the windmill he was tilting at was purely one of his own imagination. He has been thinking over this question and writing about it during the past three or four weeks. Night and day it has occupied his thoughts, and yesterday he delivered himself of his opinions upon that question, and in so doing showed an utter inadequacy to grasp it. I would be inclined to call that decided effrontery, but to be mild I shall content myself with saying that he was merely tilting at windmills. Would it be good policy, would it be courteous, to treat a request from a great and powerful country, made in proper form, through proper channels-would it be dignified, courteous or proper to treat a request thus made for the discussion of better trade arrangements in the way the hon. gentleman would have us treat it? To my mind the hon. gentleman, in his advice, shows great lack of dignity and statesmanship. If anything were calculated to block a successful issue to any such negotiations as are now going on, language such as my hon. friend used last night would be most effective in accomplishing that object. Perhaps that was his object. Perhaps he wished to block the negotiations before he knew what the proposals were. To my mind, such conduct is absurd and childish. I am prepared, and I am sure that is the consensus of opinion in this House, to wait until we hear what the proposals are before passing judgment. There may be a great deal of force in what my hon. friend said last night, but at least let us wait until we know the proposals before condemning or approving them.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no doubt that just such language as was used last night, just such a spirit as the hon. gentleman has exhibited, was the prominent note in our relations with Washington during the 18 years of Conservative regime, and it was that which no doubt brought about these trade relations between the two countries that gave to Canada the McKinley Act and the Dingley Act and left unsettled so many important subjects of controversy.
Before closing there is one question to which I would like to refer, and that is a question upon which my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was significantly silent last night. I refer to the question of the Canadian navy. To-day, some 10 or 12 months
since both the mother land and her colonies were excited over a German war scare, the alarm in that connection has considerably quieted down. In fact it has now practically passed away, and perhaps the naval policy of the government may to-day be discussed with less heat and to better advantage than during last session or a little prior to last session. I did not take part in the debate last session at all. Far abler men than I said all that was necessary on both sides of the House. But judging from the language then used by hon. gentlemen opposite and the opinions expressed on this side, I do not think that on this question there is a very wide gulf between the two parties. On the contrary I think that they are very close together. Certain it is that in the spring of 1909 there was great unanimity with regard to the duty of Canada in this matter on both sides. Certain it is that upon that unanimous opinion then expressed, this government took action, and that action is to be found embodied in the Naval Bill then brought down. The resolution which passed unanimously in 1909 was in general terms, and the Bill carried out fairly those general terms. And I think I may fairly say that, up to very recently, that Bill met with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. I base that statement on the language used by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in this House in the spring of 1909 and at a Dominion Day banquet in London in that year, also in a.speech which he made in Halifax and which is reported in the Halifax 'Herald.' In that newspaper, the report of that speech was headed: 'Mr. Borden lifts the navy question above party.' I need not give any quotations from these speeches as they will probably be all found in 'Hansard.' In 1909 my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) likewise approved that policy, and it also had the approval of another great Conservative, a former Prime Minister, Sir Charles Tupper. These were all laymen, but the policy had likewise the support of experts of such undoubted authority as Sir Wm. White, Lord Chas. Beresford and Lord Milner and other men of that stamp. I do not think, therefore, that, apart from the question of partisanship, there is great difference between the two parties in this country. No doubt in the spring of 1909 when the motion was up there was a good deal of electricity in the air, there was a good deal of excitement not only in Great Britain but in her colonies as well, and all were more or less of the opinion that there was some real danger in the then situation. I must say that the offer of Dreadnoughts by New Zealand and Australia appealed to me very strongly indeed. There was something very spectacular in it, something that might have a great effect on a foreign

power, and I do not know* that the hon. the leader of the opposition last year went so far out of his way when he moved the amendment he did. There were certain things in it which did appeal to me, but certainly I preferred the government programme. I think I was right in that preference and I am still more convinced now than I was then.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Let those who cheer derisively listen for a moment while I proceed. Had this House supported the amendment of the leader of the opposition last spring, I presume this country would have acted immediately in accordance with that amendment, because it called for immediate action. I presume, we would have sent the price of two modern Dreadnoughts -$25,000,000-to England. And I do not know at this moment how I could have justified such action before my constituents. There was alarm then; there was reason for some apprehension, then. But that has all, passed away now. The best authorities that I can find say that if it has not entirely passed away, it is rapidly passing away, and that the peril has been indefinitely postponed. I believe that, had that money been sent to Great Britain last spring, the only way we could have squared ourselves would have been to stir up a German invasion. Otherwise, we were giving away the people's money for no purpose whatever. This money was not to be for Dreadnoughts ; had it been for Dreadnoughts, we might have had some sort of lien on the ships providing that if there were no war we should get them back. But it was not to be for Dreadnoughts merely; it might have been spent on a naval college at Hong Kong, or for dry-docks at the mouth of the Ganges, according to the views of the Admiralty. Had we given the money in that way we should have been in rather a difficult position. I am glad I had common sense enough to support the government's measure. And, now that the danger has past, or, at least, largely passed, I do not, think there can be very much in principle between the government and the opposition in regard to the naval service. It may be thought by some that we have not gone far enough, and by others that we have gone too far. That is a matter of detail; a matter that can be remedied; but upon the general main principle that Canada should commence to construct a navy out of Canadian material we are one. For my part, I think the leader of the opposition would make the cleverest party move he has ever made during the eleven sessions for which he has occupied his high place, if he were to boldly announce the support of himself and his party to that programme. I do not think that he would to-day move Mr. GUTHRIE.
to send that money to England; I think that he sees that the occasion for it, if it ever existed, has passed. As a matter of fact, it never existed, except in the alarm which we all naturally felt. How is it that certain of the Conservative party are inclined to take satisfaction, or gratification out of the recent by-election which most people look upon as a national disaster or national calamity? Mr. Henri Bourassa has stated recently that the next election is going to be fought on imperialism versus autonomy. I believe that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is just as strong upon the question of autonomy as is the Prime Minister and would guard our autonomy as securely as any one on this side of the House. And I believe that in his calmer moments he holds that the doctrine of true imperialism for a colony is the doctrine first enunciated by the Prime Minister and consistently carried out since he came into office. It is a doctrine which has met with approval in the British House of Commons, from the British government, from the press of Great Britain, and from individual statesmen there. I cannot do better, probably, than put on record one newspaper comment, a comment from the London ' Times ' upon that question. This doctrine of true imperialism was enunciated back in 1897, when the first preferential tariff was passed. That doctrine is that we benefit this country by benefiting the empire. The keynote of the whole administration of the present Prime Minister has been:	Canada in her position as a British possession, and as part and parcel of the British Empire. Some tell us that we got no quid pro quo for our British preference, that we gave Britain our markets, and got nothing in return. Why, that is the beauty of the gift we made, that is the beauty of the policy then inaugurated. I have no patience with the quid pro quo imperialism, of the quid pro quo imperialists in this country, many of whom sit on the opposite side of this House. That true conception of Canadian imperialism which the Prime Minister enunciated in 1897 was again manifested when troops went to South Africa in 1900.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Forced to go.


Hugh Guthrie: I take issue with that statement, and, in view ,of it, I make the statement which otherwise I would not have made. There was a time, in 1883, when there was an imperial demand for Canadian troops, and the Conservative government's answer was:	Not a man.
But, regarding that doctrine which has been enunciated and carried out by the Prime Minister, let me place on record the opinion of so great a newspaper as the London ' Times.' This expression of opinion probably has appeared on our records, though I am not sure just at what place

it is to be found. The article was written on the occasion of a speech delivered in this House by the Prime Minister, announcing the policy of the Liberal party upon that very question of imperialism. The London Times' of March 15, 1900, contained the following:-
The results of the British system of imperial rule, as applied to territory inhabited by white races of different origin, was never more strikingly illustrated than by the speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on Tuesday in the Dominion House of Commons. The speech would rank high in any assembly in the world as a model or noble eloquence, but it is not the language or act of the Canadian Premier's address which will make it live in the annals of the empire. The spirit which glows through it and the thoughts which underlie it are pregnant with great issues for England and mankind. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the French Roman Catholic Premier of a selfgoverning federation, in which British Protestants are in the majority, has expressed more faithfully and more truly than any statesman who has spoken yet, the temper of the new imperial patriotism fostered into selfconsciousness by the [South African] war.
I know that every Liberal in this House and in this country is proud to follow the lead of the Prime Minister in that respect. And I think that, apart from party considerations, every Conservative, in the bottom of his heart, would be equally glad if he could bridge the chasm of party differences and join us on this subject. The sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister is a noble and a true sentiment. What autonomy could we ask in Canada that we do not enjoy, short of separation? They may take away our Governor General; we may be left without any authority of the Crown in this country. That would be independence or something very like it. But we enjoy every' privilege we can reasonably ask for.. And now what is our duty? Our duty is to build up our status within the empire. And that is what this government has consistently been trying to do for fourteen years and with reasonable success. Under these circumstances, can any one congratulate that small body of men-among whom are Mr. Armand Lavergne my old deskmate in this House-who by misrepresentation of the grossest kind are able to impose upon the lack of knowledge in a people in a single riding of the province of Quebec and cause what is nothing short of a national disaster for the time being at all ev.ei?^s'>
But the Conservatives have rejoiced; they have cheered the announcement of that event in this House. Their cheering and shouting reminds me of nothing so much as of that cry which went up from the angry and infuriated mob in the streets of Jerusalem about nineteen hundred years ago:	Give ns
Barabbas! I do not believe there i3 joy in the heart of the Conservative party except for some thought of politic advantage. On my way to Ottawa last week, I met a member of the local legislature of Ontario, a leading Conservative. We happened to mention the fact that Mr. Armand Lavergne was to go to Toronto to address the students there. He was quite candid in his remarks; he said he would be ashamed of a Conservative that could find any satisfaction in that by-election. I think lie was right. I think the Conservative party will not find much satisfaction in that election; and it would be in better form if they displayed less satisfaction over it in the House of Commons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken too long, and will resume my seat.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: As one who voted last session for the Naval Bill for the reasons I expressed then, and which I still hold, that supremacy in sea power is absolutely essential for the maintenance of the British Empire, not only today, but for the future; as one who was willing last session to vote for the establishment of the navy, and to vote money for sending Dreadnoughts, I desire to take this early occasion to refer for a moment to the recent election in Drummond-Arthabaska, and to the debate that has developed in this House. I desire to take this first occasion to enter my protest for myself and for a large portion of the people of Canada, against what has happened in that county, and against the arguments that have been made there. I speak as a Canadian, and I speak for every Canadian in this country when I say that the argument made there was a misguided one. It was based largely on this idea-I have read the speeches and I have read the discussions- and in that argument I could only find the words of a syllogism, words in which, as was well said by an hon. member yesterday, there was more or less of a chimerical hypothesis. But there were only words in the argument. Now, patriotism is a thing that cannot be expressed in words, patriotism is a matter of duty, a matter of service to the country. A man whose patriotism is merely expressed in a syllogism of words does not know the first element of genuine patriotism.	-
Now, there was a something more in that argument. That appeal was made in the province of Quebec. To my mind Quebec is an integral portion of the Dominion of Canada, as much as any other province, and all of us. are of the birthright who are born in this country, no matter in what part of it. There is only one duty that is incumbent upon any man who is of this birthright, and that is the duty of patriotism, that is. the defence of the country, that is, the defence of the empire. No man can set



up the argument in this country that- for some reason or other he is entitled to a peculiar kind of autonomy, that for some reason or other he and his friends have some peculiar right to call themselves autonomists. If they did that, what would follow? They say in Quebec that they are in a certain wav set apart from the. other provinces. But in no way axe they set apart, and if they say there is something different in the Canadian who happens to live in the province of Quebec, 'then they are making an argument for an alien element within the Canadian nation. Now, I appeal to this House: Do we want an alien element in this country? It follows that there must be eventually a separate element in this country, and can we afford that? I here and now repudiate that doctrine. I say it is no part of the autonomy of this country, or any part of it, to refuse to perform the patriotic duty of the defence of this country. I will go further than that, I will say that those who take that position must be misguided, and they must recover themselves; they axe more misguided than unpatriotic. But they are dealing with dangerous weapons, and I regret to say that people are now' asking themselves things in this country they do not like to express openly, but they will express them openly later on, if this thing is not stopped, and unless the world is given to understand that every Canadian within Vie biithright has only one duty, and that is the duty of patriotism, and that if he cannot vote himself out of it, or take refuge under an autonomy or an alienship, then he must withdraw from the country.
There is another argument they make, and it is one that I cannot agree with much as I would like to agree with some of the statements that I have heard in this House. Those who make it say they are entitled to vote on questions of war and peace. I do not agree with that doctrine at all. Under the principle of responsible government, the defence of the country, the maintenance of an army and a navy, rests upon the government of the day, and the government of the day must be responsible. A nation that is dependent for its defence upon the submission of a question of war to the people, would be wiped out in no time. Imagine for one moment what would happen if the people were to be consulted on every question of war. When were the people ever consulted in regard to war in England? Of course the war in South Africa was a great public question, and certain of their politicians, certain of their public men-I do not wish to speak offensively-but the argument was made there that in some way the people of the country had to be consulted. They never were consulted, they never will be consulted. The conduct of war, the defence of the country, is a duty imposed upon the government of the day. And I, who be-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
lieve in responsible government, and who may take occasion later on to say that I am a democrat up to the hilt, I still believe that there is but one sound doctrine, and that is that the people cannot be consulted in regard to war, a province cannot be consulted in regard to war, no province has any special autonomy in regard to war; and if it sets up a doctrine of that kind, it is proposing a condition of alien-ship, and a condition that will eventually lead to separation.
Now I desire to make only one other remark in regard to that campaign that was conducted in Drummond-Arthabaska.
I utterly repudiate the tactics of appealing to the women, and trying to frighten them in regard to their sons. A mother who is loval to her country will give her sons to the defence of the country. The man who made an appeal such as that which was made in that county, an appeal to the women of that province, did not do his duty. It was his duty not to frighten the women, but to say to them, I am here to defend you, the wives, the mothers and the sisters of this country. Sir, I feel strongly on this matter. I desire not to raise any question that will cause ill-feeling, nor do I desire in any way to -make political capital out of this matter. I do say however, that the people of Canada do not like many of the things that were said in that election, and in that province; the people of Canada repudiate them. The people of Canada adfnit it to be their duty to join together in the defence of this country, to tax themselves for it, as other people have always had to do. No people, no community, ho country, can maintain itself to-day by pursuing a policy of peace at any price. We would all like to see peace. I appreciate what was said by both the leaders in this House in regard to peace; but peace depends largely on preparation and those who speak of women, home and children, should remember that the whole security of the woman, of the wife, of the mother, of the home, of the children, is that the country is prepared in some way to defend itself and to assist the empire if it is a portion of that empire, to maintain the dignity of that empire. The question to-day before all the world in regard to warfare is sea power and the maintenance of sea power, and especially is it necessary for a world wide empire in times of great expenditure upon naval construction, to maintain itself fully in that respect.	_
We have heard about the Prime Minister's visit to the west, we have heard him and the previous speakers refer to his visit to British Columbia. May I impress the immense importance of British Columbia in the make-up of this Dominion of Canada?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: We who live in the east have been used to hearing and speaking of the Atlantic approach to America, we have been used to hearing of the English approach and French approach by the early navigators who came from England and from France, and opened this country to the citizens of Great Britain and France, and then of the greatest of all, the rise of the United States out of the British colonies. This we think of as something enormous, something that plays a great part in history. But there was another approach to America, that was the Spanish approach, the approach that gave Columbus, and all those great colonizers and men of devotion who came to America by the Gulf of Mexico, by South America, who crossed the isthmus and the southern continent to the Pacific ocean, and traversed the coast of that ocean to California. Eventually the British people same into possession of British Columbia, and when you see that country to-day, the thing that impresses the Canadian is the greatness, the super-greatness of the Spanish approach to America, and the greatness of the outlook upon the Pacific. That outlook upon the Pacific to-day is the most momentous thing in the history of Canada. We see the Panama canal being built at the isthmus by our friends of the south, we see that the intention, the object, the result of that canal is to open up an enormous sea trade between our Pacific coast provinces and Europe by way of that Panama canal. When you look out across the Pacific you see the greatest collection of people in the world in the continent of Asia, and any one looking from the Pacific shore of Canada at Asia, and at the problems there, must realize the enormous expansion of trade which must take place, until it is a trade ten times or one hundred times greater than our Pacific trade to-day. Then one must see that sea-power and ability to defend that coast is something momentous to Canada. But there is something still more momentous to Canada : When you look at Asia and see the people there, and read what the highest thinkers are saying to-day in regard to that Asia problem, you see a great struggle for supremacy between the yellow and the white races, and it depends absolutely on the sea-power whether that struggle between the white and the yellow race is to take place in Asia, or in our own Pacific province, and in the American Pacific states. To my mind that view of the situation must make us realize how important our position is if we wish to secure our future in the matter of not only developing sea-power ourselves, but joining with the mother country in maintaining the highest and the strongest sea-power for many years to come.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Descending to more every day politics, the Prime Minister in the west dealt largely with our tariff policy. We have a tariff policy in Canada that is composed of three or four things. Our tariff policy first of all has a highly national reason behind it. It is that we Canadians desire to build up our country, and to connect it by trade lines, moving east and west, and if we are to build up our country it is absolutely essential that trade should move east and west. Our tariff must be always framed so as to secure that end. It would be the easiest thing possible to divert our east and west trade, and to send the trade of the western Canadian provinces to Chicago, Minnesota, &c., but for national reasons we upbuild and maintain a tariff which will discourage that. We also maintain a tariff for another purpose, an economic purpose. Many of us believe, I believe, the bulk of Canadians believe in a tariff for building up the industries of a country. I have never heard any one deny that in this country we all believe in a tariff, because it is the only means of building up factories, of keeping our own work for our own work people, our own markets for our own products, and therefore that is the second reason for a tariff in this country. The third reason is that we require a tariff for revenue purposes. We have an expensive government, one which requires a very large revenue, and as the previous speaker admitted, there is not yet a sufficient revenue from the tariff to meet the requirements of the country. What follows? I propose to expound a somewhat new doctrine in this country. After parliament has declared itself in favour of the idea of a tariff for national purposes, for economic purposes, for revenue purposes, it ought to be the duty of experts to adjust that tariff to the views as near as possible of the consumer who wishes to acquire his goods as cheaply as possible. The interests of the consumer must not be alone considered. He is not a patriot in that aspect. The consumer is dealing with dollars and cents and nothing else, but he is a citizen of the country, he must maintain his country, and I know the Canadian citizen sees that there must be a tariff to provide revenue. When it then comes to an adjustment as between the consumer and the national and revenue conditions of the country, the best way to settle details would be by a commission of experts to deal with the tariff. I have had occasion to speak recently on this question of government by commission The more I see^ of the complexity of civilization, of the increased duties devolving upon governments, the more I am compelled to think that the day has arrived when this country can well afford to have a tariff commission to deal with details of the tariff, to work it out so as to attain to the

greatest degree, the real intentions that underlie the tariff, and so when the Prime Minister was in the west I say he should have boldly tackled that question and admitted that the tariff was an essential part of the policy of our country, and that he could not meet the views of those only who said they were consumers.
When he was in the west he touched on another question of great importance to the people of this country, the supreme question in this country, that is the question of transportation. To some of the people whom he met he said:	What you want is
more transportation. I do not quite agree with him in that respect. What this_ country wants in regard to transportation is more regulation of the companies we have engaged in transportation to-day. My contention is that the great Canadian west today is ground down by a railway monopoly. Unfortunately the newspapers of the west, with two or three exceptions, never dare to express the opinion that the people are under the foot of a monopoly in that country. There is a great railway monopoly in the west and both freight and passenger tariffs are too high. Did not Mr. Hays tell the striking trainmen in Toronto that he was not in the west yet with the Grand Trunk Pacific and that he could not earn the high tariff that the Canadian Pacific railway is in a position to take from the people of the west. There is a grinding railway telegraph monopoly in the west and there is a grinding express rate monopoly in the west. A good many people in the west bring in their imports through Pacific ocean ports, but when they do that they find that there is a different tariff for the imports arriving on the coast when forwarded inland, to the tariff which prevails in the east. I do not know how the thing was managed, but it surprises me that when the Prime Minister was in the west apparently most of the discussion was devoted to the tariff, whereas had I been there the thing that would have appealed to me most of all would be a protest against the exorbitant railway tariffs that prevail there. What is the customs tariff compared to the exorbitant railway rates and express rates and telegraph rates. It is not one-tenth of the burden that these railway imposts are and yet very little attention was paid to that question during the Prime Minister's tour in the west. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) told us that the chief objection the Liberal party had to the building of the Canadian Pacific railway was that a very bad bargain had been made. The Liberal party has been in power for a good many years now and that bargain is_ still on the statute-book although it contains a special clause that the bargain shall be subject to revision. The 10 per cent clause in the Canadian Pacific Kailway statute says-at least this is my construction of it, Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
although the railway company and its solicitors and friends put a different construction on it-the 10 per cent clause sets out that the profits distributed to the shareholders shall not exceed 10 per cent and that whatever money is left after that shall be consecrated to the reduction of the rates charged by the company. But, the Canadian Pacific railway has never been called to court to show that that time had not arrived, and as a matter of fact I proved in this House last session and the session before that the Canadian Pacific railway has paid to its shareholders over 14 per cent in returns of one kind or another, and yet, no effort has been made to reduce the Canadian Pacific railway tolls in the west. I want to know where the members from the west are in regard to this question, because there is no doubt that if we prove our case against the Canadian Pacific railway and their tolls are reduced it will follow as surely as night follows day that every other railroad operating in the west must give the. people the same reduced rates that the Canadian Pacific railway is compelled to give. Last year I pointed out, and in this also I got no encouragement from western members, that the Canadian Pacific railway was allowed unecessarily to increase its capital and sell its shares to its own shareholders for a great deal less than they would bring on the market, with the result that the traffic has to pay for this distribution of the capital of the company at less than its market price. The Canadian Pacific railway can get all the capital it requires to carry out improvements and is well able to issue all its bonds at 5 per cent.


Mr. TUKKIFF.: At four per cent.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, they can get their debenture stock out at four per cent, and as a matter of fact while the Canadian Pacific railway has been paying its shareholders 14 per cent, it has accumulated millions of dollars in its treasury which it does not know what to do with. There is so much cash and so much land in the treasury of the Canadian Pacific railway, the land worth from $15 to $20 per acre, that the buccaneer shareholders made a cut and dried proposal (which I understand was foiled by the action of one man) that there should be formed a great big new company with a capital exactly equal in shares and face amount to the capital of the Canadian Pacific Kailway Company itself, and that these shares should be given to the new company made up of the present shareholders, in exact proportion to the shares they now hold, so that in that way the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would evade the responsibility resting upon them to use that money for the reduction of rates. That thing has been stopped I believe, and yet there are newspapers in

Toronto that day after day say that this is to be a fine thing on the stock market and that there is to be a great melon cut, and the newspaper which most of all says that is the newspaper that upheld the Canadian Pacific railway from the start and which has not the courage to-day to say that that money belongs to the people of the west and should be used for the reduction of freight rates. The time has come when this parliament should say to the Canadian Pacific railway : You must cut -no melons in distributing your stock to your shareholders at less than it will bring on the market ; you must not issue stock at all, debentures are good enough for you. They have large undertakings to carry out in Ontario and these undertakings the Canadian Pacific railway should not carry out with the money in its treasury which should go to reduce freight rates, but the company should carry them out by the issue of low priced debentures which will give them all the money they need and which will place no great burden on the road. One of the greatest issues before this country is the -question of the reduction of railway rates, and if the Canadian Pacific railway is compelled to reduce its rates the other roads in the west must follow. The Grand Trunk Pacific is so well built and its grades and curvatures are so excellent that it will have no trouble in following the Canadian Pacific railway in reduced rates, and the Mackenzie & Mann road will have to do the same. And, if low rates start in the west they are bound to come east, because the railway cannot discriminate in rates in favour of one portion of the country as against another.


