1910-11-25

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that, during the recess, the clerk of the House received from the clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Arthur Gilbert, Esquire, for the electoral district of Drummond and Arthabaska.



SALE OF POISONS.

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 13) respecting the sale of poisons.


Mr. FOWKE.: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. LEWIS.: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I desire to introduce has reference to poisons, the sale thereof and the receptacles or containers thereof. The first clause is as follows: .
Any person who by himself or his agent sells, offers for sale, attempts to sell, exposes for sale, or gives away any poison without doing so under the authority of a medical certificate, or prescription, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to a fine of not less than $100, or imprisonment for not more than six months in jail, or both.
This is the first clause, Sir, and the purpose of it is to put a stop to that regrettable practice which, I am informed by medical men, is now getting more into vogue in Canada, especially in local option districts of using cocaine as being more easily procurable than spirits. I am informed by medical men that in almost all the smaller towns in Canada from fifteen to twenty young men are gradually becoming more and more addicted to the use of cocaine. This Bill does not apply to London purple and Paris green as used by farmers and. market gardeners, but includes all other poisons, such as cocaine, opium and its derivatives, chloral, canabic indica, carbolic acid, and all poisons mentioned in schedule ' A ' to the statute of the province of Ontario, known as the Ontario Pharmacy Act. It is my wish and hope that the government will see fit to appoint a committee of experts and of medical men to investigate this matter and take some means to remedy the evil. That is merely what I desire by the introduction of this clause. The object of clause 2 is to endeavour to prevent accidents by people taking poison by mistake. The clause is as follows:
Any person who by himself or his agent offers for sale, sells or attempts to sell, exposes for sale, or gives away _ any poison in any other receptacle or container save than in a blue glass, three cornered or square bottle with rough or corrugated corners, is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to a fine of not more than $100, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
This clause will not come into force until one year from the passing of this Act. There is no doubt that every member of this House frequently comes across articles such as this in the daily papers: ' Mistook bottle and was poisoned.' I have an item here dated Belleville, September 28, describing how a lady was poisoned by taking medicine out of the wrong bottle. In many cases carbolic acid which is used by all farmers is placed in whisky bottles and consequently mistakes occur. I have a clipping here describing a case which occurred at 12 Cameron street, Toronto, in which a lady took the contents of a liniment bottle

in mistake for medicine, as a result of which she died. Then here is another case:
Montreal, Dec. 8.-Mrs. Joseph Brahm, wife of a fruit merchant residing at 143 Sanguinet street, died in great agony at the General Hospital this morning as the result of taking a dose of carbolic acid in mistake for some sleeping medicine.
I have also a despatch here dated London, October 22, headed ' Child given the wrong medicine,' in which it is stated that a child was given carbolic acid in mistake for medicine.
Here is another :



COCAINE HABIT.

[Stage Direction]
(G. N. W. Press Despatch.)
Montreal, Nov. 24.-The spread of the cocaine vice has become a matter of such concern to the authorities and moral reformers that they are looking around to find some means to make it impossible to secure the drug for other than legitimate purposes. The fining of a couple of druggists for selling the drug without a prescription to boys shows how easy it is to spread the vice. For months the streets in certain parts of the city have been infested with men peddling the drug to victims, and even children, whom they teach how to use the drug. It is claimed there are thousands of men and women, many of them in respectable families, who are victims of the habit.
I think that this matter should be referred to a committee, and that some safeguards should be put around the sale and the method of putting up strychnine, crow poison as used in Ontario, and fox poison as used in New Brunswick. I trust that the government will see their way clear, upon the second reading of the Bill, to refer it to a committee to investigate the whole matter.
Mr. SPROULE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman if his attention has been drawn to a committee that was appointed for this purpose a few years ago and whose report was brought in? A controversy arose between different members of the House regarding whether or not legislation of this character would be an infringement upon provincial rights. The Pharmacy Act is under the jurisdiction of the province, and this appears to be. making what was an offence under the Pharmacy Act a crime under the Criminal Code, because I take it that this Act would be of that nature. I do not remember exactly what was done, but it seems to me that there was a Bill introduced into the House. I forget what disposition was made of it.


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

Mr.   S.@: SHARPE (North Ontario) move-ed for leave to introduce Bill (No. 14) to amend the Bank Act.
9}


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Explain.


Mr. S. SHARPE. (Ontario).: The Bill is similar to that which I introduced last session. It provides for the transfer from the banks to the government of all unclaimed balances after the expiration of six years. There are about half a million dollars of unclaimed balances in the possession of the banks at present and the Bill provides that after six years this money shall be transferred to the government as trustees.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed the list of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House of Commons under Rule 10, be now concurred in as follows:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
No. 1. ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS.
Messieurs
Aylesworth,	Lafortune,
Barker,	Lancaster,
Barnard,	Lapointe,
Borden (Halifax),	Lemieux,
Bristol,	Lennox,
Brodeur,	Lewis,
Bureau,	Macdonald,
Carvedl,	McColl,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Maddin,
Cowan,	Major,
Crocket,	Martin (Regina),
Crothers,	Meighen,
Demers,	Monk,
Devlin, ,	Northrup,
Doherty,	Porter,
Dubeau,	Pugsley,
Emmerson,	Rhodes,
Geoff rion,	Rivet, ,
German,	Roy (Montmagny),
Gervais,	Sifton,
Haggart (Lanark), Stratton, and	
Haggart (Winnipeg), Warburton.-45. Kyte, No. 2.	
ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES. Messieurs	
Allard,	Maclean (York S.),
Allen,	MacNutt,
Ames,	McAllister,
Armstrong,	McCall,
Arthurs,	McCoig,
Barker,	McColl,
Barnard,	McCraney, 1
Beattie,	McGiverin,
Beauparlant,	McKenzie,
Beland,	McLean (Huron),
Best,	McLean (Sunbury),
Bickerdike,	McMillan,
Blain,	Maddin,
Blondin,	Magrath,
Boyce,	Major,
Boyer,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bradbury,	Marshall,
[Stage Direction]
I
Bristol,
Broder,
Brown,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Carrier,
Carvell,
*Cash,
Champagne, Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish),Molloy, Chisholm (Huron), Monk, Chisholm (Inverness), Murphy,
Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meighen,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Clare,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Condon,
Conmee,	ij. _
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crosby,
Crothers,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Doherty,
1 lonnelly,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Eor^ment,
Edwards,
Elson,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
I'orget,
1'ortier,
Foster,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladp,
Goodeve,
Gordon .(Kent), Gordon (Nipissing), Graham,
Guthrie,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Harris,
Harty,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hodgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,
.Ta meson,
Kidd,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lanot6t (Laprairie-
Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Nan tel,
Neely,
Nesbitt,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Osier,
Owen,
Papineau,	'
Paquet,
Pardee,
Parent,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Price,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouehe), Rhodes,
Richards,
Rivet,
Roche,
Roes (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Russell,
Rutan,
Savoie,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Smyth,
Sperry,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
Thornton,
Tobin,
Todd.
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte' (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: Law,
LeBlanc,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Loggie,
Lortie,
Lovell,

Macdonald,
Macdonell,
V erville,
Wallace,
Warburton,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alberta),
Wilcox,
Wilson (Laval), Worthington, and Wright.-202.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.