John Gillanders Turriff: The -passenger rates charged in the three prairie provinces, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are identical with the rates charged by the Canadian Pacific railway in Ontario and Quebec. The freight rates charged by the railroads in the west are -practically on the same basis as the rates charged in Ontario and Quebec. I think my hon. friend will find that there are as many overcharges for freight on the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern in Quebec and Ontario as there are in the west, so that the hon. gentleman does not need to put all the -blame on the west. If there is such work to be done he can commence in Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: Then why is it not done in the west? I assert that there is a provision in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter for the prevention of the payment of a dividend greater than 10 per cent and yet that company is paying a return of 14 per cent and why is -not the great question of transportation dealt with in this parliament. I heard Mr. Charles Mi.
Hays say that the charges of the Canadian Pacific railway in the west are -greater than those in the east, and no man in the Canadian Pacific Company can deny it; there is more competition in the east than in the west, though not as much as we would like to see. The real transportation question in the west to-day is to find out what the law is in regard to the Canadian Pacific railway, and to enforce that law, whatever it is, and thus secure a reduction in those rates if the people are entitled to it.
In connection with the railway question, I come to the question of public ownership. I believe that the day is coming when public ownership will be found to be the only cure for the railway evils that exist. There is in the United States to-day what everybody sees is an almost impossible condition of affairs, a -condition that threatens the very life of the republic. There is, I believe, only one cure for that condition, and the American people -are rapidly coming to it; that is, that inasmuch as they have failed to regulate the railways, although they have tried to do -so, the state will in some way have to take them over. I do not want to go as far as that in this country, but I do say that if the Hudson Bay railway is to be built, it must be built and controlled by Canada. If any one wishes to see what the effect of public ownership is, he can see it in the railways of Europe. We in Ontario are having to-day the greatest exhibit of public ownership that has eveT been seen in Canada. The Ontario- Hydro-Electric commission has developed power, and is distributing it to the people of Ontario at a price away below those of the private companies. It has forced all the private companies to reduce their prices, and the consequence is that Ontario- stands in a fair way to become the great manufacturing centre for the west. We have -cheap power there, and it will be administered by public representatives in the interest of the people. Last night some one spoke of government work being done by contract. Money has been saved on the estimates for works in connection with the public power policy in the province of Ontario. If any one has any -doubt about public ownership, let him go to that province and see the various public-owned undertakings and what they are doing for the people. While I would like to compliment the Prime Minister on his birthday,. I -could wish that his attitude towards public ownership became him as well as his years. Perhaps some day he will have to come to public ownership; perhaps he is coming to it now. But puoiie ownership is the new light, the new doctrine, and the progressive idea of this country; and I want to tell this House, and I hope the country, too, that it will have to be the issue in the next election. Public ownership in this country should first of all be applied to a great department of

communications, a department greater than that o! the mere post office, a department which will take over the business of communications of all kinds, and will first of all build a public-owned cable between Canada and the mother country. There is where relief is needed to-day. There is a monopoly in London that is one of the worst monopolies in the world; but it shows some signs of surrender to-day. It fears that there is to be >a state-owned cable on the Atlantic, and it promises a reduced rate. But I make this prophecy, that with state-owned communications between Canada and Great Britain, cable messages could be transmitted at a penny, or two cents, a word. There are state-owned telegraphs in Great Britain, and that is the next thing I would have in this country in connection with this progressive department of communication. We want immediately to take over the telegraph lines of this country, and make them a portion of the post office. This has been a success wherever it has been tried; cheaper telegraphing has been the result. There is so much evidence in support of this that nobody needs to argue in favour of it. Another thing up to the people of this country, and that will be an issue in the election, is that the state must take over the trunk lines in connection with the telephone. That may be done through the provinces, and if this parliament sees fit to give the provinces that right, and the provinces take over the trunk lines, the people will soon take over the local lines. Then, the parcel post system of the post office must be expanded so as to take over the express business from the railways. There is one of the greatest monopolies in this country. Germany and all the other countries of Europe have taken over the express business and made it a portion of the post office business, and the consequence is that the people get three times the service for one-third of the money that we get here. Questions of this kind are the questions that must be faced in the coming election, and I hope I shall have a chance to see that delegation of western farmers who are coming here and talk that over with them. In the coming election one of the issues will be public ownership applied to telegraphs, telephones and express business, and a cable service between Canada and the mother country. We are always talking of the greatness of the empire and the building up of the empire, but what is the one thing that puts our empire ahead of the rest of the world? It is that it is governed by public opinion, the product of a free press, and easy and cheap communication of news. But this is not as cheap or as easy as it ought to be; and the thing that will make for peace above everything else in this world will be the creation of a world-wide public opinion, which is effective every day and can check ambitious men who seek to Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
lead people into war. If there is a clear, outspoken public opinion, expressed every day, an interchange of ideas by means of cheap cabling and cheap telegraphing and a cheap press, there is an agency which more than anything else, will speak for peace and return the greatest service to the cause of humanity. So the man who says he is in favour of peace must be a subscriber to the doctrine of public ownership of communications of all kinds on some such lines as I have outlined here to-day. I had intended to say something on the reciprocity question, but I shall defer my remarks until later, especially as we have been told by the previous speaker that it would not be wise to say anything at present. But it seems to me that last night the right hon. the Prime Minister invited every one to discuss it. However, the hon. gentleman who last .spoke m.ay be a better exponent of the policy of the government.	,	_	.
There is a local matter to which I desire to refer. It concerns those of us who live in Ontario. I would like to ask the ministers who represent that province how it is that we have not an improved system of railway communication between ior-onto and Ottawa. For years the railways have been threatening to do something. The Canadian Pacific railway was going to improve it, the Grand Trunk railway says it will do it, subsidies have been voted for that purpose, but from some cause or other it is impossible to get from Toronto to Ottawa in less than a day. We can get from Montreal to Ottawa in three hours, but for some reason the two great railways will not give us access from Ottawa to Toronto in less than a day. Perhaps it is because these corporations do not like the public ownership idea which prevails in Toronto to get too near to Ottawa. But whatever be the reason, they refuse to give us a five-hour service. Somebody is responsible, and I invite the Minister of Hallways (Mr. Graham) to give his attention to that matter and see if he cannot, in his wisdom and experience, devise some means of shortening the service.
I now come to the last topic to which I intend referring. I was glad to hear the tributes paid the late King and his Mother, the illustrious Queen Victoria, and the present King. What is it that constitutes the chief merit of the Royal family of England? To my mind it is largely their recognition of the spirit of democracy which obtains throughout the world to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: The characteristic feature of the world's history to-day is the re-birth of democracy-the welfare of all the people as against privilege. It is high time the rights of the people were respected. What do we see in England today? We see the rise of democracy against

privilege. The House of Lords, which has ruled in England for more than a thousand years, is to-day surrendering its privileges. It is to-day declaring that it is ready to give up its privileges and respect the claims and the advance of democracy. But what about the House of Lords we have in this country? If ever there was a privilege which cannot be justified, it is that enjoyed by that body. Our senators are appointed for life to control the legislation of this country. I say that the Liberal party have forgotten the spirit and teaching of democracy, and one of the first things which the people will demand in the next election is a reform in some way or the Senate.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. In what way?
Mr.' W. F. MACLEAN. The men who hold office must fill the office or give place to others. I will undertake to reform the Senate in thirty days. All I want is the opportunity. It is an easy matter to reform that Chamber. You have only to go to the Imperial parliament, you have only to put in a petition to the House of Com-monsi, and the House of Lords, which is quite ready to reform itself, will pass the necessary legislation. My hon. friend behind me (Mr. Lancaster) has already drafted a Bill to reform the Senate.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. It is not reform he wants, but death.


William Findlay Maclean: The substantial thing about the reform of the House of Lords in England is largely death. I do not quite believe in abolishing the second chamber.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: But I want it reformed. The significant thing in regard to the House of Lords in the old country is that it must reform itself. It has to abandon some of its powers and centre them in the people as reflected by the representatives elected by the people.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: I am for the democracy, but we do not hear of that democracy in these days. Look at the change which democracy has worked in the United States within the last few days. In that country there are privileges more extensive than any ever known in history. As Mr. Pulitzer, of the New York 'World' said, in his newspaper yesterday, the United States is losing its liberty, and he said that he hailed this new rise of democracy in that country. Privilege must go in the United States and in this country. We are building up great corporations in this country which are becoming greater than the people. They refuse to be regulated, they put up a fight against regulation, and in some way, by some mysterious influence they check legislation which they do not like or get the legislation they desire, and the public goes to the wall. But democracy to-day is asserting itself all the world over. It is asserting itself not only in England, but in the latin part of Europe. It is speaking out in Mexico, it is coming to the front in the latin part of America, and its self assertiveness is based on the progressive idea of government by the people and down with privilege. I have been a protectionist all my life and it may appear strange for one who is a protectionist to speak in this way.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: My right hon. friend says hear, hear, but I think that he has more privileges than I have. Wherever privilege is doing wrong, I am in favour of regulating it, even if regulating protection. For a long while we shall require to have protection in this country, but that protection must be constantly regulated. If we give franchises to railways, they must be regulated^ and if we give powers that are abused, we must take them away. That which is in the air to-day, that which is to characterize the election to be held in this country probably within twenty months and at the utmost within two years, is the question of public rights as against privilege, the question of performance by the people and in the public interest of many services that are now performed at great expense to the public by privileged companies. For, what does privilege do in connection with great public utilities and services? It seeks to make money and to secure power. But when these are administered by the people's representatives, and honestly directed, the purpose is to give good service, not to make profit. And that is what democracy is calling for. More than anything else democracy demands that the service rendered by public men should be a consecration and that the whole object of those engaged in the public service, whether as legislators or in any other capacity, should be to truly serve the public.


Mr. HUGHES.: What about votes for women?


William Findlay Maclean: Let the man who knows most about women answer for himself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have intruded somewhat upon the grace of the House in speaking so long. I have spoken in order to indicate the course I intend to take and of which I give the House warning. As occasion presents itself I intend to bring forward these questions and dis-



cuss them. In particular I shall take the first suitable opportunity-I think I will wait until we hear from this delegation from the west-to show to the House that the one fundamental thing in regard to transportation in Canada is to have a definition of our rights under the contract with the Canadian Pacific railway, to order that we may have lower rates, in order to stop these enormous profits, especially to stop this ' melon-cutting ' that has taken place, and to compel that company-and it. is a great company, and I wish to compliment it upon its greatness and upon the excellence of its service in some ways-to respect the rights of the people, to respect the spirit of democracy which is growing strong with us as throughout the world, and to give its main energy to the service of the people.


Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) Mr. Speaker, I always listen with some interest to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), he is so very democratic. He wants the people of all the world to express their will and exercise freely control of their own affairs to which they are entitled-except when it comes to the province of Quebec. In relation to that province his theories change completely. We have a prayer in our church in which enumeration is made of present evils, and the answer of the faithful as each is named, 'O Lord, deliver us!' I think the enumeration is not quite sufficient. I would be inclined to add for this country certain newspapers and their Montreal correspondents well known to us, including the newspaper of my hon. friend. And nobody would answer with more fervour than I. '0 Lord, deliver us!'
I would not, without special reason break a custom which I think, most of us will recognize as a practical and good one, that the speech from the Throne should not be the object of a general debate. That is a custom established in England and marked by few exceptions. However, it , is admitted that under special circumstances the usual formalities are, so to speak, not strictly observed, and the debate is not confined to the mover and seconder of the address and the leaders on either side of the House, but others may take part and new and urgent matters may be considered. It is because I think these urgent circumstances exist that I have taken the liberty of intruding in this debate. I believe these circumstances are imperative. I have looked with interest through this long speech from the Throne. Assuredly nobody in this House will pretend that the subjects there enumerated are not of interest to the House and the country. But there are degrees in this matter. Some of these questions I Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
submit to you and to this House are of a transitory nature. We know, for instance, that we are committed in the construction of the Transcontinental railway, that that construction is progressing and that the cost of it will be enormous. We know that the conditions of trade between ourselves and the British West Indies are being examined by Boyal Commission. We know that we are at present engaged in discussing grave matters with the great republic to the south of us. And this is undoubtedly a matter of great interest. But everybody will admit that such negotiations must frequently take place between countries. Every day throughout Europe you hear of commercial arrangements being made between the countries of that continent. These matters are of frequent occurrence and they are essentially transitory. In the nature of things they are not of the ordinary. It does seem to me and I think it must seem to many people in this House and outside of it that there is a question at present engaging the attention of this country and of the empire which is not of this nature and which dominates in its importance all other questions referred to the speech from the Throne. I need not say to the members of the House that I refer to the policy which has been so extensively discussed during the past year and this year throughout the whole country, which was the subject of most extended debate throughout last session, and which has recently come before the country under circumstances which, it seems to me, render it imperative for this House to take some notice of it. I submit to this House that upon the solution of that question depends the whole future orientation of this country, the direction of our destiny and our relations with the rest of the empire and to a certain extent, with the other nations of the world.
There is no question, I have said it often, and I repeat it as my excuse for taking up the time of this House-there is no question which has come under our consideration since this parliament exists, so momentous, so important as this one. I do think, Sir, that we might have expected in the speech from the Throne something more than we find in it, something more than a commonplace, something more than a mere reference of a passing nature to that great question which is tormenting us at this moment throughout Canada, not in any one province. but throughout the whole country. Sir, when I left this House a year ago we had the impression that the government was going to proceed at once to the execution of the policy which had been laid down by the Prime Minister, and which he had stated in answer to a question which I put to him, namely, the policy defined, initiated and laid down by the Imperial Defence

Conference in 1909. We were to build a navy under agreements we had made at that conference, ships were to be laid down, a naval school was to be established here. The circumstances were urgent, we were to proceed at once to the execution of that policy that had been adopted by the majority of this House after a discussion as violent and as prolonged as any I have heard since I have been a member of this House. Scarcely six lines in regard to it in the speech from the Throne, nothing more as to what has been done since our adjournment:
Negotiations for the acquisition from the Admiralty of the two cruisers ' Niobe ' and ' Rainbow ' have been carried on with His Majesty's government, and the two ships have now arrived and are stationed in Canadian waters, in pursuance of the policy adopted last session for the creation of a naval service.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we were entitled to something more than that to inform us what has been done since the adjournment of this House, and particularly as to what it is intended to do in the future in regard to this matter. I do not for a moment desire to minimize the importance of many of the subjects mentioned in that speech; but it does seem to me that the naval question is even more important than the subject of our negotiations with the United States.
Sir, I was surprised to hear my right hon. friend's statement to this House of what he did in regard to the tariff. During the whole of his trip throughout the west, the further west he went the more affirmative he was as to the utility and urgency of our entering into negotiations with our American neighbours. Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that as he came east, and finally when he reached Montreal, there came a change over the spirit of his dream, and, so to speak, he withdrew from that position. Last night my right hon. friend told us that the cardinal principle laid down in the Fielding tariff was the British preference. I speak as one who was brought up in the school of Sir John A. Macdonald, and I do not believe that the cardinal policy which should guide this government at present in connection with these negotiations is the British preference. I have approved of that preference. It is true that I have contended in this House, therein echoing, I believe, the opinion of many, that so long as that preference was one-sided it was incomplete. I was only echoing the opinion of the Minister of Finance, at the conference in 1902, stated to the representatives of the British countries, in a memorandum which I believe was presented at that conference, or at the conference of 1907, that if there was no mutuality in the tariff preference, it would be for us to consider whether we
should not make more favourable arrangements with other nations, whether it was not our duty to change the conditions of a favour which we had extended with pleasure in the expectation of reciprocity. But I say that the cardinal principle which should guide us in all matters relating to the tariff is the advantage of Canada, the welfare of our own industrial life. That is the cardinal principle, and I join issue with my right hon. friend in the proposition which he laid down last night, that the British preference was the cardinal principle which should guide us in the negotiations which, it seems to me, have become necessary with our neighbours. Sir, if we take as our guiding principle what was laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1878, the principle to which the Conservative party has ever been faithful, we will accomplish two things:	We
will negotiate with our neighbours upon points upon subjects where our own interests, the interests of our industrial life, are not affected. Why should we not have commercial relations with them? The moment our own interests are at stake and nobody will understand that better than our neighbours themselves-then we can hesitate. But it does seem to me that if by an interchange of commodities, of farm products, and such articles, where we can, without injury to our own people, and where they can, without injury to themselves, but with mutual benefit to both sides, make an exchange, and lessen the burden of a heavy tariff, why should we not accept the invitation now extended to us? I must say that our negotiations and our treaties with our neighbours from the very beginning have not been' of such a nature as to prevent us from viewing with fear the resumption by my right hon. friend and his government of those negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, we have had an election in the province of Quebec which to my mind ought not to be ignored by this House and it is on account of the expression of the popular will of the constituency which m,y right hon. friend opened under circumstances which I shall refer to in a moment, it is on account of the unmistakable manifestation there of what is throughout my own province and as I shall endeavour to show to the House throughout the other provinces of this Dominion, the desire and the will of the people, that I have to-day taken the opportunity of addressing the House in order to submit to yourself and to this House a proposal which I think will commend itself to all people in this House who have some regard to the manifestations of public desires. A certain number of us have found that what we claimed at the last session has been endorsed by the people. At that time a large number of the members of this House were in

favour of submitting to the people a question upon which the people had never been consulted and upon which they claimed and had a right to express an opinion before the government adopted, in a definite way its policy. A very large number of petitioners, this House will remember last year addressed the House from all parts of the country and requested that favour, representing that the people of Canada 'had been afforded no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon this question. For my part during the time of the session that 1 was in the House, I presented petitions from over 9,000 electors who asked for that right, and if I take into consideration the petitions that were presented by other members and for other electors, I think I am within the mark in saying that over 50,000 electors in this country did on that occasion ask the House for a reference of this question to the people for an expression of their opinion.
Let me say a word as to the circumstances under which in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska the people were called upon to express their opinion upon this question. Those who remember something of our political history will bear in mind the period which just preceded the_ fall from power of the government which preceded this one. There were at that time if I mistake not, and I speak from memory, three partial elections in which the government was defeated. If I refer to that distant period it is with the object of drawing attention to the fact that the government at that time was not fearful of consulting the people in constituencies of a doubtful nature. The government went to the people without picking out and chosing a constituency where they had every opportunity of carrying the contest. There was an election in the county of Vercheres, there was an election which the government might have avoided in the county of Jacques Cartier, a most divided county and in the constituency of St. Anne where the same condition existed. Although the government was at that time on the eve of a general election it did not hesitate to go down to those-counties and boldly take the opinion of the people on the question of the day. How different has been the conduct of my right hon. friend, he who spoke last session of the shivering electors in the county of Jacaues Cartier, has not shown in this instance that bravery which he fails to find in other people.
My right hon. friend began on his return from the west by going down to that constituency in the province of Quebec where almost inevitably with the precautions which he was taking he must have felt sure of overcom-Mr. MONK.
ing the little band of the opposition at that time. My right hon. friend, without letting the people at large know that he had decided to open that constituency and to name Mr. Lavergne a senator, went down there and chose his candidate himself, a gentleman whom 1 had the pleasure ol meeting during the campaign, a talented man, speaking both languages fluently; he set to work and began the organization of the election before we had any opportunity of knowing that that constituency was going to be opened. This was a county where, under the most favourable 'circumstances, a conflict is necessarily costly, where my right hon. friend from past experience had reason to believe that it was impossible successfully to contest the election. After the whole organization had taken place Mr. Perrault, the candidate, sought the endorsation of a convention chosen by himself and for attending which each member called received a consideration $4. We became aware of the projected election when these dispositions had been carefully made by my right hon. friend. I am giving these facts without wishing in any way to enhance the result of that election, but I think it is fair to ourselves who carried on that difficult conflict, I think it is just to his House and to the country to make known exactly all facts connected writh it, leaving it to the country to say what importance, what value, what sense is to be attached to the verdict given upon that occasion. Mr. Speaker, there was very much money spent in that election but not on our 3ide.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe that not less a sum than $50,000 was expended by my right hon. friejjd's party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And Mr. Speaker, liquor! -if there are any temperance men on the other side of the House I would like them to have seen with what an unlimited supply, a supply sufficient to float the * Niobe ' and the ' Rainbow.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: OK, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have said that we have none of these resources. We invited to the convention by circular, the electors of that Liberal county who took exception to the naval policy of the government. We could not be more frank than that. That was the issue discussed by my hon. friends and myself throughout the province of Quebec during the whole summer, and whatever the difficulties, we wished to face the issue and to test public opinion in the first constituency opened in our province. I attended that convention although I took no part in

the proceedings not being an elector, and that convention was attended by a large number of voters irrespective of party. At that convention, open to the electors in general sharing our opinion, two candidates were nominated. One of them was a young lawyer, a Conservative, a man of talent accustomed to public speaking, and it was suggested that a representative of the agricultural class might be properly selected because the farmers were numerous in the constituency and competent to decide with justice the question which we had raised. Thereupon a farmer-not such a farmer as the Minister of Agriculture but a ile facto farmer, a genuine farmer-thereupon a farmer was put in nomination and he stated that while he always supported the Liberals he differed from them on the question of their naval policy and he was prepared to enter into the conflict upon that issue. The other young gentleman who had been nominated withdrew and the nomination of Mr. Gilbert was made unanimous; and the conflict began. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is just a moment to speak before six o'clock, and I shall refer briefly to the question of our resources. Some difficulty arose last night when I thought that I should interrupt my right hon. friend in the course of his speech which to my mind betrayed a great deal too much ill-humour and petulance, when, the right hon. gentleman made some charges against us as to the conduct of that campaign. I will take the House into my confidence and say that not only were our resources very scant but that we had no money (as I think I need not tell the House and the public), to print pamphlets, and I did not hear of the pamphlet referred to by my right hon. friend until after the election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have heard that Mr. Ar-mand Lavergne who took a very important part in that conflict had stated publicly that he had never seen the pamphlet and he knew nothing about it and I have no doubt whatever that that brave young man spoke the truth.


Mr. C. A. WILSON.: Speak for yourself, please.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that early in the campaign we applied to Ottawa for a copy of the report of the conference of 1909 and without which we could not present to the electors the arguments we felt bound to place before them, in view of the fact that my right hon. friend had come down to our province and misstated and misrepresented the real facts of the case. I am ready, Sir, to lay on the table of this House the answers which I received to repeated demands made in every proper quarter of the government offices for a copy of this report
of the conference of 1909 and which surely we had the right to have. The chief translator, the King's Printer, the chief of the distribution office, in answer to my letter, stated that they had not at their disposal one single copy in French, so that we might discuss and elucidate the whole question at issue. On the one hand we had, as I hope to be able to show presently, a misrepresentation of our attitude and our policy and of the facts of the case by the Prime Minister, and on the other hand we had a denial of the only means at our disposal to convey the truth to the electors.
I have referred, Mr. Speaker, to the arguments used by the government supporters during that election. I had heard certain statements, and on the strength of the statements made to me and on the reports I had received I stated last night that it had been represented by at least one Libel al speaker that the object of this navy was to enable us to defend ourselves against England if necessary. I shall now read to the House, an affidavit which, in the face of the challenge made of my assertion, I have received from a lawyer in Montreal, a gentleman of high repute who was present on the occasion and who has sent me the affidavit. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman is now present and is ready at your bidding, Sir, to appear at the bar of the House, and to answer any questions which your Honour may ask him or which any member of this House desires to ask him through your Honour, as to the facts which he vouches for in this affidavit:-
I, the undersigned, Paul Emile Lamarche, attorney at law, of the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, do solemnly declare:
That on the 30th day of October, 1910, in the village of Kingsey Palls, in the county of Drummond, in the province of Quebec, a joint debate has taken place between the electors of said village between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and one o'clock in the afternoon in connection with the last federal election in which Messrs. J. E. Per-rault and Arthur Gilbert were candidates;
That at said meeting, the principal speaker who addressed the electors on behalf of the government's candidate was a gentleman named Begin, who is known to ine as a notary practising his profession in the village of Windsor Mills, in the province of Quebec;
That the Bill concerning the navy and introduced by the government during the last session of the federal parliament was the subject of the discussion at said meeting and the above named spoke, while defending the government's naval policy, used the following argument, viz.;
That a navy such as the government proposes to establish was desirable for many reasons ; that everything could not be said in a law, but should any difficulties arise between England and Canada, this navy might be found very useful, and that moreover said navy might perhaps help us to obtain independence ;

That I was close to the speaker on the platform and distinctly heard every word he said;
That I replied to Mr. Begin at said meeting and strongly took exception to the above remarks which I specially qualified as being unpatriotic;
And I make this declaration knowing it to be true and that it has the same force and effect as if made under oath in virtue of and conformably to Canada's Evidence Act.
Declared before me, at Ottawa, this twenty-second day of November, 1910.
PAUL EMILE LAMARCHE. Napoleon Champagne,
A commissioner, &c.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When you left the chair, Mr. Speaker, I was alluding to a delicate question-the lack of funds on the part of those who were called upon to carry on the [Campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska under the circumstances I related before recess. This statement was met by a laugh from my hon. friends opposite.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear-, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They laugh at scars who never felt a wound, but I noticed that my right hon. friend $id not laugh.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the contrary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, it was a very inward laugh. My right hon. friend has known days similar to those we traversed during the Drummond and Arthabaska campaign, and he knows how up-hill a fight is under those circumstances. But my argument was to the effect that we had no money to print pamphlets; and at the moment I was directing my attention to the pamphlet of which my right hon. friend made so much. In fact, being deprived of the blue-book in which was laid down the policy of the government, we thought of printing it ourselves, but had no money to do so. We did not print any pamphlet, and the question arises who did print this particular pamphlet, which no one who had charge of the election on our side knows anything about, of which I deny the authorship or responsibility for the printing of it. Perhaps some of the friends of the right hon. gentleman printed and circulated it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not say that they did, but who did? We certainly did not. I remember an election in the city of Montreal many years ago in which the late Hon. Thomas White was a candidate. Two days before that election a picture was circulated among the voters showing him in the garb Mr. MONK.
of a Freemason. Mr. White was defeated. Who, on that occasion, circulated that-printed picture? Some of the friends of the right hon. gentleman. What I do say is that if the conflict in Drummond and Arthabaska had not taken place under such terrible disadvantages on our side and against such fearful odds, I believe that our candidate would have been elected by over 2,000 of a majority. HoAvever, as we were absolutely lacking in the means and devices which hon. gentlemen had under their control and so freely used, he got in by a bare majority. But I do not think we ought to rely on isolated utterances or attach too much importance to them. I think it important to show that when I made that statement last night I had grounds for it, and nobody will deny that; but I had not heard Mr. Begin himself, although I heard much argument by our adversaries in that election of the same nature. But without having before one the surrounding circumstances, to pick out a word or a phrase from a discussion does not give a fair criterion of what was said. I would rather in this case rely upon what my right hon. friend himself laid down for the enlightenment of the electors of the province of Quebec as the policy of the government. A few days before that election he came to Montreal. That was immediately following his return from the west. A demonstration was organized in his honour; it was Supposed to be a triumph, but I witnessed that show and was painfully impressed. Here, again, no expense was spared. I have no doubt that at least $10,000 was expended to give my right hon friend a proof of popular favour. There were fire crackers galore, cabs without number and many of them empty, and there were bearers of torches evidently salaried. There could be no doubt about that; one did not require to be a psychologist to see it. And there were bombs which kept the poor inhabitants of that section of Montreal awake most of the night. There was very little genuineness about that reception; it was all outward show. Such was the universal opinion of the people of that city, and I feel convinced that my right hon. friend himself did not feel very comfortable. No doubt he was not at the bottom of that large and insincere expense. Who was? Probably the men who furnished the funds for the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. Well, my right hon. friend came to Montreal and delivered -a long speech, which a large number of salaried stenographers took down and which was printed in ' Le Canada ' the following morning. That is a paper which is supported by the whole of us-I was going to say by the government-but I think the money came out of the funds of the country, and 100,000 copies were printed for circulation. From the utterances of my right hon. friend on that occasion I can take

something which, like the articles of government organs, is not provoked in discussion, not expressed in the fire of repartee, but published after calm consideration, and I would rather judge the attitude of the Liberal party on that occasion by what was said by my right hon. friend. Let us see what reasons he gave the electors of the province of Quebec for the government's naval policy and the construction of this fleet. I am translating from the verbatim report of his speech published in this newspaper:-
Wliat, I say, is the reason we had to propose and vote this navy Bill. Here, gentlemen, is a question upon which superior minds can pronounce and which they can discuss, and I am here to state it to you. The reason why we proposed the navy law in 1910, you will find in the memo. I read to you just now, when I said we proposed to organize a service of naval defence as we increased in population and in wealth.
This law was proposed in 1902, in 1908 and in 1910-only eight years have elapsed since its first proposal. Eight years, gentlemen, is only a moment in the life of a nation, but in that moment Canada has made giant strides towards progress. We are under conditions different from those of 1902. We have increased in population, and we have increased in wealth. Our population has increased more than thirty per cent; our revenue has increased more than one hundred per cent. In 1902, our population, as established by the census, was 5,375,000; in 1910, I have, no hesitation in saying, it is eight millions and over. Our revenue in 1902 was $48,000,000; our revenue now is over $100,000,000; this year it will be more than $112,000,000. Now, gentlemen, these are the reasons, as I stated in the memorandum, why, in 1910, we have accomplished the work which we declared we could not accomplish in 1902. But there is another reason.
And my right hon. friend goes on to give that other reason. I will not quote it at length ; the House can verify what I am stating. That other reason is that we have become a nation and, as a nation, our duty is to defend ourselves. Having, in the interval between 1902 and last year, become a nation, according to my right hon. friend, the duty was imposed upon us to defend ourselves-I presume, by land as well as by sea. Now, is that a faithful and sincere exposition of the question? I consider not. I consider it to be eminently wanting in frankness, truthfulness and sincerity. But that is the position he took in Quebec ; and I call your attention to the fact that, since the election in Drummond and Arthabaska it is the position which the government intends to take throughout the country. Thai position is : We have increased in population and in wealth and are therefore in a position to have a navy; we have become a nation and are therefore obligated to have a navy. Let me give as proof of this a quotation from the government organ.
Speaking upon this point, the Montreal ' Herald ' of the 21st instant gives these reasons for the creation of a navy :
(1)	That the withdrawal of British squadrons from our two seaboards left work to be done which it is the business of Canada as a united, strong and respected nation to do;
(2)	That the withdrawal by Great Britain of her own motion, and her handing over to us the fortifications at Halifax and Esqui-malt was the ' confirmation of our autonomy,' and the demonstration of her confidence in our loyalty and friendship;
(3)	That in taking up the work which thus offers to our hand, we are pursuing the normal course of our national development and are at the same time enabled ' to hold up our heads in the British Empire ';
(4)	That Canada has and should have the power to control its naval service according to the free will of the people as expressed by their responsible rulers.
That is the ground taken to-day by the government throughout the country particularly in the province of Quebec. I think it necessary to point out to the House what was the programme upon which my right hon. friend intended to he judged in the county which he was then about to open. A resolution was moved in this House in November, 1908, by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Compare these statements which I have just read with the demands of that proposed resolution. 1 will not read the resolution to the House, for I desire to be ibrief. But it was to the effect that the time had arrived for us to see to the protection in an effective way of our coasts, harbours and ports, protection of the country generally. What is the difference, au fond and in reality, between the idea expressed in that resolution and that expressed in the statement of the Prime Minister at Montreal just before the election, and that in this statement of the ' Herald ' which I have just read? Is that in reality what we have had before us who have followed public events since 1902? I say, no. This is not the idea presented to the imperial conference of 1902, the conference of 1907 and finally the imperial defence conference of Julv and August, 1909. I could quote from the documents of the first, the second and the third; but is it necessary to take up the time of the House on such a question? Is it not true that from the very first the new question mooted, admitted by every body to be a new question. was the question of our participation in the defence of the empire? Is there a man in this House who will say that was not the question laid before this great, conference and discussed, with the results with which we are all familiar? At the conference of 1902, to begin with, was not that the question, our participation in the defence of the empire? No longer the old

traditional policy recognized in this country by both parties that we should defend our own country, but the question of more intimate union with the empire and cooperation in its defence. And at that time my right hon. friend-let'us bear in mind- took the ground that he could not accede to that proposition. That was the ground he took, clearly, undoubtedly. And when he returned to Canada he was feted and had a far greater triumph as he came up the River St. Lawrence than that of the other day. All his press lauded him for the attitude he took in that conference. Two years elapsed, and I am not aware that during that time his position was challenged or traversed in this House or in the country. I speak from memory, but I think I am not mistaken. . Yes, I recollect now that my hon. friend, the democrat, the disciple of Demos, the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), on one occasion called upon the Prime Minister for some explanation upon that question. And we all remember-it has been quoted often enough in the papers since-the indignation with which my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) met the remarks of the hon. member for South York and stated that had he acceded to the proposition made in the conference it would have been suicide and a crime against this country. And then came the conference of 1907 to which my right hon. friend was invited. It was suggested to him that three subjects should be discussed, our commercial, our political, and our military relations with the empire.
To that my right hon. friend answered that he was prepared to discuss commercial relations, but that the political and military relations were satisfactory as they were. He went to the conference, and I will not entertain this House with his attitude there in 1907. Bui in reference to that motion made by Dr. Smartt which I have here, and which laid clearly before the conference a proposal that we should participate in some way or other, either by a contribution in money, or by naval preparations of our own, or by other naval services relieving the Admiralty-we were to do something-my Tight hon. friend became irritated, almost as much irritated as he was last night, and declared that he could not accede to such a proposal, comprehensive as it was, and that if it were submitted to the conference he would have to vote against it. This is a summary of the facts. My right hon. friend came back here, and was greeted in the same way as when he had previously returned, lauded by his own people, and lauded by his own partisans. I am not aware that in the elections of 1908. or at any time-1 speak subject to correction

his conduct in that respect was called into question. How can we explain the attitude of my right hon. friend subse-.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: quently? Through all the negotiations from beginning to end something seems to be hidden, Let me call the attention of the House to what happened in 1909. My right hon. friend claimed that everything has been above board. But in 1909, the question never having been submitted to this House or to the people, while we were sitting here in the month of FebTuary, an order in council was passed, which will be found in Paper 99, of the Sessional Papers of 1899:
Return to an address calling for a copy of orders in council, correspondence, letters, despatches, memoranda and communications, between the Imperial and the Canadian governments relating to the organization of an imperial general staff.
In 1909, on the 10th of February, after having had previously, at the conference of 1907, refused to accede to the proposal of the War Office for a military organization, when the House, I say, was in session, when we were here ready to speak on behalf of the people, an order in council was passed which is quoted in these documents, absolutely approving of the military plans of the War Office, and directing that a telegram should be sent to London in these terms:	__
Your despatch, Canada, 30, of January 15th. My ministers fully accept the principles set forth in memorandum by general staff. Despatch will follow explaining precise position of Dominion government.
Now I would like to ask the House how it is that a plan which had been previously made and had been refused by my right hon, friend,, should, when the House is sitting on the 10th of February, 1909, by an order in council, -without consultation with the House in any way, receive the sanction of the government. I have stated that the exposition made by my right hon. friend of his government's policy at the meeting in Montreal, differed essentially from the plan matured in London at the Colonial Defence Conference. I think that difference clearly appears from the most cursory examination of the blue-book which contains a report of that conference. Look at the words of the Prime Minister of England, the right Hon. Mr. Asquith, when he reported to the House of Commons what the conference had done, and what it had decided. It was called to provide for a plan of defence, not for each individual dependency, but for the British Empire in general. The naval plan submitted there, and accepted by the delegates of this government who went to the conference with written instructions from my right hon. friend, is not a plan for the defence of Canada, it is a plan-we must be frank about it-for our co-operation with the British fleet in the defence of the empire and the maintenance of its supremacy at sea. It was expressly agreed there by our delegates along with all the other delegates, agreed

unanimously, that in case of war our fleet, as well as all the other co-operating units, should fall ipso facto under the control of the British Admiralty for direction during the war. There can be no doubt whatever about that. Can any one contradict that? Will my right hon. friend contradict that statement made by Mr. Asquith, -and contained in. a memorandum of the admiralty and approved by our delegates? What may be written in our own naval law may be something different, I think it is not. War is not a trifling matter. Our policy, if we approve of it, does not rest on a Naval Bill, or on some section thereof. In my view it rests, if we are honourable men, upon the engagement which we make, and as I read that blue-book it is impossible to reach any other conclusion than that we have agreed to build a fleet for the purpose of co-operation in the maintenance of British supremacy by participation in all the wars of the empire. When, in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, that assertion was made by us, it was contradicted by the speakers for the government. We referred to the statement made in this House, the very frank, clear and unquestionably true statement, made by my hon_. friend whom, I regret to see, is not present, the Minister of Finance. I will not read his statement to the House, but it can be verified.


An hon. MEMBER.: You had better read it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The naval service, then, is to be a service primarily for the defence of Canada, but not only for the defence of Canada, Under the measure we are proposing we shall have a naval service which is Canadian in time of peace, but which by the very machinery we have provided will unmistakably become imperial whenever the help of Canada is needed for the defence of the empire. I accept the view that when the empire is at war Canada is at war; Canada will never need defence except when the empire needs defence; and so I say the Canadian navy, while supplied primarily for the defence of our shores, is after all but a branch to the Royal navy in time of peace, and will become an integral part of the Royal navy whenever the war alarm is sounded.
And further on my hon. friend stated in much stronger terms in the same speech,
And just or unjust, right or wrong, we will be co-operating in that war whenever it occurs.
That statement which I now make can be verified. Mr. Speaker, the agreements arrived at of a military nature were more sweeping because at that time we did not know what was contained in that secret order in council passed on the 10th of February, 1909, which was only laid on the table of this House long after, but let any
man, be he a military man or not, look at the plans which were accepted, and let him state after that whether it is possible for us as honourable men to in any way escape the comprehensive responsibility which we assumed at that time, typification of military forces all over the empire, a general staff for the empire, with far-reaching, sweeping functions throughout the empire, the same regulations, the same arms, can any man read that and arrive at any other conclusion but this-


Frederick William Borden: The same flag.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I notice with respect to that that at the conference the Canadian committee asked for a flag.


Frederick William Borden: We are talking about the military side now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was that my hon. friend, or was it the Minister of Marine? We do not know which of the two, neither of them seems to be willing to admit it, but any body who has read the account has seen that the question of a flag was raised; by whom we did not know because we have but a very scanty, a singularly scanty report of what was said at the conference. I suspect for my part that it was the Minister of Marine, but at any rate he was promised an answer later. He is a very fierce man, they had better take care on the other side, and I suppose he has had no answer yet to that question. I say, Sir, therefore, that it must be apparent to every man who reads that statement of what had been done, and what the people were called upon to judge, made by my right hon. friend, not by Mr. Bazin, but made by my right hon. friend at Montreal, is not a full disclosure of the truth, and of the whole truth, and of what really was before the conference and was decided in 1909. It is a statement of fact that has never been denied here of our duty to defend our own country, but it is also a statement of the change contemplated by which we were to assume far larger and different responsibilities. It was not a frank statement of the policy of the government or a true statement of the affairs, and it largely explains how it is that when we were called upon to explain the question fully to these electors, we could not find in Ottawa in any way the authentic report of that conference, with which to argue before the people.


Mr. TALBOT.: What did you argue with?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I had one copy.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Oh you had.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But my hon. friend knows perfectly well and I stated it here that we were asked by many of those electors,

intelligent electors, men who wanted to know the facts, Jo see this report.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I thought m,y hon. friend stated this afternoon that he could not get one single copy?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is it, that is what vve had to^tell them that we had not it, and I say that the electors in any constituency which might be called upon to decide this question, have a right to know the facts of what took place at that conference.
Much has been made of utterances during that election but very little proven. During the whole of last summer we campaigned through the province of Quebec. We held large meetings in which responsible men explained to the people what they understood of this question. Can any gentleman point out anything that was uttered by Mr. Bourassa, by myself or by any member of this House at these meetings-*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. MONK-of which we should be ashamed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is that a challenge of my hon. friend? I was at a meeting at Montmagny _ where my hon. friend was. Did he object to the statement of Mr Lavergne that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) was no more and no less than the vicar of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? Did he object to that?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that utterance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: My hon friend was on the platform.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But my hon. friend may think, I suppose, and I think members of the House will understand that, if it fell from the lips of Mr. Lavergne.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It did fall from his lips.
_ Mr. MONK. I was not called upon to rise and call him to order. Certainly the policy of Mr. Borden was condemned at these meetings. A resolution was passed at these meetings wherever they were held condemning the attitude of the government and condemning the attitude of the leader of the opposition. I stand by that resolution. 1 adhere to it. My hon. friend who has just put me the question reminds me of a fable of Lafontaine which we learned when we were at school, with which, I have no doubt, my hon. friend is familiar.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: No fables now. Talk facts.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The fable of the dog and the wolf. The wolf on a cold wintry evening meets a lusty dog who invites him to join it saying: I am sleek, fat and comfortable. I enjoy the good things of life. I have everything, plenty to eat, lots of stuff, lots, of graft and comfortable shelter; you look very miserable, why don't you join us.
The wolf said: I feel inclined to do so, but what is that mark I see on your neck?
Oh nothing, nothing.
What is it?
Oh, that is the mark of the collar.
The collar, what collar?
Well, it is sometimes necessary to chain me up.
Said the wolf: I would rather die free in the forest than wear a chain as you wear.
That is my hon. friend.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: While my hon. friend is talking fables


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it was a Nationalist who made some of these utterances which my right hon. friend regrets so much, at what school was he brought up? Let me give a sample to the House of the kind of campaign which was carried on in 1896 in the newspapers which were established and kept alive by my right hon. friend's party. ' Le Soir ' was a newspaper which was the product of the work and labour of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time. The House will remember that the Conservative government had purchased some rifles,, and listen to this from 1 Le Soir ' of the 18th of June, 1896, just a few days before the election:-
One of the hobbies of old Tupper is imperial federation. Imperial federation means a more intimate alliance between England and her colonies in general and more specially with Canada.
One of the conditions of that alliance would be that in time of war, Canada should be called upon to pay a share of its costs both in men and money.
And, as England is nearly always at war with some one, we would be forced to continually tax ourselves to find the money, and draw lots to furnish the men.
And in return, England would make these droll baronets, or knights of this or commanders of that.
But the people will remain food for powder.
Sir Charles Tupper had hardly returned from England than he began to prepare the means for the realization of his awful project.
England has been threatened with difficulties with the United States regarding a few acres of mining lands of which she claims the property in Venezuela, situated many thou-

sand miles from our country, in Central America. At once, Sir Charles Tupper to make himself officious, orders the purchase in England of rifles and guns, &c., for one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) during the session and without consulting parliament.
But that was not enough.
He must have three millions.