No. 3. ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS.
Messieurs
Allard,
Ames,
A rthurs, Aylesworth,
Beland,
Black,
Blondin,
Boyce,
Boyer,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Bureau,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clarkei (Essex), Conmiee,
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crosby,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Daniel,
Devlin,
Donnelly,
Elson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Kent), Guthrie,
H arris,
Harty,
Hunt,
.Jameson,
King,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lake,
Lalor,
LeBlanc,
Lortie,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York, S.), MeCoig,
McGiverin,
McKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Magrath,
Martin (Wellington), Meighen,
Meigs,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Murphy,
Nantel,
Owen,
Papineau,
Parent,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Schaffner,
Sealey,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smith (Stormont), Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgron,
Turriff,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alberta),
Wilcox, and Worthington.-87.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. i.



ON STANDING ORDERS.

[Stage Direction]
Allard,
Best,
Black,
Blondin,
Brown,
Messieurs
Martin (Wellington), Meigs,
Miller,
Molloy,
Papineau,

Burrell, Champagne, Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Fortier,
Goodeve,
Henderson,
Jameson,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Low,
MacNutt,
McCarthy,
McCoig,	*
McCarney,
McGiverin,
Maddin,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Price,
Reid (Reetigouclie), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Montmagny),
Russell,
Rutan,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Smyth,
Staples,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Todd,
Tolmie
Turcotte (Quebec county),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Wilson (Lennox and Addington), and Wright.-53.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of seven members.
Fielding,
Foster,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Hughes,
Kyte,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lanctfit (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Law,
Lennox,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouche), Rhodes,
Richards,
Roche,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sharpe (Ontario), Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smyth,
Stanfield,
Taylor (Leeds), Tobin,
Wallace,
Warburton,
Wilcox, and Worthington.-85.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 7. ON BANKING AND COMMERCE.
No. 5.
ON PRINTING. Messieurs
Allen,
Bickerdike,
Bristol,
Douglas,
Fowke,
Gervais,
Gordon (Nipissing), Henderson,
Hughes,
King,
Maclean (York, S.), McColl,
McIntyre,
McLean (Huron),
Magrath,
Martin (Montreal, St.
Mary's),
Murphy,
Nantel,
Pardee,
Rhodes,
Taylor (Leeds),
Taylor (New Westminster),
Verville,
White (Victoria, Alberta), and Wilson (Lennox and Addington).-25.
N0. fi.
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Messieurs
Allen,	MacNutt,
Barker,	McAllister,
Barnard,	McCoig,
Beauparlant,	McColl,
Beland,	McCraney,
Blain,	McKenzie,
Blondin,	Maddin,
Boyce,	Martin (Regina),
Carvell,	Meighen
Cash,	Michaud,
Chew-,	Middlebro,
Chisholm (Antigon;sh):	, Molloy,
Chisholm (Inverness),	Murphy,
Clarke (Essex),	Neely,
Congdon,	Nesbitt,
C'cwan,	Northrup,
Crocket,	Pardee,
Crosby,	Parent,
Crothers,	Pickup,
Currie (Simcoe),	Porter,
Daniel,	Proulx,
Demers,	Prowse,
Doherty,	Pugsley,
Ecrement,	Rankin,
Messieurs
Allen,	Mredonell,
Ames,	Maclean	(York S.),
Arthurs,	McCall,
Avleswcitb,	McCarthy,
Barker,	McCraney,
Barnard,	McGiverin,
Beattie,	McIntyre,
Beauparlant,	McLean	(Huron),BelaDd,	McLean	(Sunbury),Bickerdike,	McMillan,Plain,	Magrath,
Borden (Sir Frederick) Marshall
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Bristol,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Clark (Red Deer), Con m e e,
Cowan,
Crotbers,
Currie (Simcoe), Delisle,
Demers,
Doherty,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
EcrSment,
Edwards,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Forget,
Fortier,
Foster,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Kent), Gordon (Nipissing), Guthrie,
Haggart (Winnipeg),
Martin (Regina), Mayrand,
Meighen,
Michaud,
Miller,
Monk,
N esbitt,
Osier,
Owen,
Papineau,
Paquet,
Pardee,
raterson,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Price,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Russell,
Savoie,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smyth,
[Stage Direction]
Harris,
ITarty,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
James an, ' Knowles,
Lachance,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lanetot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanetot (Richelieu), Law,
Lemieux,
I.oggie,
Lortie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
Sproule,
Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor,
(New Westminster), Tbcburn,
Tobin, .
Todd,
Tureotte (Nicolot), Turriff,
Wallace,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alberta),
Milson (Laval), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), and Worthington.-131.
And that the quorum of the said committee clo consist of twenty-one members.
No. 8.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
A Hard,
Allen,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Beauparlant,
Belaud,
Best,
Black,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boyer,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Brown,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Carrier,
Car veil,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chiew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clare,
Clark (Red Deer), Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Currie (Simcoe), Delisle,
Devlin,
Donnelly,
Douglas,
Ecrement,
Edwards,
Elson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Gordon (Kent),
Gordon (Nipissing), Harris,
Henderson,
Herron,
McCoig,
McColl,
McIntyre,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meighen,
Meigs,
Middl-ebro,
Miller,
Molloy,
Monk,
Nantel,
, Neely,
Oliver,
Owen,
Paquet,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Rankin,
Richards,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Riinouski), Russell,
Rutan,
Savoie,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo),
Wilfrid Laurier: Hodgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,
J ana-son,
Kidd,
King,
Lafortune,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lanct6t (Laprairie-Napierville), LeBlane,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Lortie,
Lovell,
IiOW,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Talbot,
Thornton,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Tureotte (Nicolet), Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Wallace,
White, (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Laval), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), and Wright.-131.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twelve members.
No. 9.
ON MARINE AND FISHERIES. Messieurs
Bickerdike,	McKenzie,
Bradbury,	Middlebro,
Brodeur,	Monk,
Chisholm (Inverness), Nantel,
Clarke (Essex), Crosby,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel, [DOT] Fraser,
Gervais,
Jameson,
Kyte,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
Pardee,
Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,
Taylor (New Westminster),
Todd,
Turgeon, and Warburton.-26.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.

No. 16. ON MINES AND MINERALS.
Messieurs
Burrell,	McCarthy,
Chisholm (Antigonish), McCoig,
Congdon,
Conmee,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Nipissing), Herron,
Lanetot (Richelieu), Loggie,
Lortie,
Macdonald,
McMillan,
Maddin,
Pro wee,
Rhodes,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smyth,
Stratton,
Templeman,
Turriff, and
White (Renfrew).-25.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.

No. 11. ON FORESTS, WATERWAYS AND WATER-POWERS.
Messieurs
Arthurs,	Magrath,
Beland,	Molloy,

Boyce,
Campbell,
Carvell,	.
Chew, _
Currie (Prince Edward),
Edwards,
Fisher,
Fowke,
Haggart (Lanark), MacNutt,
McLean (Sunbury),
Monk,
Perley,
Pickup,
Price,
Richards,
Savoie,
Sifton,
Tobin,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson (Laval).-26.
Speaker's gallery, and on another occasion seats in the front row, seats which are reserved for the wives of the Ministers and the Speaker. I do not charge the Speaker with any impropriety in this. It is doubtless true that on another occasion outside this House in his great zeal and ardour and perhaps his piety he has allowed himself to be the cause of a very serious blunder; not only a serious blunder, but a [DOT]
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. 12.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the conduct _ of Mr. Speaker except in accordance with the rules laid down by the parliamentary authorities.
Messieurs
Black,
Blondin,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Bthier,
Gervais,
Guthrie,
Hodgins,
Hughes,
Knowles,
McCarthy,
McLean (Huron), Schaffner,
Taylor (Leeds), and Taylor (New Westminster).-15'.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.

No. 13. ON THE LIBRARY.
Messieurs
Ayleswortk,
Beland,
Borden (Sir Frederick) Borden (Halifax), Bristol,
Brodeur,
Daniel,
Doherty,
Foster,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
.Lewis,
Monk,
Pardee,
Pugsley,
Smith (Nanaimo), and Wilcox.-17.

Mr. HUGHES. (Victoria and Hali-burton).: I desire to call your attention Mr. Speaker, to a little matter which occurred the other evening when the Prime Minister was addressing the House. The Rev. Dr. Jackson, of Toronto, and the Rev. Dr. Henderson, of Ottawa, came to the House in order to hear the first minister and other speakers. I had the honour to get Mr. Speaker's authority to send these gentleman to the Speaker's gallery. At the door I introduced them to the wife of a member of parliament and they passed in and took places in the front seats of the speaker's gallery. I did not know until some time subsequently that they were brusquely ordered out and told to take a back seat. I would not think so much of that were it not for the fact that on two occasions since, I have seen clergymen of another denomination occupying, on one occasion seats in the front row in the North


Samuel Hughes: Well, I shall discuss it in that way. I would scarcely consider that the Speaker would let his zeal carry him so far as to do anything improper, such as has undoubtedly been done in this case. I would like an explanation of the whole matter.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am not required, of course, to answer the question raised in this way by the hon. member, but I shall do so in courtesy to him and to the House. I have made no change whatever in the rules laid down by my predecessors as applicable to the Speaker's gallery. According to the printed rules the first row of the main gallery is reserved for the use of Her Excellency and ladies accompanying her, the wives and daughters of Ministers of the Crown, of the Speaker, and of the leader of the opposition. The front seats in the north end gallery have generally been assigned to the wives of members. I do not know what happened in this case as I have not had time to call on the messenger for an explanation, having received this letter only a few minutes before the House met. As to the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes), that other clergymen have occupied the front seats, I may say that yesterday afternoon during the sitting of the House the hon. member for St. Mary's called my attention to the fact that His Lordship Bishop Grouard, of Athabaska, and the Northwest Territories, occupied a seat" in the gallery, and asked me whether I would allow him down to the front, so that he might get a better view of the House, the front seat, not being occupied at that time. I naturally acceded to the request, as I would have done in the case of the hon. member (Mr. Hughes), if it had been brought to my notice. These are the facts. The members of this House know that at all times I have always been ready with great pleasure to extend the courtesy of the Speaker's gallery to those who have applied to me. I regret this unfortunate occurence and I shall see that in future it is not repeated.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. M. J. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: 

ANOTHER QUEBEC ELECTION.

[Stage Direction]
(Special to the "Citizen/)
Montreal, Nov. 2L-Tke Liberals intend bolding a big demonstration at St. Johns Que., next Saturday, and it is reported that the government contemplates opening the county of St. .John and Iberville at an early date by appointing the sitting member, Mr. Demers, to the bench. Mr. Bourassa is now on Ins way to Europe and will not be back for a couple of months, and the Liberals hope that with the Nationalist leader away they will be able to re-elect one of their supporters in the county.
I wish to _ contradict that statement as a merely fanciful conception; it is a regular falsehood, and I did not think it could ever gain consistency enough to reach Ottawa.
I have never asked for nor was ever offered any position whatever. I do not want any, and the only one I am desirous of is the one I _ occupy in this House as the representative of one of the most beautiful counties in this country. I have no other ambition than to remain a soldier in the Liberal army wherein I intend to continue to work and fight as energetically as possible.
Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.