Mr.   P.@: oster submitted a resolution, on the twenty-first of April, 1896, page 6802 of ' Hansard,' authorizing a loan of three millions dollars to pay for such purchases made or to be made.
Why all these warlike preparations if we are not to have war?
And why should we fight for England?
The electors should bear in mind that those big and fat leaders who are always desirous to exhibit themselves as more patriotic than others, more loyal than others and ready to plunge us into war for the benefit of others, will not be the parties who will pay and bear the burden.
Those rifles, those guns, the electors will have to handle. You are considered good only for food for cannons. The Tuppers, the Angers, the Taillons, will be in their offices as ministers, from where they will send you to death, with light hearts, and a glass of champagne in their hands. Once more, why all those rifles, guns and bayonets, if this good Tupper and company do not entertain some sinister design.
Your children will be sent to Africa and Asia, whence they will not come back.
If you vote for the Tory candidates, you approve all those warlike preparations. Does the government come to the rescue when you are crushed down by taxation of all kinds or when a misfortune happens to you either by flood or fire? And they have spent three millions of dollars for rifles.
Vote for Laurier and his candidates if you want to see your country enjoy peace and not be called upon one of these fine mornings to go into other countries, leaving behind your wives, your children and all that is dear to you. I
I am not aware that any such language as that was ever uttered during our campaign. I stated at every meeting I attended that far from wishing to segregate my province from any other province of the Dominion, I was ready to defend the views which I hold in any' other province, and particularly in Ontario. I stated on many occasions during that campaign, and I state it here, Mr. Speaker, that it is my abiding belief that the people of Ontario (when they are made fully acquainted with all the circumstances of this complicated question which have so far largely been kept hidden from the people) will give a similar verdict to that pronounced by the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska. I have no hesitation in making that statement. I find that these newspapers in Ontario which are uncontrolled and unfettered have expressed that very view. Three of the great agricultural newspapers of that province are my authority for that opinion. I could quote
from newspapers in Ontario and other provinces to show that the verdict given by the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska is a just and fair verdict, and a verdict which may be obtained in any other of the provinces of Canada. There is no desire for segregation. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) has been ill-informed as to the nature of that campaign. He knows nothing whatever of it, and if he has gathered his information from his correspondent in Montreal I can tell him that that information is incorrect and does not truly represent the facts. I state to you now, Mr. Speaker, and I state to this House and to the country that in none of these utterances delivered in the province of Quebec was there even the idea of separation expressed by any of us. No such idea exists in the mind of the people of my province. There is no question of annexation in Quebec. The uniform statement made by those who were arguing this question before the electors in that province was that we were perfectly satisfied with our relations with the mother country as they exist at present. Is not that satisfactory, is there any grumbling in that? Is there any traitorous language about that? Is there anything disloyal about it ? Is not this question which we have so much discussed in this House and elsewhere a very great political public question, which should be discussed by the representatives of the people? And why is it that the newspapers fettered and trammelled and circumvented and controlled will not at least give us the credit of acting in good faith? Will anybody in this House maintain that it is disloyal to discuss such a question? Will any sane man deny that a change in our relations with the empire upon which the people have never had an opportunity to pronounce is a fit subject matter to be discussed by free people? And, Sir, whence have a great many of the people of Ontario sprung? They are largely the descendants of United Empire Loyalists, and we who know the history of these men and all they suffered for their principles, know how they cherished the principle of self-government. The Anglo-Saxon prides himself above all things on the right of self-government, and the question as to whether that right is preserved by this new arrangement is a question which it is fair to discuss. At the conference of 1907, Lord Tweedmouth proposed co-opeTation, and he said:-
If we submit to you to decide for us the question of co-operation, it must be accompanied by representation ; we cannot ask you to become responsible for the empire throughout the world without offering you representation ; Sir Wilfrid Laurier has spoken of representation-and he quoted his words ; well, he said, the question is to determine how that will be provided, but we never would ask you to accept the



burden without the corresponding right of being consulted. Where, then, is the disloyalty of pointing out that in this scheme we become responsible as honourable men taking engagements, for the policy of the British government throughout the empire *without any right to speak provided? Are we, in this country and in the great selfgoverning dependencies prepared to assume such responsibilities as that? Is it not fair to discuss it? If Lord Tweedmouth was right in proposing it in the language in which he did, are we not entitled to consider it without being marked with the infamy of disloyalty? My opinion, Mr. Speaker, of the school of Imperialists is this, that a man should be sincerely and clearly of opinion that the relations of the empire should be changed, that there should be centralization, that this new scheme, such as it is, is a fit and proper one. 1 respect his convictions, but I say this without being-a prophet :	the way in which that
school brands with infamy those who do not share their views is proof to me that those men are perhaps the worst enemies of the British Empire, because they attack the freedom which is the birthright of every British subject ; and if they persist in that course, which forbids free discussion such as we have a right to as born British subjects, they will ultimately work friction and disaffection among well-intentioned and loyal men. Well, Sir, in the campaign in Quebec there was' no disaffection, no complaint of our present relations, but, a fair and open discussion of the change proposed, nothing more. Were the orators who spoke at those meetings prepared to forswear the principle which has obtained in this country for all time, and which has been admitted and recognized by both parties at all times, that we are bound to defend our own country? Never, Sir, under any circumstances. When the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur), who made a short appearance and to me a very painful one on the nomination day, spoke of the men who were discussing this question as men who were afraid to defend their country, he knew that he was saying what was unfair to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec since we have been under the British flag, and tearing to pieces the most glorious part of Canadian history. We have never for a moment contradicted that principle. It was laid down by both parties. Cartier, Macdonald, Dorion, Sir Charles Tupper himself, have at all times maintained that principle ; and when my hon. friend the Minister of Marine spoke at the Imperial conference of 1907, he stated, as one of his reasons for dissenting from the plan which was submitted to the conference, that both parties in this country had always held this and nothing else, that we were bound, not only in principle, Mr. MONK.
but by special arrangement with the British government, of which proof abundant is not wanting to undertake the defence of our country and our shores, and to maintain in this country the honour of the British flag, the supremacy of England. There has been no discussion upon that on our side in any degree. Therefore it is a calumny which it is time to stop, to say that the men of the school to which I belong in my province and elsewhere are -not prepared to maintain that principle 75 years old or more, established by arrangement with the British government. I alluded last year to what had been matured in England by a special committee of the English Privy Council-a plan of defence,
I hope we shall have before the House in a few days-the sum-total of the wisdom of imperial statesmen during the Victorian period. The House will find, as we know from an authentic declaration of the Duke of Devonshire in the House of Lords, that that scheme was limited to the defence of Canada by ourselves, and the placing of certain ports in this country at the disposal of the British fleet. The government of England was satisfied that we should undertake that as our share in the defence of the empire. Why should we to-day be stopped from discussing a new and different scheme which has never emanated from the British government itself?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to abridge. We have been taxed with wandering from the principles of the Conservative party, those of us who in this instance have seen fit not to agree exactly with other members of the party. I do not wish to enter at length into that question ; but it is a question worth studying, We in the province of Quebec are the traditional successors of that party which was founded 50 years ago bearing the name of Liberal-Conservative -Why? Because it was formed by the good-will of eminent men in those days -belonging to both parties, who wanted to put the country at rest and -peace, and who laid down some principles to which, I submit, we have faithfully adhered. Those principles are well known. At the very foundation of those principles was the idea that we were to enjoy in this country the fullest autonomy possible-autonomy in municipal and provincial matters ; and in the confederation, the foundations of which were laid in the city of Quebec at the conference of 1864, the dominant idea was that we should enjoy the utmost autonomy possible, consistent of course with our allegiance to the British crown and the maintenance of the links which bind us to the crown. Cartier's great boast was that he had brought into our country absolute autonomy in municipal matters. The boast of the Conservative party was that it had secured for us the largest possible measure

of autonomy in provincial and federal matters.
There was another principle which was at the root of the arrangement arrived at in Quebec. That was respect for the principle that the father has absolute control, by the superior laws of nature, over the education of his children. That is a principle respected in England to the present day and which _ was introduced into the covenant of our new constitution.
There was also the principle of the development of our natural resources and a policy absolutely Canadian and national. I submit that it is we who have remained strictly faithful to those principles and when I read in the papers that certain members of the Conservative party wish to have the men who hold the views we do ignominiously read out of that party, I ask myself whether it is not absolutely true that it is we who are faithful to the principles advocated by Lafontaine, Morin and the men of Upper Canada who at that time joined hands with them-the principles advocated by Macdonald and Cartier.
What we have claimed is merely a consultation of the people, the right of the people to pronounce upon this vast change upon which they have never been consulted. Under the circumstances I have detailed we went down to the province of Quebec, and in a county selected by my right hon. friend we went before the people. We had a candidate who absolutely upheld our views, and with every possible odds against us we succeeded in gaining a victory on that great question. Was it possible then for us, on reading this insignificant reference in the speech from the Throne to a question of this magnitude, not to take notice of it. Had we failed to do so we would have failed in our duty to the electors. Therefore I have occupied the time of the House, and now beg to move to add the following words to the address.
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments. I
I regret very much that I have not been able to abridge my remarks. Will you allow me, Sir, to add a point which I failed to bring to the notice of the House. I have not had occasion to speak very often outside the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska to English speaking electors. But I have every reason to believe, from the reception I received there and the result obtained, that this question should be discussed before them. I was invited to speak at a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association in Montreal immediately after the election. I accepted that invitation and spoke before a select body of English speak-5i
ing men, young and old, deeply interested in the welfare of this country and well qualified to appreciate the arguments I offered. I was thanked by that meeting. I was seen individually by those who had followed that conference and told that although, on all points they did not agree with me, they were of opinion that the arguments, I gave were fair and just, contained no appeal to prejudice, and were suitable to submit to English speaking electors. I represent myself a county in which I am proud to count a very preponderating English vote. I have not had occasion to address the electors of that county at any length, but I am in their hands and am prepared to go before them and repeat what I said to the Young Men's Christian Association. I am prepared to repeat before them what my friends Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergne and the other gentlemen who were with us during that campaign said to the people. I have confidence in the Anglo Saxon spirit of justice and fairness. After all my right hon. friend cannot refute this statement that under this new arrangement it is not to the Crown of England that we become subject but we become the slaves of the English electorate.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what we become. In a most important part of our national life -our relations with foreign countries, our wars, if war should be a necessity-in all these things we shall be controlled by men elected by the English voters in the British Isles and not elected by ourselves. Anglo-Saxons will not, I believe, accept that condition of affairs. They are not prepared to submit to what must appear to them, more than to us in the province of Quebec, a thraldom to which centuries of freedom have not accustomed them.


Mr. E. W. TOBIN (Richmond and Wolfe).: Last evening the hon, member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was asked a question by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to which he replied as reported in ' Hansard '


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend ought to cite everybody, and quote his own speakers, who said that our Canadian navy would enable us to pound England if she deserved it.
Later on the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said he referred to a young notary of the name Begin, from Windsor Mills, in the county of Richmond. Mr. Begin saw this statemnt reported in the Montreal 'Gazette' and wires me as follows :-
Windsor Mills, Que., Nov. 22.
E. W. Tobin,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Montreal ' Gazette ' reports Mr. Monk asserts I declared during campaign that if

necessary the Canadian navy could be used to pound England. Please deny. _ I never said that nor anything like it. Assertion as absurd as idea. Am writing open letter of denial to Mr. Monk through ' Gazette/ If they publish can produce declarations to prove my denial if assertion persisted in.



E. H. BEGIN.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Mx. Speaker, I do not know whether it will be possible for me to deal with all the points which my hon/ friend from Jacques Cartier (Mx. Monk) has made in the long speech which he has just delivered. I will try, however, to deal with as many of them as possible in the time at my disposal. I ask to be permitted, at the outset, to congratulate particularly the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) on the admirable speech which he delivered yesterday. Unfortunately, that speech was not understood by all the members of the House. I am extremely sorry for that, because it was a most patriotic and most able speech. I hope that, when it is translated into the language of the majority, that speech will be read by all, in order that it may be understood by all, that in the Liberal party there is only one policy on the question of naval defence. I would also offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin), but as he has already received from all those who have spoken cordial tributes to his ability, my words will he of no great value under the circumstances.
I am disappointed to find that this question of the naval service is not treated in the patriotic way in which it should be treated by all the members, of this community, and especially by some members of this House. It is very much to be regretted that the programme which, for my part, I enunciated when I came back from the conference in 1909 has not been followed by all. I stated then that, so long as I had anything to do with the naval affairs of this country I would see that the administration thereof would be conducted on lines of patriotism, and that my decisions on questions coming before me should not he affected by party or selfish interests. And, in the administration of the new department of naval service, since it has been organized, whether in the selection of the cadets who wish to enter the navy, in the selection of the physicians, or in the selection of the officers, no party interest has, in any way, shape, or form, guided my decisions, but in all cases we have chosen the officers who were deemed best fitted to perform the duties expected of them. I have put at the head of the 'Niobe' the son of a Conservative, a respected senator of this parliament. I have put at the head of the ' Rainbow,' on the Pacific ocean, a man who has no political affiliations so far as I know and who is connected with a Con-Mr. MONK.
servative family. I have carried out this policy because I desire that this question of naval defence should be not _ a party question, but a Canadian and national question. I am extremely sorry to find that our opponents do not seem to realize the importance of raising this question above the level of party politics. Look at England, our mother country. Do we find there that the question of naval defence or military defence is made a question of party warfare? No; they are too patriotic for that. In 1909, every one in this House, Conservatives and Liberals, joined hands to give this country, the mother country, and the world to understand that we were all united in favour of providing for our defence, and for our share of the defence of the empire. I am sorry to know that, a short time after this patriotic movement was unanimously begun, the Conservative party, in order to gain a political advantage, tried to treat this question according to the requirements of party exigencies. And they have not been satisfied even with that state of affairs. They thought advisable, in their interests, to raise a racial issue. In Ontario they denounced the government in stating that our policy was antiBritish, while at the same time the same party in the province of Quebec was carrying on a war against the Liberal party as being pro-British, and too much in favour of England. That, is a situation which, for my part, I denounce. I am sorry that our oponents have not been willing to follow the example which I myself have shown in the administration of my department, of judging every question involved on patriotic grounds, and that they seek party advantage even in a question so vitally important to the interest of the country. I will not speak much today of the movement they have started in Ontario, but will refer particularly to what they have been doing in the province of Quebec. In that province, for several months past, they have tried to raise feeling against this government on the ground that this government wanted to sacrifice every body in favour of Great Britain. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and his friends have been trying by every possible means to arouse popular prejudices.
He stated a moment ago in his speech that he had been very badly treated by the government, because he did not get French copies of the documents containing the proceedings of the conference of 1909. Of course, this statement of his will be scattered tomorrow over the province of Quebec, and we shall see some of the newspapers supporting him publishing the statement of my hon. friend that once more the French language has been sacrificed by this government in refusing to supply my hon. friend with French copies of "that document. This is the kind of warfare that is being carried on in our province. I will
NOVEMBEK 22,_ 1910
now read a copy of a letter which -was sent on the 18th of August to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, which I hope will be reproduced by those papers which are carrying on this warfare.
F. D. Monk, M.P.,
Montreal, Que.
Replying to your telegram of this date I beg to advise you that I am forwarding you 50 copies of the Naval Act of last session in French.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will allow me-I did not refer to the Naval Act, but to the report of the conference of 1909.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no more in stock at the present, but am having another supply printed, when I shall complete your order for one hundred copies. Yours very truly, C. H. Parmelee, King's Printer.
Now, my hon. friend says that he was not speaking of the Naval Act, but of the report of the conference. Why does he blame the government for not printing that document? Does he not know that the printing of every document which was laid on the table of this House, that the printing of this very document we are speaking of, is in the hands of the joint committee of both Houses on printing? Does he not know that the government has absolutely nothing to do with the printing of those documents? Will my hon. friend deny that statement?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In answer to my hon. friend, I will lay on the table of the House to-morrow the three communications I referred to when I 3poke, and in which I was informed that I could not get these copies in either language. I will lay those communications on the table so that the House may appreciate them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend knows very well that the printing of all documents laid on the table of this House is dependent upon the decision of the Joint Committee on Printing. I am not a member of that committee, but I see that my hon. friend for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) is a member of that committee, and I now ask the hon. member for Terrebonne why he did not make it his duty as a member of that committee to have this document printed. M,y hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is trying to throw blame upon the government. Here is another letter which was sent by the King's Printer to my hon. friend on the 30th of September and which indicates that this officer who is an officer of the government had nothing to do with the distribution of that report:
in a position to let you have copies of the blue-book relating to the Imperial Defence Conference, 1909. This report was printed by order of parliament and no extra copies were kept at the Bureau. Possibly Mr. Davidson, of the House of Commons Distribution Office, may be in a position to meet your wishes.
I say, therefore, it is unfair for my hon. friend to try to hold the government responsible in relation to this matter. The printing of this document is entirely in the hands of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and is one with which the government has nothing to do.
Now, Sir, my hon. friend has referred to the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, and he has given us a lot of details about the organization and about the voting at that election. He says they had no money and no whisky. My information is to the contrary. I am informed that there was a great deal of money and a great deal of "whisky. There was, moreover, something much more serious, and that is the kind of campaign that "was waged by the friends of my hon. friend. My hon. friend has been like myself, not much in the county; he did not hold many meetings there. But his friends did hold many meetings there, and he says he will retract nothing of what was said by his friends in his presence.
But before coming to the election in Drummond-Arthabaska I may mention some statements that were made, if I am correctly informed, in the presence of my hon. friend at other meetings held during last summer. The first meeting which was held bv the friends of mv hon. friend was in the village of St. Eustache. I have here a statement which I took from the 'Devoir', a newspaper in which my hon. friend writes occasionally, and this declaration was made in the presence of my hon. friend. I will read it, and perhaps my hon. friend will remember some of the pretty warm declarations that were made by his ally. Ought I to say his ally? Should-1 not rather say his leader? Some say that this gentleman is my hon. friend's leader. At one time my friend was willing to stand for a policy affirming the necessity of maintaining the naval supremacy of Great Britain and to follow the course which he followed in 1900 after the South African war.
I suppose my hon. friend has not forgotten the noble position he then took, for fear he might have forgotten I will read the patriotic declarations made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in 1900. He was answering the gentleman who, for the moment. I will call his ally.


An hon. MEMBER.: His chief.
Dear Mr. Monk,-I beg to acknowledge re- Mr. BRODEUR. Say his chief if you like, ceipt of your esteemed favour of a recent Here is what the hon. member for Jacques date and in reply regret to say that I am not I Cartier said, and it is pretty good stuff:-

I venture to say tliere are very few French members who sit in this House whose relatives have not at some time had occasion to prove that devotion (to the British Empire). Well under these circumstances, is it not time that the system of playing upon the sentiments of the people for party purposes, should be done away with, and that we should learn to discuss and to examine political questions upon their true merits.
For my part, I am willing to go down to my county where the majority are Frenchspeaking, and am willing to trust myself to their judgment respecting the attitude we have thought fit to take up on this side of the House in regard to this question. I am prepared to go down before the people of my county and take the position that it would have been disastrous for us, when every other part of the empire saw fit to take part in this struggle, it would have placed us in a most humiliating position, if we had not done so ourselves. I am prepared to put that fairly before them. I am prepared to go before the people of my county and expose to them what would have been our position if we had failed to take that share in the defence of the empire which every other colony has seen fit to take.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who said that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The member for Jacques Cartier said that. He added also:
I must confess to you, Sir, that the day before yesterday when, on leaving my room, I saw the flag at half mast upon this building, and heard the news that so many of our fellow-countrymen had fallen in defence of that flag in South Africa, I must confess to you that any hesitation I may have had promptly disappeared. I think it is time for us fully to realize what our position is in this great empire, and having realized that position, to assume all the responsibilities which it involves.	i	| I I
I commend this language of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier of 1900 to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier of 1910. Lately he fell in bad company and that is what- brought the change. He saw that the member for Labelle, with his appeals to prejudice, could influence many people in the province of Quebec, and so could help his party. He went to him and said: Well, now, let us form an association. Probably before going there he went to see some of his friends in Ontario and said to them: Now my friends, do not be scared, I am going to Quebec, I am going to see my friend Bourassa, and make an alliance with him. Now go in your province, denounce Laurier because he is anti-British, I am going into Quebec to make a contrary campaign. The conspiracy has been organized in that way and is now in full operation. My hon. friend stated in Drummond and Arthabaska that he had separated from his party-yes on the lips he has separated from his party, but in the heart he is still a Mr. BRODEUR.
Conservative and to-day is fighting the fights of his party.
My hon. friend stated a few minutes ago that he would stand by the declarations which have been made in his presence. Well, here is one from Mr. Bourassa, at St. Eustache on the 17th of July at which the hon. member was present. On that occasion Mr. Bourassa said.
Then, again, when big ships will have replaced small ships, and when we will have gone in that disastrous policy of which Laurier and Borden are the prophets, when this policy will have fully developed, one day conscription will be enforced, and this little lad here that you send to school to study the law of God as well as that of man so that he may take your place to continue to fecundate the old farm where you were born, where you have learned, in the furrows made by your forefathers, to be Catholics, to be Canadians, to respect law and to nobly accomplish your duty, then this little child, if you should continue to listen to Mr. Laurier, this little child taken away and put under arms, embarked on the fleet of which you will have approved, this little child, I say, who will shed his blood on a foreign land, disembowelled by a Chinese or a Japanese cannon ball, he will have a right to curse you, if you were to sacrifice to the partisanship which binds you to one man, your duty as a citizen and as a free man.
Now Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stands for that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He approves of that, I understand. Does my hon. friend stand by those declarations?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think we did at every meeting state that conscription must necessarily follow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I remember the passage referred to by my hon. friend. It was a very eloquent portrait of what would be the result of conscription.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are some others. I am glad to hear the hon. member beginning to make admissions because lately they have changed their tune. The election in Drummond was all very well, but they have recently thought the declarations made in Drummond were perhaps a little strong and they have changed.


The Hon. Mr.  L. O.@: Taillon, a member of the Conservative government for a couple of months and at one time Prime Minister of Quebec, at a meeting at St. Henri, said: I do not know whether my hon. friend was there


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Here is what Mr. Tail-Ion said on July 28, 1910:
Let Laurier finish liis work, we are told. Well, after his betrayal of the Catholics of Manitoba, after his betrayal of the Catholics of Alberta and Saskatchewan and after what lias just taken place in connection with that Navy Bill, I wonder what work we should entrust to him to finish, and I wonder if he still has something to betray.
In reply Mr. Bourassa said to his hearers that they had heard in Mr. Taillon's words the language of experience:
I denounce, said he, Mr. Laurier because he harnessed himself up to the chariot of Rhodes and Chamberlain and changed front for the sake of a decoration.


An hon. MEMBER.: Shame.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the kind of campaign these people carried on. Mr. Des-carrie, an elector of my hon. friend, followed and explained how the new Act was a danger for the French Canadian race.
Now we come to a meeting at Farnham before the election. On September 19, Mr. Bourassa said, speaking of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
It is all very well for him; he has no children. Ten years hence or perhaps sooner, he will have disappeared from the scene of politics. For fifteen years he has trodden on everything sacred to his compatriots in order to make a pedestal for the English who distribute the titles, medals and decorations.
My hon. friend stands for that.
Perhaps we men of to-day will not suffer very much from such a policy, but you, heads of families, old men who have one foot in the grave, you perhaps will be asleep in death before the disastrous effects of this ignominious policy are felt, but you have children. I see some in this meeting who smile over the future of their country. They are eight or ten years old. They were brought up on the knees of their mothers and they count on you to protect them from all the dangers which may reach them, but when, 15 years hence, you heads of families will not be any longer here-but your wives may still be here-when 15 years hence your wives will see the agent of the government, having in his hands this accursed Act, and addressing each one of them, he will say: ' Good mother, thou must give thy sons not to defend their native soil, but to fight on all the lands and seas of the world on behalf of the English flag/ Then, when your wives will learn some months later that an Austrian shell, a Japanese cannon ball, or a German bullet, will have disembowelled their children, and that they have fallen over precipices, or collapsed on the deck of a ship, do you think they will then say:
' Very well, my husband was rouge, and it is Mr. Laurier who passed the Act. He did well/
No, they will curse you, and it will be only right.
At Grand-Mere also a meeting was held, in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Champlain. I quote from Mr. Bourassa:
Mr. Laurier has betrayed the province of Quebec and Canada, but he will not live to see the consequences of his iniquitous act. Mr. Laurier is 70 years of age, and has no children. He does not care about the consequences, but we who have founded homes, we who know what the birth of a child costs, and the suffering it brings to the heart and the womb of a mother-we will suffer, and we do suffer in thinking over the future in sight for our sons. The little children who listen to my words this moment, and who smile at the foot of this platform, do not yet understand all that is frightful for them in this iniquitous law of la marine de guerre, but twenty years hence, when the recruiting agent will knock at their doors, and speaking to the mother, will say:
' Mother, thou wast relying on thy child to be the joy and happiness of thine old days; thou wast relying on him to protect thee in thine old age; thou wast relying on his young heart to warm up thine, which is worn by the hard work and grief of a whole life. Thou wast wrong. The Act passed in 1910 by the Laurier government takes away thy children from thee, and thy son must come away with me/
Twenty years hence, perhaps, on the deck of a warship will lie the shattered bowels of your children because you, fathers here, have been too rouge to vote against Laurier.
In that speech he was not referring to any future legislation, but he was stating that conscription was compulsory under what he called the cursed Act of 1910. The member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) was present at that meeting.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, he was there, and he spoke, and we will see what he said. Did he protest against the words of Mr. Bourassa; did he protest that the charges made against this government were false? No; he said:
I accuse the government of outrageously deceiving the people in estimating at $15,000,000 an enterprise which will swallow up your flesh and your children. I accuse the government further of disposing of our flesh and our blood without consulting us.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paquet) is in the House at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: He is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) remember the terrible dressing down that Mr. Bourassa gave him at the nomination, and that he left the county and did not come back again.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am surprised that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) should refer

to that meeting and speak of my getting a dressing down from Mr. Bourassa. There are many hon. gentlemen present here tonight who were present at that meeting and who know what happened. There were a series of meetings held and at one a Liberal would speak first, and at another meeting a Conservative would speak first, and at Drummondville on nomination day it was the turn of the Conservative to speak first, and we expected that that rule would oe atmered to. They had been for months and months in the province of Quebec making all sorts of accusations against us, and we expected that these courageous gentlemen, who are so much afraid of going to war, would endeavour to vindicate their charges. En passant let me tell ^ them there is no danger; they never will be sent to war.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend reminds me of Jim Jeffries.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, my hon. friends opposite were to speak first, but they had not the courage, of doing it, and I was called upon and I went for them in such a manner that the meeting which was at first more or less against us turned out in the end to be entirely in our favour. That was what occurred at that meeting Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) does not want me to continue reading some of these famous speeches made in that campaign.
is his chief ; it is Mr. Bourassa who is now forcing the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to repudiate the fine words he spoke in 1900.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He gave you a terrible upper cut.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Mr. Speaker, there are a good many members in this House who would like to hear the statement of the Minister of Marine and we cannot do so if the member for Jacques Cartier and others persist in interrupting.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Tell us something about the election.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: These interruptions are irregular. The rule is that when an hon. gentleman has the floor he cannot be interrupted.