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 ; the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto, and Mr. Borden's proposed amendment to the amendment.
Frederick Luther Fowke: Mr. Speaker, at the hour of adjournment last evening I was endeavouring, in reply to the hon. member for East Huron, to present my views with regard to the tariff as that question is known in history and as we are affected by it to-day. In doing so I did not hesitate to point out that a protective tariff conferring monopolistic privileges is an evil thing per se while on the contrary the principle of free trade is calculated to inspire the breast of humanity with a spirit of hopefulness of future good, when the nations of the world shall Mr. SPEAKER.
have thrown their fetish protection to the moles and bats and shall have adopted the saner and more Christian principle of equality of opportunity for all men everywhere. In the meantime, while we are awaiting the dawn of that better day, may we in Canada not perform some honourable part in hastening its coming? Sir, have we not already borne a considerable part in the fact that the tariff in Canada as we know it to-day is not ostensibly a protective tariff. It is in essence a tariff for revenue purposes, albeit the principle of incidental protection is undoubtedly there. I am very glad to think in this connection that under the Fielding tariff the people of Canada are a very lightly taxed people indeed in comparison with the peoples of other civilized nations of the world. The opposition in this House has been at considerable pains to point out to you, Sir, in this discussion that the American tariff under which the one hundred millions of people live and labour, is to all intents and purposes twice as high as that of the Dominion of Canada, so that by comparison with the great republic to the south this country is indeed very lightly taxed.
Now Sir, with further reference to the tariff and the kindred subject of reciprocity with the United States I wish to state a very elementary truth so far as this House is concerned, (but this truth which I shall refer to would not be altogether elementary, perhaps, to those who are outside of this House. First of all, the truth to which I wish to direct attention is, that Canada is politically free, that we are in a position to legislate for ourselves without influences coming from without to affect our course in the slightest particular. I am very glad to think that we in Canada can claim the same rights under Magna Charta as do the people of the British Isles, and that we enjoy the blessing of freedom of speech given by England to the world just as much as they do. It is most fortunate for certain gentlemen who were engaged in the election contest in Drummond and Artha-baska that this is the case, for had they, under almost any other government in the world, made use of the expressions in relation to that government which they made use of in relation to Canada as an integral part of the British Empire, they would probably have found themselves suddenly clapped into jail and allowed to remain there to stew in their own juice.
Another elementary truth to which I wish to make reference is that we are not only politically free, but economically free as well. It, was not so long ago that this country was accustomed to having over it a tariff made by Great - Britain, and the customs officers of the Canadian government were only the collectors of revenue under that tariff. That day has happily
. 274
gone, gone for ever; and when the principle became fully acknowledged that Canada was not only politically free, but economically free, the autonomy of the nation was in that very act asserted for both Britain and for Canada, for that period and for all time. It naturally follows that the tariff made by the Canadian people is their own tariff, made by themselves and for themselves. In this country we have had three sets of tariff laws: we had the low tariff from confederation until the adoption of the so-called national policy in 1879, and from 1907 until now we have lived and prospered under what is known as the Fielding tariff, having in connection with it the imperial preference. Now, Sir, it is no part of my purpose at this time to contrast the condition of affairs economically in this country under the national policy and under the Fielding tariff. I feel that the change has been so great and the advancement so rapid that it would be indeed an act of cruelty towards the gentlemen of the opposition to make the comparison which the circumstances really warrant. We, however, are able to rejoice in this truth, that under the low rate of taxation^ which we enjoy, the population of the country has grown immensely. I will only refer to one fact to make this truth apparent to the mind of the House. In 1905 there were less than 200,000 in the Northwest Territories. It is said that there are to-day
2,000,000 people there, happy, contented, prosperous citizens of Canada. To-day we know that agriculture flourishes throughout the Dominion as that basic industry has never before flourished in the history of the country. Likewise we are glad to reflect upon the fact that the development of industrialism in Canada under the moderate Fielding tariff has been so great that to-day practically one-fourth of the people of this country are more or less dependent on industrial life. Neither has capital suffered, but on the contrary both native capital and capital from over the sea, as well as capital from the adjoining republic has found opportunities for investment on a very large scale in the manufacturing centres of the eastern provinces. So that today we can readily acquiesce in the statement made to the House that Canada is in an exceedingly prosperous condition. This is shown by the fact of the great interprovincial trade we enjoy as well as by the fact that we have a foreign trade and commerce amounting to $800,000,000 per annum, with a revenue of not less than $100,000,000 per annum. So that the leader of the opposition in approaching the reciprocity question the other day, was quite within the mark when he said that we are a prosperous people indeed; but I do not concur in the inference he drew when he said, can we not be content and let well
enough alone? Now, Sir, it is one of the characteristics of Toryism that it is always satisfied with things as they are, if they are not allowed to retrograde. The controlling spirit of Liberalism is the reverse of this. It is never satisfied to leave things as they are, however good they may be, but deems it to be its duty as well as its privilege to make things better than they are. It is in a spirit of this kind, I imagine, that the government of the day arev approaching the question of reciprocal trade with the United States of America. Now, Sir, it has been pointed out in the debate which has taken place on the address, that in the view of hon. gentlemen opposite it is an act of wickedness on the part of the government to contemplate such an idea as reciprocal trade with the United States. Sir, they speak of the United States as a hostile people, as a foreign people, as a people who are manifesting their hostility towards the Dominion of Canada. Well, Sir, in many respects this may be true. The tariff which they enacted for themselves, and which bore heavily upon Canada, particularly upon our agricultural products, is a barbarous tariff indeed. But is that any reason for the government of the day, when the opportunity comes to them, refusing to negotiate for the removal of that barbarous tariff and the substitution of something better?
Now, in connection with the idea of Canada being economically free, I am glad to think that we have that truth again emphasized in the fact that we as a nation are capable of negotiating with a foreign nation in relation to trade affairs. That we are able to do this is a matter of common notoriety from a comparatively recent date. It is one of the striking evidences afforded to the minds of the Canadian public and to the world at large that we have grown out of the condition of mere colonialism into a state of nationhood, that we are able to undertake the negotiations of trade treaties with foreign nations; be* cause a mere colony, as such, has no external policy. The government of the day brought about this happy condition of affairs. It is to the everlasting credit of the First Minister that by granting an imperial preference, he brought home to the nations of the world, reluctantly on their part, the recognition of the principle that the British Empire is a family of nations, who can do by themselves and for themselves as they may choose to do in trade matters, without having special regard to the favoured nation clause.
We are fully aware of what in the past has been the attitude of the government on the reciprocity question. They have not been inveighed into accepting a position in any way inconsistent with their attitude in the past. It is a matter of record that the