Glenlyon Campbell: We are not interrupting him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order ; sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I leave it to the good sense of the House, that a member addressing the House should not be subject to unseemly interruptions. My remarks apply to honourable members on both sides.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have every respect for your ruling, Sir, and so far as I am concerned I may say that my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) directly asked me questions about Mr. Bourassa which I answered.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have referred to declarations which have been said outside the county of Drummond-Artbabaska and
1 shall now deal with some of the paragraph statements made during that election.
. Mr CAMPBELL. What did the returning officer say?
,Mr- .BRODEUR. Mr. Bourassa spoke at Victoriaville and the member for Jacques Lartier being present takes the responsibility for this language :


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then again, Mr. Bourassa said at Victoriaville :
If we ever participated in a war and England was beaten we would have to pay for the broken glasses.
Then again, Mr. Lavergne said at Stanford :
We are French Canadians, not English. French Canadians would not go down on their knees before the English. They will not have their backbone smashed for them. Vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier who wants to buy $15,000,000 worth of guns and ships.
Mr. Bourassa after trying to scare h hearers by telling them of the strictly in penal tone of the Act, said: ' Mr. Laurier f the Monument National, 10th October, 191 in'i	kis own thoughts when he sai
that if England was ever at a war where he supremacy was in danger, he would not hes tate to say that it would be the duty of tb government to send the Canadian fleet to tli help of the motherland.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is Mr. Bourassa?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Who is Mr. Bourassa? He is one of the lights of the Conservative party in Quebec : he it is who is making this campaign raising race against race in this country ; he is an ally of my hon friend (Mr. Monk) and I may add that he Mr. BRODEUR.
At Victoriaville Mr. Tancrede Marcil finished his speech as follows :
If you are anxious for war, if yon wish to have your children have their backbone smashed for England, then vote for Perrault.


Glenlyon Campbell: Tell us what Laurier said.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If I understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) is endorsing this language, then well and good. At St. Anselme one of the speakers said :
The navy is a conspiracy of the British to drown Canayens. Laurier has consented after having betrayed us as regards our lan-i guage, to man all the ships of war which we I will have with French Canadians. This will

take 50,000 to 60,000 men, all fathers of families or young men on the point of so becoming, who will have to go to Japan, China, or Australia, under the command of English officers, who, wishing to make our race disappear will see to it that these ships go to the bottom of the sea. Laurier has sold ns to the English in return for the honours he has received and in 25 years there will be no French Canadians left.
Now, I have that famous pamphlet, and I do not know whether I will read extracts from it or not. They say they were not the authors of this pamphlet; but it was distributed in the county by their friends in order to excite the prejudices of the people and an anti-British feeling would tell against the government. Here is another extract:-
When the volunteers will have been sunk on their old war ships, and that Act will require from the mother of a family after the sacrifice of her eldest, that of her husband, and that of her youngest, tell us, Mr. Laurier, if conscription will respect her tears and grief.
Here is another:-
I repeat to you, you have been parcelled uji and you are being handed over, hand and foot, tied to England, and in all this you will, my good friends, pay for the blunder made, and specially pay the tax of blood.
Another gentleman who spoke at those meetings was the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin).
I may say that most of those extracts are taken from ' Le Devoir5, their organ, and I have every reason to believe that they are correct.
Here is what the hon. gentleman said on the 25th of October, at St. Louis de Bland-ford :
You are intimidating the people in waving the English flag, and adding that we must contribute always and everywhere to the defence of that protector of our constitutional liberties; but we will not be made to forget that in 1837 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.


Mr. BLONDIN.: I deny most- of those statements in ' Le Devoir.' I did not till today have any knowledge of that report, and I can, explain it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is an unreliable paper by what the hon. gentleman says, then why is he having ' Le Devoir ' distributed in his county. I am surprised at that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I see by the speech of the right hon. the Premier that not only may ' Le Devoir ' be at fault sometimes, but even himself.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The same hon. member, speaking at St. Louis de Blandford said :
The English have never done anything for the French Canadians. We do not owe them anything. French Canadians have nothing to care about the opinion of the other provinces upon this naval question. They can and must settle the questions which concern them without consulting others. Those very ones who disembowelled their forefathers on the Plains of Abraham ask of you to-day to be slaughtered for their sake.
Is that false, too?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes. The speech which I was answering is not reported there. If it were, you would understand it better.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, we will take another one, of the 30th of October :
England has gone so far as to grind down the colonies as did imperial Rome of old.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Absolutely false.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (reading)
The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has not conquered Canada for love or to plant the cross of Christ as did France, but to establish trading posts and make money. She has sowed the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had enough of England and the English.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not say the first phrase, and I think Mr. Beland will deny it also.


Mr. BELAND.: I may say that I was present at that meeting, and I remember exactly the words pronounced by the hon. member for Champlain, and as far as I can remember, that is an exact reproduction of his speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not deny that that was said, but it was not said by me.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, it is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. After all, the Prime Minister wa3 perfectly justified yesterday in saying that a victory won by such means was disastrous-disastrous to the *Conservative party, and to-day they are ashamed of the work they have done.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am not ashamed. I will repeat them to you to-morrow.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is getting more courage. Then there were cartoons published by these Nationalists. One of them I hold in my hand. Of course, to them the British flag was nothing, if it should be trampled upon. This little cartoon, however, shows -what kind of spirit there is in this Conservative party of the province of Quebec. It represents Baptiste smoking his pipe quietly and holding the Union Jack with both hands. Behind him is Jhe-Britisher, John Bull. Baptiste has taken off his coat and hung it on a tree, and the Britisher says to him:	'Hold the flag

Baptiste, and while you are doing that I will take care of your coat;' and while he is doing that the John Bull is represented as picking his pockets. This is the kind of cartoon these Nationalists or Conservatives are distributing in the province of Quebec.


George Eulas Foster: I want to ask my hon. friend if he. will follow parliamentary rules, and have that put into Hansard verbatim et literatim, colours and all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall be very glad to lay these papers on the table of the House. I have another cartoon. These people said all through the campaign that this naval policy was a conspiracy between Lord Grey, Laurier and Borden. This cartoon represents His Excellency- there is nothing sacred for them, of course.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Not even the leader of the opposition.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not even the leader of the opposition. This cartoon represents His Excellency Lord Grey, the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition dressed with suits of British cloth and being more or less giddy. There is in our province what is known as the ' letoffe du. pays That term is used for whisky iblanc. On that cartoon they represent the Governor General, the Prime Minister of the country and the leader of the opposition as having taken too large a consumption of liquor.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not there. He takes also responsibility fox such tactics. It is an absolute shame for those people to publish such cartoons. First of all, they try to show that England is robbing Canada for the benefit of England. I say that to do so is criminal. I say that the members of a party who resort to such means to carry an eiection do not deserve respect, and I am glad to see that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, would not take any responsibility as regards this election. But there are others who took some share. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was asked whether he would give anv advice to the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska. He was told of that anti-British campaign which was being waged there, and he was asked by the Montreal 'Herald' what advice he would give, and he said: Beat Laurier by all means. He does not care whether he excites race against race or religion against religion, provided this could bring the Conservative party back to power.


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend lay on the table the telegram itself which I sent to the 'Herald?'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not got it here or I would be very glad to do so. My hon.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: friend invited the electors to vote against the government.


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. gentleman has the telegram, will he have the goodness to read it? If he has not the telegram at hand, he had better not attempt to give a free translation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will my hon. friend deny the telegram? I have not got it here,, but may get it in a minute.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, get it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Get it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: W'ill my hon. friend deny that he advised the' electors of Drummond and Arthabaska to vote against the government in this election and in favour of the Nationalists?


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend read the telegram? He has told the House that he can get it in a minute. The House will be very glad to give him a rest for a minute while he is getting it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will have the telegram and we shall see that my hon. friend, in company with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), were supporting Bourassa, the anti-British in his racial campaign and in his denunciation of everything that was British.


George Eulas Foster: Where is the telegram? My hon. friend has promised it, and it would be well that he should read it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall get the telegram and read it. As it is rather late, I move the adjournment of the debate, and will give my hon. friend an opportunity of reading that telegram and will show that he has been helping Mr. Bourassa in this election.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, November 23, 1910.
The SJ'EAICER took the Chair at Two o'clock.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 3) respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.-Mr. Verville.
Bill (No. 4) to amend the Railway Act.- Mr. M. Martin.	*

Mr. J. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) I beg leave to introduce Bill

No. 5 to amend the Bank Act. Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I now introduce is about the same as that which I did introduce last year. The main dispositions of this aim, first, at giving the shareholders of a bank a deeper notion of its operations, so as to put them in a better position to judge of its good or bad administration. In the second place, the object of this Bill is to keep away, as much as possible, dishonest shareholders; that is, those who are mere substitutes. Finally, I ask that the banks be submitted to government inspection.


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

Mr. H. H.: MILLER (South Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act. He said:	This Bill is
the same as that which I introduced last year and which passed the House and the committee and stood for third reading, but was not called up for third reading because of the lapse of time. It enables the mortgagor to pay off an overdue mortgage at any time on giving one month's notice or one month's interest in lieu of notice.


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

Mr.   S.@: SHARPE (North Ontario) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 7) to amend the Companies Act. He said:	The object
of this Bill is to compel all companies incorporated under Dominion authority, whether by special legislation or by Letters Patent, to furnish annual statements setting out the shareholders, their property and the general information required by the various provinces from companies incorporated under provincial authority. As the law stands, this information is furnished only at the request of the Secretary of State, and the purpose of this Bill is to make it compulsory in all cases.


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

Mr.   S.@: SHARPE (North Ontario) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 8) to amend the Railway Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to compel all the express companies operating under Dominion charters to furnish annual statements of unclaimed balances remaining in their hands and to transfer these balances, after the expiration of a certain time, to the government as trustees of these funds.


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

Mr.  F. B.@: CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to provide for a standard barrel for the sale of potatoes. There is no such thing as a standard barrel for the sale of potatoes in Canada today. In the maritime provinces, potatoes are purchased from the farmers altogether by the barrel, and when they are sold in Ontario and Quebec they are compelled to give 180 pounds to the barrel, whereas, when sold in the United States or Cuba, which is our principal market for potatoes, they only have to give 160 pounds. Therefore great injustice is done to the farmer, because in every case he is compelled to sell 180 pounds to the merchant who, in turn, gets his pay for 160 pounds in probably three-fourths of the instances. The object of the Bill therefore is to make a standard barrel by which all potatoes must be bought and sold, no matter where the sale takes place or to whom.


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

Mr. A. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to a matter concerning the operation of the Immigration Act and the Alien Labour Act. I see in a Winnipeg paper of a recent date an article, giving names and dates, and relating to the matter I refer to. A Mr. E. F. Hutchings, a manufacturer of harness, in order to meet the requirements of his growing trade, has erected a factory within the last year which cost him $100,000, and he requires 100 trained and expert men to man that factory. The Alien Labour Act prevents him from getting these men from the United States; he had, therefore, to send his agents to the old country to find the men there. The business there is quiet, because the automobile is driving horses out of the market, and many operators there are idle. He finds himself up against this proposition. He says,-I am stating now, repeating now, what I find in the papers-that it is necessary for him to employ men with families, as they are more likely to be permanent. But he finds that it will be necessary for him to advance, not only the passage money, but the $50 which every immigrant must have in his pocket before he can land on the shores of Canada. It is stated, further in this paper, that Mr. Hutchings is willing to do that, but that by so doing he would render himself liable to ' a penalty if he advanced $5,000 to these 100

expert men to enable them, to land on this side. I would ask the Minister of the Interior if this matter has been brought to his attention?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I have seen the article in the paper in question, that is to say, the Winnipeg ' Tribune,' giving the details as my hon. friend has placed them before the House. The newspaper has been seriously misinformed in regard to that matter. If Mr. Hutchings or anybody else chooses to advance money to the workmen whom he requires, sufficient to enable them to meet the requirements of the immigration law, there is no objection to his doing so, either as a matter of law or of policy. For the further information of the House, I may mention that the requirement of a sum of money on the part of the immigrant has been a part of the law of Canada for several years, and was made a part of that law for what appeared to be good and sufficient reasons. One reason was that when a man came to this country, which would be to him a strange country, it was desirable that he should have some resources of his own upon which to depend until he was able to procure regular employment. This requirement has not been insisted upon in the cases of men coming to Canada as farm labourers, of women coming as domestic servants, or of persons coming to their relatives already residing in Canada. But in the case_ of other immigrants who did not come within these categories, there has been, since the fall of 1907, a requirement of that kind. Speaking generally, $25 is required during the summer and $50 during the winter, the idea being that if it was right and proper that an immigrant should have $25 on his arrival in summer, when work was plentiful, he should at least have double that amount on his arrival in the winter time, when work is not so plentiful , and employment is more precarious. However, as bearing on this particular case, and as showing how far astray that newspaper is from the truth, I may mention that under the provisions of the Immigration Act passed by parliament last session, which allows the admission of an immigrant by special agreement, it was arranged some time during the summer, in view of the fact that there was a general demand for labour, and that the labour conditions were buoyant, that in the case of men coming to assured employment, if notice was given to the officers of the department on the other side of the water, they should issue a permission to enable the immigrant to land on this side, coming, as I say, to assured employment, even though he had not the money qualification. It has not been considered desirable that this arrangement should be continued during the winter months. But that arrangement is still in force, and will be in force until the 10th Mr. A. HAGGART.
of December. So my hon. friend and the House will see how far aside from the facts the newspaper in question has gone in dealing with this case. The employer in question, or any other employer, by making arrangements in due course, may secure the admission of his workmen at any time before the 10th of December, on the terms I have set forth.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the motion of Mr. Monfc in amendment thereto.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night I had been quoting some extracts from speeches, newspaper articles and cartoons made by Nationalists and Conservatives in the last campaign in Quebec, and I had also quoted some statements which had been made on and after the election in Drummond-Artha-baska. I was proceeding to show what had been said after the election by some of those Nationalist and Conservative orators. However, before I go on to make any more quotations from those speeches, I may mention to the Hous.e that I hold in my hand a reproduction of almost all the important speeches which were made on the occasions referred to; but I do not want to weary the House by reading those quotations. There are enough, I think, to justify the statement which I made at the outset of my remarks, that our opponents have been carrying on this campaign by making the most incendiary, anti-British appeals against the government and especially against the Prime Minister. May I be permitted just to give another one?-an extract from a speech made by a man who, during the last campaign in Drummond and Artbabaska, accompanied the Conservative, or Nationalist candidate during the whole campaign-Mr. Tancrede Marcil. He spoke at St. Louis de Blandford on the 2nd November, 1910-as you see, Mr. Speaker, it is not so long ago- and on that occasion he said:-
That he was born in the village of St. Eustache, where the English went so far as to desecrate the church in riddling it with bullets and in making their horses drink in the sacred vessels; and that it was for the same English that Laurier was wishing to send them to fight and to be killed.


Samuel Hughes: Who made that statement?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Marcil.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Which Marcil?


An hon. MEMBER.: The Speaker?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No-an ally of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes), I may say, a man who is trying to make the fortune of the Conservative party as my hon. friend, I suppose, also is anxious to do.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as the minister is refering to me, although I was not meddling with him, would he be good enough to quote some of his speeches made in 1896?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I will be very glad to quote some of them.
We see that the same war is going on, that the same Mr. Marcil went up to a meeting two days ago in the county of my hon. friend frofn Bagot (Mr. Marcile) and he spoke as follows.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Which Marcil?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. TancrMe Marcil. Here is a report which I extract from the ' Citizen ' in Ottawa :
Mr. Tancrede Marcil appeared as the champion of Nationalism. He accused the Governor General of having been the creature of Cecil Rhodes who was to have left him several millions. He spoke of children being torn from their mothers' arms to serve on warships and declared that French Canadians were not ready to break their backs for Britain.
This is the campaign which is still going on. Further, I see in this last a reference to His Excellency the Governor General. In view of the charges which have been made at different occasions by the Nationalists Conservatives against him here I may be permitted to state that amongst all the Governors General we have had in Canada there never has been a man who was more devoted to our country or has served it better. He has taken an interest in all our relations, foreign and internal. He has been zealous for the upbuilding of our country. He has visited, at great discomfort to himself, the distant parts of this country and even the wild parts in order to be better informed as to its resources and wealth. Now, I see that they are abusing him in the province of Quebec. I say it is a shame to see such terms used and such charges made in the province of Quebec against the Governor General. It was Lord Grey who some years ago was the one who made possible the celebration of the Tercentenary of the foundation of the old city of Quebec, the cradle of the French Canadian race, and just now we know that His Excellency is exerting all the means at his disposal to secure the erection of a statue to a distinguished heroine of French Canadian extraction, who, in 1692, at the age of 18 years, saved this country from invasion on the part of the Indians. I refer to Mile, de Vercheres. That is what His Excellency the Governor General is doing, and I say that French Canadians who are trying in the province of Quebec to raise prejudice against him are
ungrateful and do not represent the feeling and sentiment of my province.
But, these racial appeals, which have been made by the Conservatives, have not been made exclusively in the province of Quebec, but in the province of Ontario a similar racial campaign was carried on. As we know very well, our naval policy has been denounced in Ontario as being anti-British. In Quebec we axe being denounced because it is a pro-British policy. Let me quote you an article in the ' Mail and Empire,' which has striven by all means possible, as I shall prove in a few minutes, to convince its readers that the policy we are enunciating is not a sound policy for the empire. Here is what the ' Mail and Empire ' of the 24th October, 1910, said, speaking of the speech which I had made in Halifax when the ' Niobe ' was welcomed by me :



NOT FOR THE EMPIRE.

[Stage Direction]
That is the title of the article.
Significant was the speech of Mr. Brodeur, the First Lord of the Admiralty, at the ceremony which marked the arrival of the ' Niobe ' at Halifax. In that deliverance Mr. Brodeur laid down the principle which governs the navy we are creating. The ships, he declared, are for but one purpose, the coast defence of Canada. They will patrol the Atlantic and Pacific shores and drive off any enemy that may be contemplating an attack upon us. In this way, and in this way alone, will they serve the British Empire.
Now, this same newspaper, on the 22nd of October, just a few days previous, published the speech which I made in Halifax, and I am going to quote from the ' Mail ' extracts of my speech which will show you whether there was anything in that speech which would justify what has been said by the ' Mail and Empire.' Here is the report of my speech as it is reproduced in the ' Mail ' itself. If it had been reproduced in some other paper I could understand that probably they would not have seen it, but here is the extract of the ' Mail and Empire ' itself. Describing the arrival of the ' Niobe ', it said :
It proclaims to the whole British Empire that Canada is willing and proud to provide, as rapidly as circumstances will permit, for her local naval defence and to safeguard her share in the commerce and trade of the empire.
Let me read further:
We must consider that our interests are so interwoven with those of Great Britain that her supremacy on the sea and perpetual command of the great commerce of the world appeals to us to awaken a responsive echo in our country. If then we can assist even in a small way, but in proportion to our strength and resources, to the solidifying of Britain's power, the maintaining of her influence and the safeguarding of her supremacy, it becomes our duty to do so.
] 55
[Stage Direction]
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, what reliance can be placed on, or what importance can be attached to the utterances of a newspaper which, after having published a speech such as that from which I have read extracts, is now stating that Brodeur simply declared that he was for the coast defence of Canada, especially when we all know that I said, not only in Halifax, but also in the province of Quebec, in the presence of the men who are denouncing me as being too British-when I said there what I say now, that it will always be our duty to stand for the defence and the solidifying of the British Empire.
Yesterday there was a short exchange of words between myself and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I asserted that my hon. friend had advised the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska to vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The hon. gentleman did not absolutely deny my statement, but said: Bead over the telegram; see what it is. Well, I am going to read, not only that telegram, but some others which were exchanged between the Montreal ' Herald ' and leaders of the Conservative party. The following telegram was addressed to about 15 leaders of that party by the Montreal organ.
Please reply by wire, collect. How do you advise Conservatives to vote in Arthabaska election ?
Let me first-a tout seigneur, tout hon-neur-quote my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He simply replied: 'Vote according to your conscience '.
Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
M-r. BRODEUR. My hon. friend would not stand for those denunciations, those anti-British denunciations, which were being made in the province of Quebec. There is another Conservative leader who was also asked to give his opinion-Mr. Robert Rogers, of Manitoba. Mr. Rogers is one of those who are waving in Manitoba the British flag against this government. Here is what he said:
Every Conservative and loyal Canadian

Mark you, loyal Canadian

-whether in Arthabaska or elsewhere should recognize that his first duty to his country is to vote against the Laurier administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. McBride was consulted. Mr. McBride, who is a very shrewd man simply replied: Let Conservatives follow the advice of our leader at Ottawa.
I shall now quote the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Snroule). He replied to the Montreal ' Herald ': I
I have no advice to give. The electors must make their own choice.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
George Eulas Foster: I do not aspire to that honour.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Here is what my hon. friend said in his telegram:
My advice to every Conservative is to vote as his intelligence and conscience dictates.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But that is not all. Here is more:
The Laurier administration is so extravagant, corrupt and lacking in principle, that I would vote every time to turn it out and eo give opportunity to replace it by a better one.
This was sent during the Drummond election. My hon. friend was urging the good Tories in Drummond and Arthabaska, who might read his telegram, to vote for the defeat of this government. And in so doing, he was supporting Mr. Bourassa. But Mr. Bourassa was singing one song in Quebec, while my hon. friend was singing another in Ontario. That, however, is not all. After the election my hon. friend held a meeting in his constituency, and there he said something about his friend Bourassa. Here is a quotation from what he said, which I find in the ' Citizen ' of the 5th of November last, and my hon. friend will tell me whether it is right or not:


The Hon.   G@: Foster dealt with the question of reciprocity and offered an explanation of the result in Drummond-Arth-abaska making a strong attack upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whom he denounced as an autocrat, a wielder of tyrannical power, but who had had his Waterloo and deserved no sympathy. Let us be fair to Bourassa, there is good stuff in him.
Yes, said the hon. gentleman, do not my good friends in Ontario, try to kill this little Bourassa, there is good stuff in

him; let us preserve him in order to overthrow the Liberal government and crush the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman was not alone of that opinion. Now, he was not alone of that opinion. Another gentleman in Toronto, Mr. Edmond Bristol, a member of this House, said: ' I take this from the Toronto 'World1 of the 8th of Nov.-defended Bourassa and Monk, saying that he did not think they were traitors to the British Empire; he knew them both, and knew their personal opinions.' Their personal opinions! Yes. That shows, Mr. Speaker, the entente cordiale which exists between the Conservatives of Ontario and the Nationalists of Quebec. The hon. member for Centre Toronto advises his friends in Ontario: Do not be afraid of Bourassa; I know his personal opinions. Don't mind what he says in Quebec; I know how his heart really feels. It is suggested, Mr. Speaker, that I should read a telegram which the ex-whip of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Geo. Taylor) sent on the evening of the election to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. That telegram was as follows:-
Accept heartiest congratulations on your great fight and success.
Yes, congratulations, on that great fight, in which the allies of the member of Jacques Cartier and himself were denouncing the Liberal naval policy. Yes, a great fight, when our brothers and mothers and sisters were called on to prevent their sons shedding their blood in the defence of Great Britain. A great fight! Yes, when French Canadians were told that they should not have their backbones smashed for the English. A great fight! when it was said that the navy was a conspiracy of the British to drown French Canadians, and when it wa3 declared that we have had enough of England and the English.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there was corruption in Drummond and Arthabaska. Yes, there was, and it was on the other side. Who organized that fight, and who are the men who provided money for it? If my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) were here, perhaps he could give us some explanation of where the money came from. Mr. Thos. Chase Casgrain, a Conservative and ex-member of this House, might give us some explanation as to the money used in that election. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Forget), who I regret to see is not in his seat, might also give us some information as to the amount of money used in that election. Mr. Speaker, there was no money improperly used on our side. I appeal to the members who assisted us in that election-and most of my colleagues from the province of Quebec did so-to state in this House if any
one of them went there with money for the election. They went to fight for the interests of the country. They went to assist in putting a -stop to a dangerous agitation which had been going on there for months. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier stated that there was enough whisky in the county to float the ' Niobe ' and the ' Rainbow.' In answer to that I may appeal to the testimony of two members of this House, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard). The hon. member for Chicoutimi heard a Conservative and Nationalist organizer asking for a large number of gallons of whisky. The hon. member for Kamouraska could also give us evidence on that point.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss any longer these racial appeals,, which have been made, not only in the province! of Quebec, but also in the other provinces, in the discussion of this naval policy. I am sorry to say that we have too many of these racial and religious appeals in this country. I observe that the Conservatives. and Nationalists are going to carry on a religious campaign in this House this session. One member of this House, who rides the Protestant horse, is asking whether guards of honour were placed at the disposal of His Eminence Cardinal Vannutelli when he came to attend the Eucharistic Congress some time ago. In the Senate you have the other side of the question. There Senator Landry is trying to cast some blame on the government because we did not pro-! vide guards of honour for His Eminence. I might perhaps read these two questions. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is asking this:

1.	On what occasions and for whom may guards of honour be furnished from the Canadian permanent forces?
2.	By whose authority may they be so furnished?
3.	On what occasions were guards of honour furnished, from the force, at Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal during the present year, and by whose direction and under whose authority were they so furnished?
i. Did the 65th Battalion, of Montreal, parade at the Eucharistic Congress during the carrying of the Host? and if so, were they equipped with rifles and bayonets? If so, by whose authority?