Prime Minister on a memorable occasion, after he had honestly endeavoured to get better trade relations with the American republic, stated that there would be no more going to Washington on the part of the Canadian government, and it is a tribute to the growth and development of the trade, commerce, and population of Canada that that great nation, the American republic, have crossed the imaginary line, have visited the capital of Canada with a view to negotiating a trade arrangement which it is hoped will be mutually advantageous to both the great nations occupying and civilizing the greatest continent of the world. As representing a constituency of diversified industries, a constituency where agriculture is in highly advanced condition, a constituency where theTe are agriculturists who are not only of national, but of international repute, who sweep the prizes at all the great fairs in this country as well as many of the great fairs in the United States, a constituency of agriculturists who keep a system of books with as great accuracy of detail as books are kept in any counting house in the world, whose intelligence is known and respected both at home and abroad; a constituency containing also large manufacturing industries, some of them the largest of their kind in the Dominion of Canada, one of them the largest of its kind in the British Empire-representing this mixed community I commend the government of the day for the purpose which they have expressed of being willing to negotiate on fair terms with representatives from the United States of America, with a view to the framing of a reciprocity treaty between these two great Anglo-Saxon peoples. I believe the farmers of the country are those who will be especially advantaged by any reform of the tariff along these lines. The farmers, we say, are prosperous and happy and contented-and so they are. We speak of our transportation routes running east and west, and so they do at great cost to the people of Canada, but is that any reason why, if it is possible to add to the prosperity of the agriculturists of Canada without hurting any other industry we ought not to endeavour to do so, and is there any reason, the routes running east and west being fully occupied, why we should not open up routes running north and south as well? If the duties on cereals, on wool, on animals, on hay and on all the products of the farm can be removed between the United States and Canada, or if they can be considerably modified, the government will be still further entitled to the lasting gratitude and regard of a great part of the community of Canada on whose prosperity the prosperity of the whole Dominion admittedly depends. It is a recognized fact, Sir, that the farmers of Canada are the great purchasers, the great consumers of the manufactured products of the towns and Mr. FOWKE.
cities of eastern Canada, and when they are made prosperous so that they can purchase on a large scale, the manufacturing industries of the country must inevitably experience the good results which accrue from the added prosperity coming to the farmers.
Who will underrate the importance on a larger scale of two great Anglo-Saxon peoples on the continent of America, who will thus draw into closer alliance the great Anglo-Saxon people of the mother land and the remaining portions of the British Empire, and by thus forming a friendly spirit and understanding contribute to the dream of our late sovereign, King Edward the Seventh, and bring about a condition of affairs which will decree absolutely the peace of the world.
I would ask the indulgence of the House while, for a few moments, I discuss the question raised by the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. That amendment reads:
That all the words after the word ' thereof ' in the proposed motion in amendment be omitted and the following substituted therefor :-
We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire. We desire, however, to express our regret that Your Excellency's gracious speech . gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.
Why it should be thought necessary by hon. gentlemen opposite to avail themselves of every possible opportunity for going on record in printer's ink that we are a loyal people, is beyond my powers of conception. It is a good thing when one's conduct speaks so loudly on a question of that kind that his language cannot be heard, and I rejoice in the fact that the government of the last 14 years have steadily, by their enactments in this House, proved to the whole world the absolute loyalty of Canada to the British Crown, and to the constitution of our own country, and have never yet found it necessary to assert audibly, or in printer's ink that we are a loyal people. However, since the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has chosen to place that statement on record let it stand there as a statement of the united body of legislators in this national assembly for the Dominion of Canada.
As to the latter clause of his amendment, tlie hon. gentleman himself in moving it said that his amendment is practically the same as that of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier except that the verbiage is not just the same. No doubt the hon. the leader of the opposition had a desire to so

frame his amendment as to satisfy his followers generally and also if possible to throw a sop to the gentlemen who are said now not to be in the caucus in order that all the gentlemen sitting behind him might be found standing shoulder to shoulder when the vote on that amendment is taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Luther Fowke: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), however, did express his dissent from the conduct of the campaign in the constituency which has led to some loss on the part of the blues in this House. In that respect the leader of the opposition, by his conduct, only emphasizes the differences of opinion which exist in the Conservative party, a party which one might almost speak of, having regard to it as we knew it in its pristine days under the late Sir John A. Macdonald and as we know it at present in this House as the wreck of a political party. The hon. gentleman has shown himself to be at odds with one or two of his leading lieutenants in relation to these gentlemen who are now of the Nationalist party, so called, in the province of Quebec. We have, for instance the attitude of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in relation to these same men.
Toronto looks upon itself as rather a loyal city. Its people think that it, perhaps, is the most loyal city in the whole world. Certainly they are loyal to that conviction. But how are they going to countenance the stand taken by their representative with regard to the Bourassa faction? He says: Let us not hurt Bourassa; there is good stuff in him. And we had the hon. memebr for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), whose riding swarms with descendants of the United Empire Loyalists, and who himself knew in what way the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska was conducted on behalf of the Nationalists, telegraphing his congratulations to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on his great victory. It may be said of the two parties in this House that while that on your right, Mr. Speaker, is solid in its support of the right hon. the leader of the House and the policy of the government, particularly its policy on the naval question, the party on the other side is at odds and ends on this particular question. We had the leader of the opposition last session pronouncing in favour of a direct contribution to the home government by the Canadian people, to be levied out of the sweat and blood of the people of Canada and handed over to the manufacturing interests of Great Britain, and then we had the Nationalist wing protesting against this country doing anything. Had the policy of the leader of the opposition been adopted we would be a laughing stock for the world to-day. Now we have the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) proposing that
a plebiscite be taken, and we have the leader of the opposition apparently supporting that proposition. I would like to know why the opposition are so distrustful of Canadians that they want to centralize everything in Downing Street. How is it that the opposition expect that the British parliament can do for Canada what Canadians .are unwilling to undertake for themselves. That I take to be really what is meant by the policy of the leader of the opposition. When that hon. gentleman could not get this House to consent to sending a direct contribution he falls into line with Mr. Bourassa and proposes a plebiscite on the law which was voted last session. For my part, I take no account of the theory of a plebiscite. I do not believe that a plebiscite on the naval question would be of any practical use, and I do not think that this House could, with any sense of dignity or any belief in itself, adopt this amendment. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to imagine that we are here a lot of pedants, to deal with academic questions, and that we ought to divest ourselves of the representative capacity in which we have been sent here by the people of this country. Why aTe we here at all, if we are not to legislate for the people of Canada? In this country we have nothing in our constitution in the nature of a referendum, and I do not believe that there are any Canadians who are particularly enamoured with that idea. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to adopt that principle, why do they not come out boldly and submit their proposition to parliament? Why do they not ask that the principle of the referendum should be embodied in our constitution? That would be something worth debating, but to suggest taking a plebiscite on a policy which has already _ become the law of the land is, to my mind, childish.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the leader of the opposition is in favour of submitting this question by plebiscite to the Canadian people?


Frederick Luther Fowke: Here is his amendment:-
We desire, however, to express our regrets that Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention m the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend not understand and know that the leader of the opposition and the members on this side voted against that policy in the last session of parliament-I say the policy of a plebiscite?


Frederick Luther Fowke: That is only another illustration of the statement I made a moment ago that the policy of the opposition is a kaleidoscopic policy. What is the policy of

the government? In the first place, it is one which recognizes at once the duty of a government to provide for the defence of the country. I appeal to you if it be not the first duty of any man to provide, as well as he can, for the protection of his own hearth and home, for the protection of his own honour? You would not have respect even for a gamin on the street who would not stand up for his rights and fight for them if necessary. Nations are merely aggregations of individuals, and the first duty of any government is to provide for the protection of the hearths and homes of its people. I am glad that the government have brought down the policy, which has been approved by the majority of this House and country, of providing for the naval protection of Canada.
Now let me say that the policy of the government is one that was approached gradually and in _ a proper spirit, and not until the protection which had been afforded us by the British government had been withdrawn from our shores. It was when the soldiers and sailors of England had left Halifax and Esquimalt that the government thought fit to relieve the imperial authorities of the great charge which that protection had entailed upon the imperial exchequer, and to provide ourselves for the construction of a navy, as they have done. So it is part of a definite policy on the part of the government of the day thus to provide for the safety of the nation. The next thing is that it protects the trade and great commerce of Can-ada4 and any government that refused to do that or failed to do it would be held culpably negligent. Their policy provides for the protection of the fisheries of this country; and, as has been noted many times, _ it provides a ready means of cooperation with the imperial authorities whenever need' should arise. Now, Sir, it is as well to recognize the principle that is applicable, as well in national life as in all mundane affairs, that where there is no progress there must be stagnation. Where you have stagnation in national affairs, you will be very apt to have separation and disintegration. Now in order to progress in the development and maintenace of our national status there must be constantly new life infused into the country, or there will be weakness and decay. There must be a broadening of thought as well as a broadening of trade. Sir, I am glad to be known as a supporter of the naval policy of the government, because it marks the last striking appeal to date to the pride and national spirit of the Canadian people. Although Canadians are a peace loving people, a people who desire to be left free to pursue and prosecute the arts of peace, hoping for that time spoken of by Tennyson when:-


Frederick Luther Fowke: The war drum beats no longer, and the battle flags are furled,
In the parliament of man, the federation of the world.
We have also to bear in mind that after all, the peace and salvation from war is, as Admiral Mahan has put it, the preparation for war. So that, alike on our own account and on account of the place we occupy in the great civilizer of the world known as the British Empire, we would be remiss in our duty if we did not do our fair share toward that preparation for war which is recognized as one of the means of salvation from war.
Sir, in this country the Liberal party, I am glad to know, is one that lives, not merely for to-day, but with a view to the future. It is a party which calls specially the young men of the nation to its banner, therefore it is the party of progress and of reform, the party of constant advancement in the nation. It is sometimes said, I have heard it said, that this country is held together by bands of steel, the reference being to the great transcontinental railway. In a modified sense that is true. But there is a higher sense in which the people of Canada are bound together, and that is in the spirit of unity which inspires the thought in their breasts that they are citizens of a country which is to become a mighty and prodigious force in the progress and civilization, not only of the continent of which we form a part, but of the whole great world. It may be truly said, it seems to me, that the life of this country is held together, not so much by material needs as by these four principles: A common citizenship, equality of rights, community of interest, and responsibility of duty. I am glad Sir, to reflect that to the right hon. leader of the House, the Premier of Canada, my leader in political affairs, is due to a larger extent than to any other man, the creation of the spirit of national unity which to-day characterizes the Canadian people. Let me read to you a few words addressed to the people of Quebec in a communication recently published, in illustration of this fact. Sir Wilfrid Laurier says:-
I do not believe that I am at the head of Canada for my personal satisfaction. My' duty is to work for a strong and respected country. I do not think that my compatriots of the province of Quebec will be on this subject of a different disposition from mine. More than that, they would have the right to find fault with me if I shrank from the task which is assigned to me-to make Canada worthy of marching, head erect, in the British Empire in the face of the entire world.
That is the expression of a sentiment that would do credit to the greatest statesmen of the greatest empire the world has ever known. We do not have to go far

afield to find the great statesmen of the British Empire. On one occasion when some gentlemen were visiting St. Paul's cathedral in London, and had been admiring the marvels which were apparent in that structure, one of them turned to their guide and said:	Where is the monument
to Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of this vast pile? The reply came at once:
' Look about you, and you will see his monument everywhere.' And so to-day we can say that if you wish to see the monument to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, even in his lifetime, after 14 years of administrative labours for this country, you have only to contemplate the prosperity, the happiness, the contentment of the Canadian people, and the fact that they have grown from being mere colonials to be recognized as one of the great nations, one of the great forces of the great British Empire. You have only to look about to see memorials to that great statesman alike on land and sea.