Mr. SPROULE.: I rise to a point of order. Can the hon. member anticipate matters on the Order Paper.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The point of order E understand, is that I am quoting from a notice of a question which is on thei Order Paper. According to my reading of the rules, it is not permitted a speaker to refer to any order of the day or to any'

motion or declaration or document which may be the subject of an order of the day. I am not quoting from an order of the day, but simply a notice of a question, and I think I am within my rights in quoting it. However, I wish to submit myself to the judgment of the Speaker on that point.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: As this matter will come up later on in the regular routinie of the House, I think it would be better to leave the discussion of it until that time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Do I understand .you, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am out of order in quoting this?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I take it that- 'everything on the Order Paper will be taken up in its regular order. A debate might take place on this question before it came regularly before the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: May I be permitted to show the reverse of the medal. The Hon. Mr. Landry has put the following motion on the Order Paper of the Senate:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will cause to be laid before the Senate, copies of all orders in council, of all decisions rendered by the Military Council or some of its members, and of all correspondence concerning the guard and escort of honour applied for in August and September last on the occasion of the visit in Quebec and Montreal of His Eminence Cardinal Vannutelli.
In citing these notices of motions I want to show that it is very unfortunate that we cannot avoid racial and religious appeals in this country. Should such appeals not be stopped? Is it not the duty of every good citizen of Canada to endeavour to put an end to them? No political party can reap advantage from them. These appeals do not count for much among political partisans, but the unfortunate part of it is that there are some people in the country whose minds are influenced by them. Take my own case. Only a few days ago it was stated in some Ontario Conservative newspapers that the Department of the Naval Service should not be under the control of a French Canadian. Is it not unfair -and unjust to make such a statement. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have given to my countrymen sufficient example of devotion and loyalty to be free from any such allegation. And, in speaking of these racial appeals I do not wish to be understood as saying that they are confined to one party only. Unfortunately, occasionally racial and religious appeals are made on both sides, but h-as not the time arrived when all good Canadians should unite to put an end to such an unworthy state of affairs? Is it not time that Mr. BRODEUR.
racial and religious appeals should cease and that all Canadians should work together for the prosperity and progress of our country?
May I now say a word or two on the motion which has been introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), and in which regret is expressed that the speech from the Throne gives no intimation whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people of the country on its naval policy and the general question of a contribution by Canada to imperial defence. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) urges a plebiscite because he says the new policy of the government alters our relations with Great Britain. I may say at once that his reasons for a plebiscite do not commend themselves to me, and for my part I shall vote against his motion. There never was a referendum or a plebiscite in this country except in one instance to which I shall later refer. When Great Britain withdrew her military forces from Canada we assumed the defence of the country by a land force, and that certainly was a change in our constitutional position, but that change of policy was not submitted to the people. It was carried out by the Conservative government and the people were not consulted through a plebiscite. Then, we established a fishery protection service which was formerly provided for by Great Britain, and , that also caused a change in our constitutional position but the people were not consulted through a plebiscite. But far and above in importance either of these questions was the question of confederation, and let me ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) if that question, which was going to change the constitution not only in respect to our relations with Great Britain, but in respect to the interrelations between the provinces, w'as referred to the people? My hon. friend knows very well that it was not. It seems to me that if there wTas one case above all others which should have been referred to the people; if there was one question above all others upon which the people of Canada had a right to be consulted it was that policy of confederation.
The referendum, or plebiscite, is not in harmony with British constitutional practice. We have responsible government, we have a government of the people by the people, and if the government fails in its duty it may be overthrown to-morrow and a new government put in its place. In the United States the constitutional practice is different, because there the president and the congress is elected for a determined and a fixed period and it is their policy in some instances to submit important questions to the vote of the people. But, under the British system of parliamentary government the plebiscite is not in accordance with the constitutional principles and consequently it is not appealed to. And in ad-

dition to that, in my opinion it is very much better that the judgment of the people should be taken on such a question when the elections come on and then we will know exactly where we stand. Let me ask, if a plebiscite were taken on what would the people be asked _to pronounce themselves? Should we submit just the one question:	Are you in favour of the establishment of a Canadian naval service, or another question: Are you in favour of a contribution in money, or another question: Are you in favour of no naval service at all, as some people in Quebec contend for. Would we ask the people:	Are you in
favour of contributing to imperial defence and if so what form should that contribution take? I submit, Sir, that the policies of the different parties to this controversy are not so well defined that it would be possible to refer the matter to the people in a single and concrete question.
But we are not afraid of the judgment of the people ; on the contrary, we are in favour of consulting the people. There will be that consultation when the elections come on, and at that time the people will know exactly where they are. They will know, as they know to-day, the policy established by the government. They will know the policy of the Conservative party, which is the contribution policy. And I hope they will know the policy of the Nationalist party which we do not know to-day. These questions can be submitted to the people, but there are other questions which are not yet determined but which are under public discussion. And I say, let us have these questions discussed by the representatives of the people before the election comes on. If, on appeal to the people, it ibe found that our policy does not accord with public opinion, the people will have the right to reverse that policy. The people will be consulted in this way and will foe much better able to give their verdict than if the question had been submitted in the form of a plebiscite. As to this question of a plebiscite, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that a plebiscite had been asked for by
50.000	people. I do not know that there were that many, but, for the sake of argument, let us agree that there were 50,000. I know that the petition presented as coming from some parts of my own county was signed not only by electors but by women and by school children. And I am informed by my hon. friend from St. Johns (Mr. Demers) that there were not
50.000	who petitioned for a plebiscite, but only 27,188. But I base my calculation on
50,000,	so let us take that figure. Now, in the last election, there were 1,599,328 electors. If this plebiscite was asked for by
50.000	of the electors, that would mean that it was asked for by 3 per cent of the total number. But suppose we confine it
to the province of Quebec as the petitioners mainly reside in that province. In Quebec there are 414,428 electors and the actual number of petitioners was 27,000, which weuld be less than 7 per cent of the total. That being the case, would it be advisable, on a question on which the issues are not well determined, a question on which the policy of either party is not fully understood, to take a vote of the people? I say that it would be money spent uselessly to have a plebiscite under these circumstances. There was a plebiscite on prohibition, and we know with what result ; and I suppose we do not want to keep the people always in elections. Speaking for myself, this proposal of plebiscite does not commend itself to my judgment.
Our policy in this matter is an affirmation of our Canadian autonomy and an extension of our system of defence. Let me prove that it is an extension of our autonomy by comparing our present legislation with the legislation that, in 1865, we were authorized by the imperial parliament to pass. The Colonial Defence Act of 1865 provides as follows :
3. In any colony it shall be lawful for the proper legislative authority, with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, from time to time to make provision for effecting at the expense of the colony all or any of the purposes following:
(1)	For providing, maintaining, and using a vessel or vessels of war subject to such conditions and for such purposes as Her Majesty in Council from time to time approves;
(2)	For raising and maintaining seamen and others entered on the terms of being bound to serve as ordered in any such vessel;
(3)	For raising and maintaining a body of volunteers entered on the terms of being bound to general service in the Royal Navy in emergency, and, if in any case the proper legislative authority so directs, on the further terms of being bound to serve as ordered in any such vessel as aforesaid;
(4)	For appointing commissioned, warrant, and other officers to train and command or serve as officers with any such men, ashore or afloat, on such terms and subject to such regulations as Her Majesty in Council from time to time approves;
(5)	For obtaining from the Admiralty the services of commissioned, warrant, and of other officers and of men of the Royal Navy for the last mentioned purposes;
(6)	For enforcing good order and discipline among the men and officers aforesaid while ashore or afloat within the limits of the colony;
(7)	For making the men and officers aforesaid, while ashore or afloat within the limits of the colony or elsewhere, subj oct to all enactments and regulations for the time being in force for the discipline of the Royal Navy.
Two principles underlie this legislation of 1865. The first is that nothing can be



done except with the consent of the Imperial government. The second is that some of the men taking service in that navy would be obliged to join the Imperial navy in case of war, willing or unwilling. That was the situation in 1865 ; but what is it to-day? Are we obliged by the legislation that we have passed under the agreement that has been made to ask the consent of the Imperial government to establish vessels of war? No ; we have that freedom, and that freedom we are exercising to-day. And are those who volunteer in this naval service obliged to go into the Royal navy should war arise? No ; they, will be a Canadian naval reserve, which reserve will leave our coasts only with the consent of the Governor in Council and the approval of parliament. That is why I say that this legislation is an affirmation of our autonomy.
Now, I say that we must provide for a navy. The time has arrived when Canada must do something, first, for the defence of our coasts; second, for the protection of our commerce, and, third, for the maintenance of the naval supremacy of Great Britain. England has withdrawn her ships from our coasts. A few years ago there were naval stations on the Atlantic and the Pacific, at Esquimalt and Halifax, which were manned and equipped by officers of the British navy. But for reasons pertinent to the British Admiralty, Great Britain has withdrawn her ships from those coasts, and now there is not, on the coast of the maritime provinces, a single ship provided either for the defence of our coasts or for the protection of our commerce. The same may be said of the coast of British Columbia, with the exception of two small ships, the Algerine and Shearwater, which are not strong enough to make any effective defence in case of attack. I may say, moreover, that these ships in British Columbia are provided chiefly for the protection of the seal fisheries. A treaty exists between Great Britain and the United States by which pelagic sealing is prohibited during certain months of the year. This treaty was made in the interest of Canada, and for the protection of the pelagic sealing. Great Britain has, during the last few years, provided, at her own expense, the protection of these seal fisheries. There are, however, still some fisheries exercised exclusively by Canadian citizens, and surely it should be our duty to afford them protection, but Great Britain is still doing it for us. I say that the time has arrived when this protection should no longer be afforded by Great Britain, the time has arrived when Canada herself should protect her own seal fisheries. England having so much confidence in Canada, so much confidence in our resources, so much confidence in the loyalty of Canadians, has seen fit to transfer to us the two stations of Esquimalt and Halifax.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be proud of this attitude of Great Britain towards Canada in transferring to us those two naval stations. It seems to me we should be proud of the fact that to-day there is not one inch of land in Canada over which the Canadian government has not absolute control. Great Britain had enough confidence in our loyalty to transfer to us those two naval stations.
Now, hon. gentlemen opposite say, No, let us send warships to Great Britain, but let us not provide for the maintenace and equipment of those two naval stations. Sir, I differ from that view. I say that those stations having been transferred to us, and being now under our control, it is our duty to maintain them, it is our duty not only as citizens of Canada, but it is our duty under the treaty which exists to-day between Great Britain and Canada to maintain those naval stations and to keep them efficiently manned and equipped. That is the policy we are now carrying out, and it is a duty that we should not hesitate for a moment in performing. Great Britain is now affording no protection to our trade so far as the British Admiralty is concerned. Their vessels have been withdrawn and our shores are exposed to attack, not only in time of war, but even in time of peace. I say, therefore, it is our duty to protcet our trade routes, and that protection is required not only in time of war, but also in time of peace. Why do I say that? Why was the fishery protection service established? It was established because our fishery products were being taken away from us, because they were left without any protection, or without sufficient protection.
Now, it may be asked: What is the need of protecting our trade during time of peace? Do you fear pirates, do you fear robbers? Yes, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately pirates and robbers still infest the seas. Both on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and in the Gulf of Mexico, only last year there were cases where vessels were attacked by pirates. Let me quote some instances. I have in my hand an extract from Collier's, of October 15, 1910, which gives the history of the British vessel. The ' Princess May ' that went on the rocks a few days ago on the Pacific ocean. The history of this British vessel is given, and it is very interesting. The article mentions that though this vessel was built so recently as 1888, it has already been captured once by pirates, and again on another occasion was fiercely attacked. The article states that the ' Princess May ' was stolen from her berth at Shanghai by French adventurers, but she was relieved bv a Chinese warship and brought back. We see, therefore, what warships can do. A short time afterwards, while she was sailing on the Oriental coast, she was boarded by pirates, who surrounded her and almost gained possession of her. The battle

lasted many hours, the pirates were finally driven away, and to save themselves had to jump into the sea. Here is another case that occurred on the 25th of December, 1909. I read this from a newspaper published in the city of Ottawa :-



PIRATES MURDER CREW OF 17 MEN.

[Stage Direction]
Manila, Sept., 25.-Official despatches from Southern ports say it is rumored that the revenue cutter 'Sora' has been captured by Moro pirates and the crew murdered. The authorities have been unable to secure confirmation of the rumour, although despatches have been sent to all adjacent points.
The 'Sora' was used as a patrol boat against the Moro pirates of the Southern Archipelago in the general campaign against smuggling inaugurated by the insurgents a short time ago.
It was commanded by Captain F. A. McGorty and carried a crew of 14, all Philipinos.
The cutter left Salabo, 20 miles south of Palana, carrying J. L. Peary, collector of the port, who was bound to Sandakan in British North Borneo, to purchase supplies. Nothing has been heard the vessel 6ince.
I have also a statement here showing that a case of piracy occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Here are four cases happening within a few years which show that merchant vessels are subject to attack by pirates and robbers, and I ask if under these conditions we shall leave our merchant marine and our products without protection. It is the duty of Canada to provide for the protection of their trade and that is what we are doing to-day in carrying out this policy.
Our naval policy should be continued for the purpose of assisting in maintaining the naval supremacy of Great Britain. We should all act with a common mind on this question. There is only one exception to this policy which has been heard in this House, and that exception was heard last night in the remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He appears to be the only member of this House who goes to the length of declaring that we should do nothing in order to maintain the naval supremacy of Great Britain, and that we should not participate in the wars if that) naval supremacy should be threatened. The maintenance of the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to our trade and our freedom. I should say further that in the province of Quebec a sentiment in favour of such a policy should come from the gratitude that we owe to Great Britain for the freedom which she has given us. Quebec is most interested in maintaining this naval supremacy. It is interested, like other parts of the country, in maintaining the naval supremacy of Great Britain in order to protect our trade as I have just shown it needs protection. But besides that I would ask 6i
where would we be in the province of Quebec if the naval supremacy of Great Britain should be affected? What would become of our institutions? They despise the British flag. You will remember that last year in Rome, when the insurgents were taking possession of that city, alarm was felt for the safety of the Canadian college there, an institution where young seminarists from Montreal and other places go to continue their studies and to qualify themselves to become priests. When this insurrection broke out in Rome, what happened? The director of the institution, fearing that these insurgents would take possession of the college, put the British flag over the college in order to protect it against injury.
Samuel Hughes: May I ask behind what flag the hon. gentleman and his friends ranged themselves in Drummond and Arthabaska?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We fought the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska under the British flag. We fought that battle in Drummond and Arthabaska in resistance to all the racial appeals which were made against us. I stood there for the British flag. I stand to-day and I will always stand for the maintenance of the British flag. Now, I was giving you an instance where the British flag protected a Catholic institution last year in Rome. Just a few days ago there was a great revolution in Portugal, so serious that the king had to leave his throne, a change of government took place and republican institutions were established in place of the monarchy. What happened? There was a convent of monks, in which there were some British citizens. They feared for themselves, they feared that the new government, or the insurgents, would tear their convent to pieces. What did they do? They elevated the British flag on the institution, and in that way they maintained it against attack. I would not be surprised if some of those monks who were saved in that way were amongst those who, the other day, came to this country to enjoy the freedom which we enjoy so much under the British flag. I say that we have all the interest in the world in the province of Quebec to maintain the naval supremacy of Great Britain, and in spite of the prejudices to which appeals are made, I am sure that the people of Quebec will realize as we do that we should maintain our naval supremacy, not only for our material benefit, not only to continue the trade that we have established with Great Britain, but also to maintain the institutions that we have in the province of Quebec, and of which we are so proud.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier yesterday quoted the following paragraph from the Admiralty Memorandum which is con-

tamed in the blue-book ox the Eeport of the Imperial Defence Conference. Mr. McKenna, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his memorandum dated 20th July, 1909, stated that:	[DOT]
It has been recognized by the colonial governments that in time of war the local naval forces should come under the general direction of the Admiralty.
The hon. gentleman has quoted that remark very often. He quoted it during the election, he quoted it last year and: I think even in an article which he published in Le'Devoir. He asks: Where is the, document that the Minister of Marine signed declaring that the Canadian government, in time of war, should put their forces under the general direction of the admiralty? He told to the electors by saying that they are afraid to show that document, they will not show it and there is a very good reason for that-so he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, I may inform my hon. friend that no such document exists. I have never signed any document either myself or in the name of the government or of my colleagues of such a nature. I may say besides that the statement of Mr. McKenna is made not in the conference, not as a result of the conference, but in a document dated the 20th July, 1909, while the conference only met on the 5th August, 1909. But, on what did Mr. McKenna base his declaration? I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that Mr. McKenna based that declaration upon the statement which my hon. friend assented to when on the 29th of March, 1909, he voted for the famous resolution which has since attracted so much attention. Mr. McKenna made that statement on the declaration of the Prime Minister of New Zealand in his telegram of the 22nd of March, 1909; he made it on the declaration of the Prime Minister of Australia in a despatch of the 15th of April, 1909, and finally Mr. McKenna made that statement upon the declaration made by the member for Jacques Cartier himself on the 29th March, 1909. I think that disposes of the allegations which have been made in the Nationalist and Conservative press of the province of Quebec.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has found another grievance against us, and he declares that the Canadian government has approved of the formation of an Imperial General Staff, which he seemed to think was a very dangerous thing. I shall quote authority as to what the Imperial General Staff is, and then thei House will understand that my hon. friend need not feel very great alarm. Had the hon. gentleman taken the trouble to consult the report of the proceedings of' the conference of 1907 he would have known what the Imperial General Staff Mr. BRODEUR.
is,	but the moment he saw the word>
'Imperial' he thought it was his duty to' denounce the whole thing and to condemnj the Canadian government. Let me quote from page 119 of the report of the conference of 1907 what the Imperial Gen-< eral Staff is:-
The conference without wishing to commit to immediate action any of the governments represented, as it recognizes and affirms the need of developing a general staff recruited from the forces of the empire as a whole which should be a- means of fostering the study of military science in the various branches.
That is very serious is'nt it. There is going to be a staff composed of officers from Great Britain and New Zealand and Australia and Canada and these men, are going to foster the study of military science. What an alarming thing:-
They shall collect and disseminate te the various governments military information and intelligence.
Is there anything very treasonable in that? The resolution continues:-
And undertake the preparation of schemes of defence on a common principle and without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration.
Is that so very serious?
And shall at the request of the respective governments advise them as to the training education and war organization of the military forces of the Crown in every part of the empire.
There we have a declaration as to what the Imperial General Staff is, and yet that does not prevent my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) going to the province of Quebec and stating: Look at this order in council; they are creating an Imperial General Staff, they are creating a staff imperial in its nature. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this will show that the appeals made by these gentlemen opposite are not' founded on reason. When, we seek to got) at the true facts we see that in every case-this government has preserved that principle ;of autonomy under which we have been living for so many years.
I think I have answered most of the points raised by my hon. friend and I regret that I have wearied the House by speaking at such length. We are in Canada face to face with the problem of naval service. Like most of the military expenditures, the expenditures for naval service do not command much favour among certain classes in Canada. But, members of parliament should fully recognize the duty of our country in that respect. Public men should be aware that the country requires to be protected against aggression and that the government which does not provide

for such defence is derelict in its duty. In all countries enjoying the benefits of parliamentary institutions and of party governments, the question of defence is sacred, and no one who properly measures his sense of responsibility would dare to bring military organization into contempt and discredit. We have hitherto adhered to that principle in this country so far as our military expenditure is concerned, and whether Liberals or Conservatives were in power criticism has been offered in such a way as not to afford much comfort to the anti-military element. The creation of a naval service has given rise to the most unfair criticism. Appeals have been made to those who deprecate military expenditure and all sorts of misrepresentations have been resorted to in order to create prejudice. Not satisfied with that anti-national conduct, appeals have also been made to racial prejudice. In Ontario and Manitoba the policy of the government has been attacked because it was anti-British, and in the province of Quebec, it has been attacked because our opponents said it was a pro-British policy. We were accused in Quebec of having sacrificed our country although we provided that in case of war, with the consent and the approval oi parliament, our ships should form part of the Royal navy. The charges made against us are absolutely unfounded and unfair, and they are not made by men who wish to see our country discharge its duty properly and effectively. However, Mr. Speaker, we are not scared by these frantic appeals; we stand by our policy and we will fall with it if the people so decide.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House in English I feel that I must ask your indulgence. I would not dare to make such an attempt were it not my strongest desire to be understood by every hon. gentleman in this House. In spite of all the statements published in the newspapers and made in this House to the contrary, I declare from my seat in parliament, and I declare in the face of my fellow-countrymen that during the whole campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska we who spoke in opposition to the government candidate remained loyal and faithful to our King, to our country, and to what we think are the true principles of the Liberal Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Ha, ha.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Let me say Tight here, Mr. Speaker, that I take to myself no credit or discredit by my presence in Drummond and Arthabaska for the result of that contest, because I may say that before I ever went into the constituency, and before any of my friends ever went into the constituency the people had made up their minds
to vote against the Navy Bill. I myself have heard organizers and friends of hon. gentlemen opposite saying that things were working, badly in Drummond and Arthabaska because of what they called ' this dam Naval Bill.' I am particularly grateful to my hon. friends opposite when they attempt, on false reports of newspapers, to represent me as having said that French Canadians do not care about the opinions of the other provinces on this naval question. These are not exactly my words, but I said something in that sense, and this is how it came. Our friends opposite tried to make the people of Drummond and Arthabaska fear to express their free will on this question, representing that if they did so the other provinces would retaliate upon them. They tried to make the people of Drummond and Arthabaska believe that the people of the English provinces were narrowminded and fanatical; and it was because of those statements that I told 'my fellow-citizens not to be afraid of the English provinces. Some of our friends opposite said to the people of Drummond and Arthabaska that all we are and all we have we owe to Great Britain, and I answered, with Sir Charles Tupper, with Sir Richard Cartwright, and with many of the members of this House who sit at your right, Mr. Speaker, that it was untrue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the statements of newspapers are not the only ones which are false. I think the hon. minister who has just addressed the Hotise (Hon. Mr. Bro-deur) fell a victim of those false statements himself when he referred to a certain cartoon which he said had been distributed in Drummond and Arthabaska. He said:-
Then, there were cartoons distributed throughout the county by these Nationalists. One of them I hold in my hand. Of course, to them the British flag was nothing, if it should be trampled upon. This little cartoon, however, shows what kind of spirit there is in this Conservative party of the province elf Quebec. It represents Baptiste smoking liis pipe quietly and holding the Union Jack with both hands. Behind him is the Britisher, John Bull. Baptiste has taken off his coat and hung it on a tree, and the Britisher says to him : 'Hold the flag Baptiste, and while you are doing that I will take care of your coat.'
That cartoon, with its inscription, Mr. Speaker, never originated in the minds of Nationalists. It is a child of the hon. minister himself. It is not a picture of ' le Nationalist.' It is a reproduction of a picture published_by ' Le Canada,' and on the newspaper which, the minister had in his hand were words which should have advised him of that fact. Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the time of the House by reading quotations: but as an example of newspaper reports, let me make a short quotation from the Brockville ' Evening Recorder,' which is, I believe, the organ of one of the minis-

ters. In its issue of the 19th of November it says:-
Yesterday's performance was looked forward * PL1 t interest as the new member from Arthabaska was to be present. This Nationalist arrived and as a general rule great applause heralds the entrance of a new victor, but the silence which greeted him was only equalled when Mr. Monk took his seat.
The hon, Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that the cartoon just referred to and another one were circulated in Drummond and Arthabaska during the campaign. The hon. gentleman is wrong again. If he will look -at the newspaper from which he took the cartoon he will see that it was published three days after the election. Let me quote from a speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Marine of himself in 1896 in this House, when he was voting against the militia supply. What did he say of England on that occasion? He said:-
We have over and again been told that in the event of a war taking place or Canada being invaded, we could rely on Great Britain's pro-tectiou ; and. tliat tlie only ground for not severing the colonial tie was that, should international difficulties arise, we might rely on England s strong arm. Now, Sir, I am sorry to hear under the circumstances that the government, for the purpose of arming the Canadian militia have made their purchases, not from private contractors, but from the War Office in Great Britain, and that we are asked now to foot the bills. Is that the protection we have been promised by Great Britain? Is that the position in which we stand as a colony? I think we are entitled to an altogether different treatment at the hands of Great Britain.
In the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska, hon. gentlemen opposite repeated their old speeches on the Riel question, and the Manitoba school question, in which they appealed to race prejudice. They have been brought up on that policy, and in my province since they have been in power they have tried to exploit the race cry as much as they could. Our first reason for fighting this Naval Bill in Drummond and Arthabaska is that it constitutes a menace to the existing relations between Great Britain and Canada, and I stated everywhere that we were ready to give our lives for the protection of our country and the continuance of British supremacy. I shall not speak any longer on this question. All I wanted to do was to explain my position, and before taking my seat I desire to register my protest in the name of the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska and on behalf of the whole province of Quebec against my hon. friends opposite when they endeavour to make us, this House and country believe that the people of the province of Quebec -are unable to judge a question fairly, but are so easily influenced by race cries and prejudices. In spite, Sir, of racial cries, the province of Quebec gave its support to the late Sir John


Pierre Édouard Blondin: i
Macdonald during 18 years, and when the proper time comes the people of the province of Quebec will show the country that they can make up their minds on public questions apart f?om any consideration of nationality and give their support to an Englishman just as well as to a French Canadian.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I did not intend taking any part in this debate, but after the explanation which my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin) has seen fit to offer in excuse for his conduct in the counties of Drummond and Arthabaska, I find it my duty to say a few words in that connection. My hon. friend must have considered himself guilty, and very much so, when he was compelled to seek an excuse in the past history of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec especially with regard to school questions. But we must all have noticed that my hon. friend (Mr. Blondin) did not deny squarely and flatly the statement made last night by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) to the effect that he had used during the last election language which could be qualified as disloyal. I noticed last night that when the hon. gentleman was accused of having given expression to some disloyal utterances at one of the meetings at Victoriaville, he replied : I do not deny that that was said but it was not said by me. The House will be rather amused, I am sure, to learn that at that meeting there were only two men who spoke on the Nationalist's side, one of whom was my hon. friend, and the other one was the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet). Therefore if the one be -not guilty, the other is. I think that the House and the country fully realize that most-improper and disloyal language was used all through the last campaign by speakers on behalf of the Nationalist candidate. That cannot be denied.
Coming to my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), he laid very much stress on the work of organization which had been carried on during that election, and even before the election, by the Liberal party, and he did this in order to demonstrate how important was the victory the Nationalists had won.
I propose in a very few words to try and give the House the main features of the campaign. Let me say, in the first place, that the candidate elected, presented himself as a Liberal and a friend of the Liberal administration. In every meeting he said that he would support Sir Wilfrid Laurier in everything except his naval policy. I may add that the Nationalist candidate would be very much of a Liberal in a Liberal town, but when he came to Conservative towns he would try to throw blame on the present administration especially with

regard to its treatment of the agricultural classes. I remember very well that Mr. Armand Lavergne-a young man of whom you all know-said at several meetings that the only way to please Mr. Laurier was to vote for Gilbert.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who said that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was said by Armand Lavergne, and he would explain that in this way. If you want to make Sir Wilfrid Laurier smile, he would say, elect Gilbert, because if you elect Gilbert, Sir Wilfrid will go to the men who are conspiring with him-Mr. Borden and Lord Grey-and he will say to them : The people are against our Liberal policy and we must repeal it. In this fashion Mr. Lavergne tried to induce the good Liberal voters to vote for Gilbert.
Then the Nationalist advocates would make appeals to the basest instincts of the crowd-they would try to frighten fathers and mothers by the appeals which you have read in the newspapers. Compulsory conscription was their great bugbear, and that was one of the arguments used by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) and the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet). Yesterday my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) tried to convince the House that the election in Drummond and Arthabaska had been carried on by the Liberal party with a good deal of money and whisky, and that these counties had been flooded by speakers of the ministerial side. Well I have made a releve of the men who invaded that constituency on behalf of the Nationalist candidate and I find that, on Mr. Gilbert's side, there were 67 speakers and 33 organizers, and that there were also-what perhaps the House does not know-some census officers. Of these there were four, or rather would-be census officers, who went from House to House with metallic plates on their waistcoats, and asked the mothers the names of their husbands and sons, and when they were asked why they wanted to know, they would reply : You have to answer in the name of the law, we are taking a census, and if this constituency decides in favour of the naval policy, the first sailors will be recruited here. I invite a denial. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) yesterday explained at length that it was a great victory for the Nationalists ; that the county had given enormous majorities to the Liberal party before and that in the last election the Nationalists elected their man. Let us look into the figures. In 1908, Mr. Lavergne who ran for the united counties of Drummond and Arthabaska, got a majority of four votes in the county of Arthabaska proper. Eight months ago a provincial election was held in the county
of Drummond when a minister of the province a Liberal, was elected by 274. That made 278 votes of an advantage with which we started the campaign. Take into account the appeals that were made ; take into consideration the fact that the Nationalist candidate ran as a Liberal and declared that he was a supporter of Sir Wil-fried Laurier ; take into consideration the fact that they frightened the people with compulsory conscription; take into consideration the fact that there are thirty-five towns in that constituency ; take into consideration the fact that we had only fourteen days to make that campaign and that they had five speakers to our one, and you will have an explanation of the result. And I do not think that there is in that result so much occasion for boasting on the part of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.
In closing his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier declared: We are ready to maintain British supremacy in this country. Now, let us make things plain- Who is there in this House opposed to the navy? Is there a member of this House who is against a navy of any kind? I put that question to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), to the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet), to the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). No, we must accept the fact that every member in this House, be he Liberal, Conservative, or Nationalist is willing to support the policy of naval armament. It is true that in Drummond and Arthabaska the Nationalist speakers declared themselves opposed to any kind of naval armament saying that it was useless, that 't would mean a waste of money, and worse than that, it would take our sons who now cultivate the soil and ' spill their blood for the sake of England,' as they put it Well, if these hon. members to whom I have re. ferred are ready to admit that they are in favour of a navy, it remains for me to show the House that they are in favour of a. navy such as established bv this government the supporters of the Nationalist candidate m Drummond and Arthabaska would sometimes admit that if the navy were entirely Canadian they might be induced to support it Our answer was the following: On the 29th of March. 1909, a resolution was adopted in the House. You all know it; but it is just as well to nut it once more on record. It was moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and reads as follows:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they inorease in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
Who voted against that?
The House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that

41
under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the selfgoverning dominions the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes, would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question, of defence.
Did the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) vote against that-the gentleman who moved last year for a direct contribution to the British exchequer? He acceded to it like the rest of us.
The House has observed with satisfaction the relief afforded in recent years to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of eon-Isiderable military expenditures formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.
Now, let me call the attention of the House particularly to the next paragraph, and especially the attention of my hon. friends from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet), Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), Soulanges (Mr. Lortie), Champlain (Mr. Blondin) and Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk):
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service-
Is that all? They would support that, for they say they are in favour of a Canadian navy; but is that all?
-in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy

And that is not all.
-along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last Imperial Conference and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire, and the peace of the world.
Sir, where are the hon. gentlemen who voted against that? What does it mean? If it means anything, it means that the' House gives a mandate to the government to bring down a Bill and pass a law itni accordance with that resolution. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything. We have heard or read somewhere, that the member for Jacques Cap-tier (Mr. Monk) was absent that day.' Admitting he was absent the 29th of, March, he may have been here on the' 30th. The House sat through the whole month of April and until the 19th of May.
' Surely the hon. member for Jacques Cartier who was absent on the 29th of March; must have been here at some time during the two following months. Did he pTO-t test against the resolution? Did any of the members of this House who opposed, the policy of the Laurier government in the last election, say a word against this' resolution, or vote against it? They all admit that they voted for it. If they do Mr. BELAND.
not admit it let them say so. Now wad there a word heard, either in the province^ of Quebec or in any other province of the. Dominion, against the principle embodied! in this resolution, during the summer of 1909? Mr. Bourassa, the eloquent Nationalist, was living then, I presume. He was in the province of Quebec, and in Mon-1 treal, in 1909, and there were as many, months during that summer as there were during the last summer. Did you readt or hear of a speech that he had delivered, anywhere against the resolution of the-29th of March? Did the member for Jacques Cartier say a word against the principle of this resolution anywhere during the. summer of 1909 ? Did any of the hon. members opposite who worked against the Laurier candidate in the last election say a word against it ? Not a single word.	Was not
therefore the government justified in concluding that this parliament and this country as a whole approved of their naval policy? Was their proposal laid on the-table of the House the day after the resolution was passed? Not at all, neither* the next day, nor the next month, nor even during that session. Why? In order to allow any protestations against the) Bill to come from the country, if anybody! was dissatisfied. But the following ses-" sion the government did come forward? with their Bill, and it was. adopted in this parliament by a large majority. Why did not these gentlemen support the Bill? Why did not the member for Jacques Cartier, and the other members who follow him, support this Bill? Why? Because the temptation was too great. What temptation? The temptation to arouse the province of Quebec against the government by shouting from every platform that Mr. Laurier had sold this country, tied hands and foot, to England. The temptation was too great, and they yielded to the-temptation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what policies have we before us on the naval question? We have three, though there are only two parties in this, country. If the Laurier policy does not prevail, the Borden policy will prevail. Let us examine the two policies. The leader of the opposition was in favor of a navy, but a navy that would: automaticallv become a part of the Imperial navy in all cases. That is my understanding. of his policy from reading his. speeches in this House, and also from reading the first paragraph of the amend-' ment he moved on the second reading of the Naval Bill. He proposed also, in the meantime, a direct contribution equiva-i lent to 25 million dollars. That is his policy, that is the policy of the Tory or Conservative party, is it not? It is. The Conservative party in this country are in

favour of a navy which would automatically share in all Imperial wars. We of the Liberal party are against that policy, because it infringes our autonomy as a self-, governing nation. We are also against a direct contribution. Why? Because the House has made this declaration:
The House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional arrangement between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of any stated contribution to the Imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
That resolution was adopted unanimously, less than two years ago. The leader of the opposition, however, has seen fit to retreat from the position he took then. That is his own affair. But on this side of the House we remain solid, and we adhere constantly to the resolution that was adopted by this House unanimously on that occasion. Now what is the policy of the Liberal party on the naval question? A Canadian navy, service in which is voluntary, a navy under the control of the Canadian government. That is briefly our policy on the naval question. How does it differ from the naval policy advocated by the non. member for Jacques Cartier, (Mr. Monk), the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquette), the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blon-din), and by Mr. Bourassa and Mr. La-vergne. What is the difference between their navy and our navy?-because everybody is in favour of a navy of some kind, no matter what they may say on occasion. They may say one thing and mean another elsewhere, but in this House they must tell the truth. Now, the law providing for a naval service, in section 23 thereof, and by section 18 of the Bill, provided, in effect, that in a critical moment the Governor in Council of the Canadian government may put the Canadian navy, wholly or in part, at the service of His Majesty the King. That is the point of cleavage between my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and the Liberal party. He would favour a Canadian navy, but one kept at all times at home, a navy that would not at any time, nor under any circumstances, share in an imperial war. We, on the other hand, maintain our freedom to say that when British supremacy is threatened on the high seas we shall say to Great Britain: We are an integral part of the British Empire, your supremacy is threatened, Canada will be with you, because in protecting you we protect ourselves. We have been through that constituency of Drummond and Arthabaska. and that is the kind of argument that was put forward at every meeting. If the election had lasted ten days more we would have carried it. When the county was opened
I was there-the first man, and I was there -*the last man. When the county was opened canvassing had been going on privately.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend asks where -in the constituency. Canvassing had been started. They had their own organizers in all the parishes going from door to door saying to the mothei: There is going to be an election here; the question is; Are * you for the navy or against the navy? They said:	Perrault is the war candidate and
Gilbert is the peace candidate; are you in favour of peace or war? The people would naturally say: We are in favour of peace. So, when I reached the county I found that everybody was in favour of peace. We had to undertake the education of the people and it was no small task, I can assure you, in the presence of those speakers whose talent you cannot deny. They had there an army of first-class speakers and they lacked only one thing, scruple.
Now, you have the three policies. First, you have the policy of the opposition for a navy that would be automatically a part of the British navy. You may share that opinion and you may not be a bad Canadian for it. The second opinion is that you may have a navy that may be Canadian, built in Canada, the service of which will be voluntary and controlled by the Canadian government. You can have that. That is the policy of the government. But there is another naval policy. I invite my friends, the Monk and Bourassa party, to say that they are against a Canadian navy. You my be surprised, perhaps, to hear that these gentlemen are in favour of a navy. They did not say it, they did not admit it in Drummond and Arthabaska. No, no; no navy at all! It was useless, it was dangerous, it was treacherous, it was anything at all, but the next day or the next week Mr. Armand Lavergne was invited to the great city of Toronto. There he was not in the county of Arthabaska. He was asked by a reporter of the Toronto' ' StaT ' to make a statement, and I understand that the Toronto * Star ' is an independent paper.


Some hon, MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I read that paper regularly, and I find that it appreciates very intelligently all the good acts of the Laurier government. At all events, this is the interview. It has not been contradicted by my friend, Mr. Lavergne. Put a certain question, he answered in this way:-
We don't object to the navy as a Canadian navy. I don't object to a Canadian navy any more than I do to the Canadian militia, and I don't object to that at all. I belong to the militia myself.
Mr. Armand Lavergne becomes a militarist suddenly when he reaches Toronto,

but I can assure you that in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska he was not that kind of a militarist.
Now, I think the position we occupied in the election was worthy of any Canadian. It was a new question for the people, and, under the circumstances, I maintain that the French Canadian population has done pretty well. Six thousand three hundred votes were registered, and in a county divided in the way that I tried to prove to you a [DOT] moment ago and in which we bad an advantage of 278 only in May, they turned the tables on us only to the amount of 200 or 300 votes. If you take everything into consideration you can come only to the conclusion that the moment that the population of the province of Quebec are made cognizant of the true situation, their patriotism will find its way and they will say in the end: We belong to the British Empire; we have belonged to it for upwards of 150 years; we have been in the last seventy years the recipients of liberties which we prize more than anything else. We are_ enjoying, in that province, not only rights, but privileges. The moment that the ties that bind us to Great Britain are severed Canada will become independent and we do not know what will become of our religious and national liberties. If we were independent what would the situation be as regards the navy? We would require to have a larger and more expensive navy, and if we did not remain independent we would, in all probability, become part of the Great American republic, and then, from the naval point of view, we would be worse off, and from the national and religious points of view we would certainly be worse off. In view of these considerations, unless I am not able to judge my own compatriots in the province of Quebec at all, they will come around and say: We will remain faithful to England, we will have a navy that is Canadian in all its purposes, but we want, when the hour is solemn, when danger is imminent, when the British Empire is threatened, that Canada shall be saved in saving the British Empire, and we stand ready to do our part.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) At the outset let me congratulate my hon. friend, the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), on this last effort, a repetition no doubt of what he delivered himself of in the Drummond-Arthabaska election. However, in the same way that he fell short of convincing the electors of that constituency, hard people to satisfy, I conceive, he has failed to convince the House. Of course, his own friends are satisfied that he is right, but they were satisfied beforehand as well; and as regards ourselves, we are exactly at the point where we were before he spoke. I may state that I do not propose to discuss anew that question of the naval service. The whole matter was threshed out last Mr. BELAND.
year, and I, for one, do not intend repeating the speech I made on a former occasion. We shall discuss it before the people if the government, gives us an opportunity* by opening new constituencies in the province of Quebec. However, I shall go to the length of stating that we have no navy; we may have a naval policy, but we have not a navy.
The hon. gentleman contended that there were three parties, each having a navy of its own. But I say we on rtiis side of the House have no navy; we have no defined policy; we propose consulting the people before laying down a policy.
Truly, judging from what has been going on in this House since the opening of the session, one might be made to believe that a landslide, a national disaster has occurred and that the hon. gentleman from Champlain (Mr. Blondin), from L'Islet (Mr. Pa-quet) and from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), as well as myself, are great criminals. And what is the reason? Because we have gone to Drummond and Arthabaska and made a stand against that man for some eighteen years has been placed on such a high pedestal that he might have been mistaken for some kind of a god. Our friends on the other side view the outcome of that election as a national disaster, a public calamity, something in the nature of an earthquake. Now let us be fair; why thus exaggerate? Verily, I am inclined to think that hon. gentlemen are trying to deceive pubic opinion with such rancorous and inflammatory speeches.
I am satisfied that such a verdict was meant as an answer to the petitions which were forwarded from all parts of the country in reference to this issue, and an approval of the protests which we voiced against what we pointed to as a new departure concerning which the people should have been consulted. In this connection the county of Drummond and Arthabaska was selected, a county as safe as any, and the electors of that constituency have given their answer, asserted the popular feeling. And now, it is contended that such an election is not a true expression of public opinion in the constituency. You have, they claim, by all kinds of misrepresentation misled and stampeded them. That is all mere childishness; and people who know will see through it at once.
Sir, the right hon. gentleman stated the other day within my hearing. Whose victory is this? Is it a victory for the Conservative party? No, for the Conservative party cannot rejoice over this as a victory. It has been the work of the remnants of the old-time Conservative party bolstered up by a reactionary faction. They are the victors in the Drummond and Arthabaska election.
Well, I must admit that the Conservative party is pretty well cleaned to-day of un-

desirables; and as to those who have remained faithful, though they may be termed a negligible quantity, or designated by some other name, they are just as good, and possibly better, than those who have left the ranks of the Conservative party, and attracted by political favours and patronage, have transferred their allegiance to the Liberal party. Those remaining, I am firmly convinced, are in the Tight way. They have the courage of their opinions, and I repeat it, I think they are worthier than those who have been induced to leave us. These remnants of the Conservative party have allied themselves in Drummond and Arthabaska to the best phalanx of the Liberal party, and I know that the Prime Minister quite realizes that fact. Can it be denied that gentlemen, such as Henri Bourassa, Armand Lavergne, Victor Garceau and Marsile, whose names have been mentioned, are not the most effective fighters in the ranks of the younger men, and will it be contended that it was unbecoming on our part to enter into an alliance with them?
Let us go over some past history. To what length has not the Prime Minister gone with a view to defeating the Conservative party? He accepted as an ally Mr. Tarte, of sinister fame, the right hon. gentleman experienced it as well as ourselves. The Prime Minister stretched out his hand to Dalton McCarthy, a fanatic, if ever there existed one. So I see no reason why we should be ashamed of any alliance we entered into.
Of course, you know why Mr. Bourassa severed his connection with the Liberal party, while still remaining a Liberal. He has stated why again and again. I left the Liberal party, he said, for among others, the following reason: I had been taught by my Liberal leaders to rebuke the Conservatives for the very things which I observe are now being done by my political friends; I could not remain with them any longer.
Now, to my mind, that was sensible talk. At any rate, we see no cause for blushing in our alliance with these gentlemen, and it has brought about satisfactory results, as shown by the outcome of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. The bare fact remains that hon. gentlemen opposite have lost the constituency and quite realize what that means to them to-day. Now, if they had scored a victory, do you think, Mr. Speaker, they would have thought it worth while to take exception to certain utterances of the member of Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has indulged somewhat violently in rhetoric, in the same way that the right, hon. gentleman was prone to do on certain occasions. Such outburst should not be taken seriously. We are accustomed to listening to such oratory; the Prime Minister himself set a similar example on the Champ de Mars in Montreal when he declared himself ready to shoulder his great Saskatchewan musket and shoot those who thought Riel had gone a little too far. The people did not take that seriously, they did not hold him to his words. Intelligent people know what to make of such metaphors in the mouths of politicians.
Now, the other day, the right hon. gentleman wrote a letter, a kind of & bishop's charge, which he sent, not to ' Le Canada,' the organ of the party, but to ' La Presse,' a paper which booms liberalism at so much per line. By the way, I referred a moment ago to people who had been induced to abandon the conservative party; I do not wish to be too personal in my references, but if I mention * La Presse,' I think I will make myself understood. The more the Conservative party loses of people of that kind, the stronger it will be in coming contests with the help of the allies I have referred to. Now, in that pastoral letter the Prime Minister wrote in reference to Bourassa and Lavergne: 'You have earned the name of demagogues.' Well there are different ways of looking at it. At any rate, if demagogues they have become, it may be due to the schooling they have had. I remember a famous law-suit which occurred in my early days in connection with a newspaper article entitled: ' The cavern of the forty thieves.' Who was the author of that article? I shall not name him, but I think the Prime Minister knows. Those who to-day are taken to task have learned their lesson, and possibly may at times exhibit too much temper. It is sometimes stated that only the strenuous will reach heaven. These gentlemen are intent on getting there as well as others, and no doubt they will attain their object.
So then, we scored a victory in Drummond and Arthabaska, as a result of our alliance with that fine phalanx, call it liberal, nationalist or by any other namf, made up of the best elements which your management of affairs has disgusted and forced out of your ranks. We have won over that constituency, and if you open any others, you may be sure to find us there once more to discuss the navy question. I shall not take up that question just now.