Samuel Hughes: I regret that like by hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Fowke), who has just taken his seat, I am labouring somewhat from hoarseness. Therefore, if my remarks are not as clearly enunciated as I would like, I trust that the House will excuse the fault, and possibly it may have a tendency to shorten my remarks. I must join the previous speakers in congratulating the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. McGiverin) and the member for Kam-ouraska (Mr. Lapointe), the mover and seconder of the address, upon, not only the good form and the beautiful language, but also upon very many of the sentiments contained in their remarks. I will also take this opportunity of expressing the pleasure I feel that the stay of His Excellency the Governor General has been prolonged in Canada, although we all regret the cause of that stay, the death of His Majesty King Edward Seventh. The address contains a reference to the western provinces. There is a trifling error in the form in which the reference is made where it states that:

In certain of the western provinces crops did not realize the sanguine expectations which had been formed in the early spring.
It would have been better, in the interest of the facts, had this reference been limited to certain parts of certain provinces, because in all of the provinces there are very many parts where the crops have never been better than they have'been this year, and it is only in isolated parts of these provinces that there has been a failure. However, it is a mere trifle and I trust that nature and the Prime Minister will see to it that there will never be any complaint in the future, and that the crops will be uniformly good throughout all parts of all the provinces.
There is a reference made to the tariff in the speech from the Throne, and public attention is directed to the expansion of trade. I may take this opportunity of expressing my view that there will be no change whatever in the tariff during the present session, nor until after the election. The time is rapidly drawing near, every day brings the fateful hour closer, when tne government will be obliged to again face the country, and those of us who know the .astuteness of the members of the present government will not hesitate a moment in realizing that these gentlemen are always on the lookout for anything that will cause the manufacturers, the capitalists and the contractors of_ the country to doff their hats a little more obsequiously to the gentlemen occupying the treasury benches than formerly. The notice of the change of the tariff is largely in the nature of a warning to the manufacturers and others to be very good boys and very careful how they conduct themselves in the immediate future. I do not think that my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) will realize his dream of seeing any extension of free trade between Canada and the United States in the very near future. I would not like to charge the first minister with playing the old letter dodge that was played away back in 1896 of sending a letter around to the manufacturers assuring them that they need have no fear while on the hustings in all parts of the country the principles of free trade were heralded for the benefit of the horny-handed sons of toil. I trust that the Prime Minister will adopt some new way of getting around the business for the coming election.
Another reference in the speech from the Throne which I trust will be very carefully considered deals with terminal elevators. I trust that something effective may be done because we must realize the absolute necessity of dealing not only with terminal elevators, but with other elevators and with the grain trade all along the line. However, there will be time enough to discuss these matters when they come up.
To judge by the tenor of this debate, however, Sir, the one thing which overshadows all others in connection with the address is the recent election of Drummond and Artha-baska. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat touched very lightly on that aspect of the case; in fact, liis speech from start to finish, dealing with the tariff, protection or free trade, or the question of peace, was apologetic. It was a veTy carefully prepared and beautifully delivered essay. He talked on every side of every case. At one time he is a protectionist, at another time he is praising free trade, he is praising the ministers for being protectionists in practise and free traders in theory-a nice doctrine to place before the electors of the grand old riding of South Ontario.
But, in summarizing the issues which have been placed before the House during the entire week, what have they been?-ap-

peals on the part of one party that the electors in Drummond and Arithabaska were sought to be influenced by all sorts of improper means. We find an hon. gentleman representing the Nationalist cause, claiming that whisky enough to float two new warships was used in that campaign, and yet we have the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) pointing out that one of his canvassers, with his tongue parched and dry, begged one of the other gentlemen for a drink and was positively refused. On the other hand, we find the charge was made that $4 per head was paid, the charge that the government used the argument that this fleet was not intended for the support of Great Britain, but that it was intended to defeat Great Britain, and we understand that they even went so far as to say that it was going to be used to carry their dairy products in time of peace across the water to the motherland. Then we find the government party was also charged with saying that their object was independence. We also find the government speakers, led by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), who never *-never-was known to appeal to race cries, who was never known, in or out of the House, to appeal to any sectional or side issue, who would never demean public life by raising race and religious cries, coming to this House and charging that the Nationalist party made appeals to nationalism, that they were anti-British, that they preached autonomy, that they issued cartoons showing how Great Britain was going to rob the habitant, and after our experience in the House yesterday afternoon, when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) so splendidly exposed the deception sought to be practised upon the House and the country by the Minister of Inland Revenue in relation to that caricature I need say nothing further concerning' it. They also made the charge that whisky was freely used by the other party, that money galore was used, that threats of conscription were made and assertions that all other anti-British principles and practices were about to be resorted to. These, Sir, are the planks, so to speak, in the platforms of the two great parties-the Nationalist party and the Liberal party in Quebec in the recent election.
And yet, we have it pointed out by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and by speakers especially in that province that the first minister has given his life to the unification of the two races. What a splendid unification it has been! Why, Sir, we know that in the early days^ and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was not there one hundred and fifty years ago, so that they cannot blame him', and I was not there one hundred and fifty years ago-these same petty appeals and issues were raised and that from that Mr. HUGHES.
time continuously down to the present hour there has never been a period in the history of the .province of Quebec when the issues in elections did not largely turn, on the part of the pettifogging canvassers, on hatred of Britain. I do not know how the first minister views it, but if I had spent 40 years of my life seeking to bring about unison and harmony between the two races, as he claims to have done, I thin,k I would be able to show a little better result from my teaching than he has to show to-day. I am a Canadian, I speak the English language, I admire British institutions and I regard the future of Canada (not as an independent nation as does the hon. member (Mr. Fowke) and some other of his political friends) but as continuing to form a part of the greatest empire the world has yet seen. I feel very warmly when I see that after all these years of teaching on the part of such an eloquent professor as the leader of the government my Canadian fellow countrymen are not more advanced in the idea of Canada within the empire. I have French blood flowing through my veins and I am proud of it, and when I see the French Canadian people subjected to appeals from one side and the other-and I am not defending one side more than the other in this-and attempts to arouse the worst prejudices within them rather than the best, I feel that the time has come when the first minister should remodel the lectures he has delivered to the grand French people of the province of Quebec, if better results are to be expected. Search the records of the human race the world over and you will not find a more lovable, a more energetic, a more faithful, a more courageous people than the French race wherever they may be found. To the influence of the French blood introduced into England in the Norman days is due in very large measure the greatness of Britain in past history, and to the commercial enterprise of the splendid Huguenots who in later years were driven from their native land by persecution is due in large measure the manufacturing and industrial supremacy of the British Empire. To the efforts of the splendid French people who have become subjects of the British Crown in various periods of history, the British Empire owes a great deal. There is no reason in the wide world, Sir, why the French Canadians in Quebec and in other parts of the Dominion in future years should not loyally bear their share to build up Canada as an integral part of the British Empire. There is no reason why the French Canadians in Canada properly taught and properly guided should not discharge their part in upbuilding a great British nation in one great full-partnership union with the British Empire. The ordinary observer would notice that