Mr. ROY (Dochester).: (Translation.) You find it easier to find arguments in Drummond and Arthabaska than when you are addressing the House? The same cannot be made to do service in both places.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I consider it would be wasting time to answer such remarks. The country would gain nothing therefrom, neither would I.
The contest in Drummond has clearly set forth in what respects the three policies differ. First, we have the policy of the government as summed up in the Naval Service Act; then we have the proposal of the

leader of the opposition which stated that, seeing the urgency of the case,-the leader of the opposition assumed that it was a case of emergency, while the Prime Minister stated that no such emergency existed,-we should put at the disposal of the British admiralty an amount equivalent to the cost of two Dreadnoughts, and that as regards any further measures, it would be necessary to consult the people.
That policy is very different from that propounded by the government. During the election I explained it on all occasions. To my mind such a policy was preferable to that advocated by the government. Why? because, in a case of emergency under the system advocated by the government, we would be obliged to make towards the defence of the empire sacrifices to practically the same extent. Supposing war broke out with Germany or any other power, the fleet not being in readiness, we would be bound to contribute men and money. The hon. Postmaster General has himself admitted
it.	So that we would have to contribute ten or twenty millions according to circumstances, besides what the ships would cost. The proposal of the leader of the opposition implied money contributions, but no contribution in men, and besides precluded the adoption of any definite policy before the people had been consulted. That policy was preferable to the one propounded by the government.
But what was our own policy? To assert that the member for Jacques Cartier will do nothing for England is to be unfair. The hon. member has said everywhere:	We
wish to remain in statu quo. We wish to have the opinion of the people previous to taking a definite position and to adopting a permanent policy.' Such is the position taken by the member for Jacques Cartier and which he defines in his amendment, to-day. Is it fair to say that the member for Jacques Cartier and we who follow him, will do nothing for England, and that we are unsubmissive to our duty? No, we have done all we could do to open and develop our country, and to defend it. If the jjeople is against the government's naval policy to-day, it is because of the education he has received from the right hon. premier who formed his mind on that question. The right hon. gentleman was antiimperialist in 1896, and I might quote the speeches which lie delivered in that sense not only in 1896, but in 1902 and 1907 as well. But in 1909, after the elections, he changed his policy. Is it to be believed that the people might change his own opinion within such a short space of time? Were our people to change his views so promptly on so important a question, it should be supposed that he is not worthy of being an elector.
If the government sincerely desires to be Mr. NANTEL.
aware of the public opinion, to my mind it should be proper, even in behalf of his own case, to consult the people either by means of a plebiscite or of a general election, it does not matter, for, after all, it is public opinion which must prevail.
We have defined the government's policy and that of the leader of the opposition; we have also explained what the policy of the Member for Jacques Cartier was. His own policy is that we should consult the people and have his opinion on this serious question. It was easy to see, in the eye of the people, that he accepted the policy of the member for Jacques Cartier. The people understands and he has understood the difference between those several policies, and he approves the view of the member for Jacques Cartier.
I shall be frank and shall say that, in the last contest, the proposition which had been made by the leader of the opposition was condemned as well as the government's policy, although, in my opinion, it was not so bad as that which had been propounded by the government. Some had thought, from the beginning, that they might intimidate us by saying: ' You will be but five or six together on that question; you are going to isolate the province of Quebec.' We did not get frightened, because we relied on our right; and the policy of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier got from the people in Drummond-Arthabaska a decision in its favour. His policy on this question is that which has been followed by all the public men in this country up to 1909, or rather up to the time when Chamberlain declared his policy on imperialism. All the public men had heen against that policy so far. How could we be hlamed for being against ourselves? Is not our policy the policy of Cartier, Macdonald and Blake? Up to last year, the member for Jacques Cartier was accused of lacking energy; but now, one can judge of the value of that Teproach. He has shown great energy on that occasion, and his energy shall be better rewarded as his policy is better known by the electors.
Really, the list of interesting features about that election is endless. As I said a moment ago, it is obvious that the intention was to prepare a terrible argument against us who claimed that we did not represent the public opinion in the province of Quebec when asking that the people should be consulted. If the government had carried that election they would have cried out: ' The people have been consulted as you wished, and you see now that the people in Quebec are in favour of the navy.' But things have turned out otherwise. Now, on the government side, everybody is being blamed; it is said that there was no organization in the county; that this and that was wanting. Some go as far even as to allege

as a reproach against us, that the election was too sudden, as though we had had anything to do with fixing the date of that election. However, everything had been perfectly arranged aforehand in Drummond-Arthabaska, where Hon. Mr. Lavergne, the late member, had gone over the whole county during the summer, with Mr. Perreault, the designated candidate, to prepare the way for his election; such is, at least, the information I have had from a person who is trustworthy. If it had been anticipated that there was to be an election in that county, do you believe that we would not have held meetings there against the navy as we have done elsewhere? But we felt absolutely sure Drummond-Arthabaska would be the last division to be opened for a contest after that law had been adopted. What happened? The hon. Prime Minister, anxious as he probably was of going on with his reform of the Senate, if we are to judge by the question which he asked the hon. member for York, yesterday, his scheme with respect to a reform has not yet been fully devised, for he asked the hon. member what he could suggest in view of such reform; but the hon. member for York, who is not disposed to giving out his own ideas, answered him in substance: 'You govern, please do your own work,' the Prime Minister has decided to appoint the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to the Senate.
We have been informed of the election of Drummond-Arthabaska on the 20th of October. At the time, a large meeting against the navy was being called for the 27th, at the skating rink in Montreal. Things had to be hurried, and the 23rd was fixed as the date of the meeting. Just after that meeting, the allies made for the county of Drummond-Arthabaska. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) has just said that there were in the county, working for the government's candidate, sixty-seven orators and thirty-three canvassers. How is it that the Conservative party, now at the worst, as the right hon. Prime Minister says, and the nationalist party, quite a newcomer in this world, may have been able, within so short a time, to send there so many orators and canvassers against the government forces, inferior in number? I may reply to my hon. friend tnat he is not very well informed as to what has taken place in the county of Drummond, because he spent his time mostly in the county of Arthabaska.
At West Wickham I was alone with a law student, while there were against us both members for Ba.got, two lawyers from Quebec, and one from Montreal, which I need not mention. Here, then, is the hon. member making an exaggeration on this point as he had made many others.
Mr. Speaker, do you know how the election was carried? As I have said a moment ago, we did not fear to strike on the head of the government with respect to his naval policy. We have especially attacked his candidate. Here is a point which has not been dealt with, so far; but I am going to speak about it.
The government's candidate is a refined man, a perfect gentleman, an eloquent lawyer, but he had against him the fact of having given his opinion a little too soon on this question of a navy. As early as 1902, at Victoriaville, on St. Jean Baptiste day, a resolution was adopted approving the anti-imperialist policy of the right honourable Prime Minister, then in London, for the intercolonial conference and which contained amongst other things, this paragraph: "We do not wish to make the bonds which unite Canada with the British Empire, any tighter than they are, or to assume towards the empire any obligations more onerous than those imposed by the constitution of Canada and which Great Britain has declared herself satisfied with.' And they also asked: ' That the present resolution be transmitted to the hon. Prime Minister,' then in London, as I have just said. That resolution was proposed by Mr. Perreault, the government's candidate in the last election, seconded by Mr. Tourigny, the local member, and I have used it as one of the best arguments in that electoral contest. I said' ' Look at Mr. Perreault, the government's candidate; he was anti-imperialist in 1902, and consequently against the navy; he approved his anti-imperialist chieftain, and he now agrees to all that which that same chieftain has just done, especially the navy; he is ready aforehand to vote with his chief in spite of anything.' I think that argument had more weight than those so-called arguments mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Beauce and tending to show the poor boys being taken away from their mothers' bosom for future "wars. I have seen nobody, either, running from house to house under the pretense of taking the census and of taking the names of the children in every family.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) I wish to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that I did not speak of children who were to be ripped open; it is Mr. Bourassa who said that at Grand'Mere.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Nobody will make me believe that it is possible to awe an intelligent population as that of Drummond-Arthabaska, by sending so-called enumerators to take the names of the family heads and their children in the course of an electoral contest. It is very well for one to say such things after he has lost an election, after he has won but a moral victory; but nobody will take any

stock in such sayings. I think, really, that giving to suppose the French Canadians so candid as to accept such stupidities is to depreciate them in the other provinces and in the eyes of the other races.
Hon. ' JACQUES BUREAU. (Translation.) But, meanwhile, you tried to make them swallow those stupidities.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Somebody has mentioned the name of Jean Prevost, I believe?


An hon. MEMBER.: (Translation.) Yes.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) You may rest at ease. He has crossed the Rubicon about this naval question, and I do not think you will ever have the advantage of seeing him in your ranks again.
But let us return to the question. Mr. La-vergne wTas made a senator, and immediately the election took place within the space of a few days. I heard it said by the member for Beauce, a moment ago, that should the ministerialists have had ten or fifteen days more, they would have carried the election. Well, should we have three or four days more previous to the polling day, your candidate would have been defeated by a majority not of 200 but of 500. In fact, things went better and better for us every day; our voters were brought to the polls for us by your own canvassers. I am aware that at West Wickham the government party had two or three so-called hay dealers, who remained there from the Sunday preceding until polling day. However, it strikes me that dairy farmers would be more in the case of buying hay than of selling any. On polling day these gentlemen brought the voters to the polling booth, while the latter voted against the government candidate, so much so, that about three o'clock there were no more hay dealers in sight, they having lost all hope, no doubt.
As stated previously, as a rule, in the course of that election, friends directed their shafts straight at the leader of the government. In reply to the fiery appeals which were indulged in at every meeting in connection with that great man's name, working on race _ sympathies, stating: A vote for Gilbert is a vote against Laurier; it will mean the murder of that great French Canadian,-and these good people -who aTe thorough peace-lovers, could hardly believe it, -we cried out: Do not believe anything of the sort, gentlemen; the result wili have no such effect on him; only he will probably be more cautious in the future.
As regards myself, I confess having said: Your great man to whom some would look to as to a god, for the last fifteen years, is only a mortal man. He is a man swayed like all others by the necessities and appetites of human nature; a man who is at times accepting gifts and titles, after having strongly condemned the practice. After Mr! NANTEL.
taunting his opponents for accepting gifts, he has allowed his Finance Minister to accept $120,000 from his friends. I, for one, have never had the advantage of receiving such donations. If I were Prime Minister or Minister of Finance, I might be favoured with the gift of an automobile. Your hero is a great Canadian, I admit it, but he is still human.


Mr. BUREAU.: (Translation.) That is your reason for fighting the Navy Bill?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I do not think it necessary to answer such a query. Well, I repeat it, that was the general trend of our argument. In regard to conscription, we did not deceive the people; we were frank enough to put things in their true light. I, for one, stated that conscription was not compulsory under the statute, neither in Canada or in England, but that a time might come when it would be compulsory in Great Britain. That view was expounded down there, and it was stated that if Great Britain wished to keep her own against Germany, compulsory service would have to be enacted. And I added that if Great Britain went in for military conscription and called on the Prime Minister to enforce it in Canada, the latter would consent to it, in the same way that he agreed to send contingents to South Africa, after refusing to do so, and in the same way that he agreed to building a navy after fighting imperialism the greater part of his life.
Sir, if the election lasted only a fortnight, who is to blame? Possibly myself. The hon. Minister of Marine contended yesterday that I was responsible if a translation into French of the report of the Imperial Conference in regard to defence was no longer issued, because, he said that is a matter dealt with by the Printing Committee (of which I am a member). But it should not be forgotten that the powers that be make up their committees in such a way that their opponents may not be in a majority or take the lead under any circumstances. I shall accordingly free myself of all responsibility in this connection.
I believe it is some part of the policy of our opponents to hold the opposition responsible for anything that may occur. That is the stand they take in regard to the Printing Bureau scandal. It is the statute that is all wrong, they say. These gentlemen have been in power since 1896, and if the Act is defective and the Bureau badly managed, they have not been able to find out in the meantime, and have made no changes or improvements.
If the election has been put through in such a short time, a fortnight, it was not with a view to favouring the opposition. The government supporters were made aware of the date of the election before their oppon-

ents were apprised of it; so that it was rather laudable to see the government candidate at a meeting at Wickham complain that he would hardly have enough time to go around the various localities. However, that shortness of the campaign turned out to be in his favour, for if we only had had a few days more before polling day the majority against his return would have reached the 500 mark instead of the 200.


An hon. MEMBER.: (Translation.) Why not say that your candidate would have been returned by acclamation?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) If our candidate was not returned by acclamation, it is no fault of the Solicitor General. I have not met him, but if my information is correct, during the contest he took things very coolly; no doubt he expected that things would turn out that way.
But the verdict of the people does not carrv much meaning for these gentlemen. No doubt they will not pay any more heed to it than to the protests which were voiced in the course of the last session, or to the petitions asking for a referendum signed by
21,000	people, according to the figures given by the Minister of Marine. The intention is now to appeal from the decision of the people wrongly informed to that of the people better informed by means of an educational campaign. No doubt, it is to open that campaign that the Prime Minister sent that first pastoral letter to ' La l'resse.' But to the teacher of 1910, propounded imperialism and the establisment of a war navy, it will be sufficient to oppose the wisdom of that same teacher in 1896, condemning openly ot indirectly the purchase of rifles, or in 1902 and 1907 arguing before the Intercolonial Conference at London against imperialism. And one sure thing, the educator of 1896, Wilfrid Laurier, was more in touch with the popular feeling than the educator of 1910.
I shall not dilate any longer on this question. It is well understood that our policy is not one of inactivity, and it is not inactivity to develop our country where things await development at every point. I believe that heretofore we have done our share. It should be borne in mind that Canada is not an old country settled for many centuries past and fully equipped in all respects.
If the government came out openly before the people with the Naval Bill, and if the people approve of such a Bill, the province of Quebec would submit to the wish of the majority and would do her share, I am satisfied. She would not oppose the will of the majority of the Canadian people. But we contend that, in regard to this question, the province of Quebec is not alone in holding this view; the people in the other provinces are of the same opinion and we think it necessary to know what are
the views of the people as a whole on this question.
Even in the course of this debate, an effort is made to brand us as disloyal subjects. It is not worth while answering such charges; I am satisfied that the English speaking people who are of a practical and clear mind, have sized up the situation, [DOT]barring some newspaper men who are not acquainted with us, have never visited the province of Quebec, and write at random things which can only cause a shrugging of the shoulders.
In conclusion, I wish to dispel all misunderstanding in regard to the province of Quebec. If the majority of the whole people decide against what we consider the wise and right policy to follow for Canada, the province, of Quebec will do her share, and for my part I shall loyally submit and contribute. However, I believe that it would better ensure the permanency and durability of that policy to consult the people beforehand, and I shall vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.
Mr. JOSEPH TURCOTTE (Quebec) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it appears that, during this last recess of parliament an election has taken place, and that as a result the government candidate was defeated. There is nothing in such a fact to be much wondered at. Following on the first session of the present parliament a vacancy occurred in the representation and a byelection took place in the county of Montcalm. On that occasion as well, the government candidate was defeated; but the successful candidate took his seat on the government side, and is to-day one of the staunchest supporters of the government's policy. Nevertheless, hon. gentle-ment opposite were not remiss, when the outcome of the election in Montcalm was made known, in boasting that they had scored a victory over the government.
Such defeats are facts, incidents, which occur now and then and which should not cause much surprise, having sometimes a meaning, w'hile at other times they signify nothing. A few years ago an election took place in Quebec county, for the purpose of replacing the gentleman who is to-day Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The government had their candidate in that election; the opposition had theirs. The government candidate was beaten. What happened then? For two sessions this House had the advantage, the pleasure, if I may so term it, of having within its precincts a sample of Canadian nationalism. And what happened next? At the general election of 1908, that same nationalist who had been elected to protest against the general policy of the government was defeated in the same constituency.

It is asserted that history repeats itself. Why should it not repeat itself in Drum-mond-Arthabaska on the same lines as in the county of Quebec? General elections will he forthcoming and the electors of Drum-mond-Arthabaska will ibe called upon once more to express an opinion. Now, is there any one in this House who would dare assert that the outcome in that constituency during a general election will be the same as it was the other day?
A by-election is not a consultation on the general policy of the government. Hence, it cannot be contended that the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska have taken a stand on the fiscal policy of the government, or as regards their general policy, for instance, regarding agriculture. A single note has been sounded, a note of fear. War has been mentioned, the scarecrow of desolation and ruin has been exhibited, and by working on the prejudices of the people, our opponents have succeeded in stampeding public opinion in the constituency.
I challenge any of those who have taken part in the fray in favour of the successful candidate to say that they have touched on a single issue of the government's general policy other than the naval question.


Mr. PAQUET.: (Translation.) I have done so.


Mr. TURCOTTE.: (Translation.) On what questions?


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) On questions of general policy.
Mr. TURCOTTE'. (Translation.) What
questions? The hon. member claims he has taken exception to the government's policy but he is unable to recall what questions he dealt with.
This is not the time to discuss that naval question. It was threshed out last year. The Act is in force ; to-day it is the law of the country. It was voted in accordance with the mandate which the House issued on March 29, 1909, The opposition themselves as well as the supporters of the government, all representing the popular will, following on a general consultation, have approved of that resolution of March 29, 1909.
We are the trustees of the people, and it is the people's representatives who unanimously voted that resolution without a single protest from any one. That resolution was based on the same principle which underlies the Naval Service Act now in force. Consequently, there is no reason for taking up that question once more. We are discussing the speech from the Throne, and the question is what answer the House of Commons wishes to forward.
Mr. Speaker, I have read that speech of Mr. TURCOTTE.
the representative of His Majesty. I have read it over with care. I heard members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition criticise some of the public acts, or some of the methods of the government, whether as regards past measures, whether as regards measures presently to be submitted to the House, that concerning a treaty of reciprocity, for instance. That is a discussion worthy of the representatives of the people in this House. But, furthermore I noticed another bone of contention; I heard the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and his colleagues present their case. How is it that these gentlemen do not dare discuss the general policy of the government? They have referred to a single matter: a passing victory scored by means which they themselves admit as having been suspicious. Have these gentlemen resolved on restricting the discussion to that sole issue? Is it their intention to develop here a feeling similar to that which they have succeeded in developing in a constituency of the province of Quebec?
Well, though not a prophet, I think I may predict that in this House they will meet with the same humiliation as when they proposed a sub-amendment to the Naval Bill. They were, as we had occasion to notice only a small group, and they remained such. Through sympathy a few English-speaking members on the other side of the House, joined in with those who proposed forming a separatist party in the Dominion. I trust, I am satisfied that those who followed them at the time will abandon them to-day, and that this group of seventeen of last session will be considerably reduced; for we are not here to represent not factions, or prejudices, or antinational and unpatriotic feelings. We are here as trustees of the people to expedite public business, not only in matters of pecuniary interest, not only with a view to developing the resources of that great Dominion, which has been designated a nation; but moreover-since we are considered as being an elite among the people whom we represent-to point out to them an ideal. That ideal which it is our purpose to show to the people, should not be confined to one section of the country; that ideal is the love of all that makes up one's fatherland. The love of country should not be confused with those common place cravings which are easily satisfied; it is a feeling of a superior kind which induces us to look beyond the present into the misty future, and makes for the happiness of the land of our birth and which one day \yill contain our grave.
We have the right and it is our duty to carrj on the debate in this House on a higher plane than that of the prejudices which are interwoven into human nature, a nature, in itself, not always superexcellent. It is incumbent on us to see to it that these

differences do not become too marked. We should endeavour to put an end to that unfortunate spirit of pugnacity which is at the bottom of our nature, but which may be held in check or counteracted by education.
Should this working on the prejudices of the people be allowed to continue, it may result in bringing about, even in connection with material interests a conflict of which, once it is started we may never see the end.
The hon. member for Terrebonne referred to Mr. Jean Prevost, who was his opponent and he stated that he had crossed the Rubicon. Were I to take his words literally, I believe I would be doing an injustice to the hon. member, for they have not only been political enemies, but have at the same time been separated by clan differences, clans which have waged war on one another in pursuance, I might say, of family traditions. If I were to consult past history in order to foresee future events, I would say that this is an inauspicious alliance, the mere outcome of circumstances. A party cannot be made up of individuals who abandon their leaders, who desert the flag. A party made up of deserters cannot be a party of patriots, a government party. Deserters should not be expected to work for the good of the country, or in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, as a rule, the speech from the Throne and the debate which ensues as carried on by the leaders of both parties, is a preliminary discussion. I understand that the various proposals therein mentioned will be further looked into by the House. We will then have a better insight into the motives which inspire hon. members who have already spoken on the address. We will then also find out what are the motives which will prompt the utterances and votes of the member whom these gentlemen have caused to be returned for Drummond and Arthabaska.
If it be true, as I have heard it stated often times, that this election has been the outcome of false representations, we shall witness in this House strange things, but which I can foretell without being a prophet, and it is this: if the naval question is brought up once more, though it is not likely to be, then the member elect for Drummond and Arthabaska will possibly cast his vote with those who brought about his return. But, in regard to any other question, if he be a man of honour-and I hope he is-if he is man to stick to his word-and I trust he is-lastly, if he is a true Canadian-and I know he is, for he belongs to the great farming community-he will vote in accordance with the pledges he has given, and in that case the member for Drummond and Arthabaska, will give us a second exhibition of what we saw when the 7
member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) was returned: he will vote with us.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take a hand in the debate at this stage of the session. I have done so, because I heard it stated, and the rumor was. current, that I had deserted my party to-join, not an honourable party, but the so-called nationalist party. Thank God, as long as I have the honour to represent a county such as the county of Quebec, I shall not be seen deserting the ranks of the liberal party to join a party of deserters.


Mr.   E.@: PAQUET, (L'Islet), (Translation): Mr. Speaker, after this long sitting, I shall, if the right hon. gentleman will allow me to do so, move the adjournment of the debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite willing.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thursday, November 24, 1910.