the pronounced difference between the two great political parties in Canada-I trust my Nationalist friends will pardon me if I do not regard them as a great party just yet-I say that the great division between the two great political parties in Canada to-day, as shown by the tenor of the speeches delivered, is, that the Liberal party is constantly preaching the autonomy of the Dominion of Canada along the line of the independence of Canada and separation from Britain in the near future, while the great Conservative party holds staunchly to the idea of a great Canadian nation within the British Empire. It is true that my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) pointed out that we' have one King, and he said that the King' of England is King of Canada. I,dispute that. The King of England is the King of the British Empire and Canada is a part of the British Empire, and we want no King of Canada separate and distinct from the King of the British Empire. That idea has been tried in Austria-Hungary and has failed. It has been tried in Norway-Sweden and failed ; it has been tried elsewhere and has failed. The Conservative party of Canada desire that Canada should remain as it is an integral part of the British Empire under the sovereign of the British Empire. The Conservative party in Canada is desirous to remain an integral part in that nation which has given the world responsible government and co-operative democracy which is the keynote of civilization and development the wide world over.
As I have already pointed out, Sir, these agitations in Quebec are not 4iew; I have on many occasions pointed out in this House that our French Canadian fellow-countrymen have been subjected to the appeals of all the charlatans that one can imagine. When I say this I do not accuse one political party more than another. As a rule, the party in power, holding responsibility, professes to be more or less loyal, and so on the present occasion gentlemen supporting the government have been more or less sounding the trumpet of attachment to Britain. It is true that they are charged with having their friends go up and down the side lines whispering: Oh, we must pretend to be loyal to Britain, but we mean Canadian independence; just as soon as we get Britain in trouble we are going to hoist our own Canadian flag, and we are going to have a navy to protect us against Great Britain. These utterances undoubtedly have been made by the friends of the Liberal party, and not only up and down the side lines, but the speeches of Liberal members right in the halls of this parliament and in the presence of the Prime Minister, have come very near to the promulgation of that idea, and yet the Prime Minister has never repudiated any of these gentlemen, who claim that their ultimate aim is an independent Canada. We have heard some prominent members of the Liberal party speaking of ' Canada dropping from the parent tree as ripe fruit,' an expression which indicates the trend of their minds. Well, Sir, Canada to-day is able to take its share in the upbuilding of the empire; we are no longer in swaddling clothes; we want to do our fair share to help the empire to which we now and always intend to belong and we want to do it in the best way. It was a great surprise to me to find the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, of all men, rising in this House to lecture certain people about doing away with racial and religious cries. Every one in the Dominion of .Canada knows that in periods of great agitation, such as the Riel episode, and even in this House only last session, while prating to-day about doing away with racial cries, "the Minister of Marine descended^ to the most potent appeals towards raising racial prejudices. The Minister of Marine said in the House yesterday :-
The point I want to make is that it is very unfortunate that we canot avoid racial and religious appeals in this country. Should such appeals not be stopped?
Oh, my, how very eloquent he was about that when he spoke yesterday, and then said the Minister of Marine:-
Is it not the duty of every good citizen of Canada to endeavour to put an end to them. No political party can reap an advantage from them.
Well, it is not so very long since the Minister of Marine was one of the foremost in raising racial and religious cries. I-compliment him on his change of heart, -and I do so the more sincerely because if the Minister of Marine can pose as a loyalist and a man true to the empire and a man who decries racial -and religious appeals, why, then, there is hope even for Bourassa. Knowing the history of the Minister of Marine, I would not be at all surprised, and hearing him speak in this way to-day I would not be at all surprised to find my good friend Bourassa occupying some day a high place in the government of Canada, and just as loyal as the Minister of Marine professes to be. The change in heart of the Minister of Marine shows what constant education and constant training will do, and I congratulate the first minister that after 20 years' association with the Minister of Marine he has at last succeeded in getting one hardened sinner back to repentance- more or less. These gentlemen opnosite wax eloquent to-dav about their loyalty, but I hope they will pardon me if I recall a bit of painful history to- them. I have always been a great admirer of the very many ways of the first minister. I watched him very particularly in the years 1895 and 1896. I watched him previous to that. I read with a great deal of

interest his speech, in which he declared on the Champs de Mars that if he had been on the shores of the Saskatchewan, he would have shouldered his musket in defence of the rebels. Yet the right hon. gentleman has since experienced a change of heart, and sits to-day as first minister and the adviser of His Excellency. Therefore we can hope that the time may arrive when even these gentlemen of the Nationalist party will feel somewhat ashamed of their utterances in Drummond and Arthabaska. In 1896 we found the First Minister, who was then in opposition, and not in the responsible position he occupies to-day, not above appealing to the people in the province of Ontario with one set of speeches and in the province of Quebec with another. I not only watched him at that time, but had his speeches reported, and I tell him to-day that if on that occasion he had piped the same tune to the country that he does to-day, he would not now be called on to do quite so much teaching in the province of Quebec. If the First Minister on that occasion had taken the same straight line in one province as in another, he would not have been burdened with the Bourassas and the other gentlemen who are now such thorns in his flesh. Later on, when he assumed the responsibilities of government and became First Minister, what was his object? Who created Mr. Bourassa? The First Minister himself created him ; Mr. Bourassa was his idol, his pet. The First Minister has been training a number of these young men. He brought in some of them from Ontario, but they proved to be failures and have disappeared. He has tried another young man from the province of Ontario. I do not like to prophesy, but I do not know whether he has in his heart the same hope of that young gentleman that he had when he first came in. He brought this young gentleman, Mr. Bourassa, from Quebec, and when he wanted to check any ultra loyal movement that came along, he touched the .button, and up jumped Mr. Bourassa, and whenever he spoke the First Minister used to look more or less pleased. But later on, when the ambitions of this young man became properly understood, and he went too far, the First Minister's brow used to cloud ; and finally he is where he is to-day. Mr. Bourassa is a product of the teaching of the First Minister, and if his teaching has no better success in stopping racial and religious cries than it has had in the case of Mr. Bourassa, then I am afraid he will not be able to point with much pride to the results of his own work. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) waxed eloquent in deprecating these racial and religious cries. I appeal to the fair sense of this House whether, in asking questions regarding certain matters that Mr. HUGHES.
transpired outside of this House in the past year, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has merited such a remark on the part of the hon. minister, recorded at page 166 of ' Hansard ', where he speaks of the hon. member as ' riding the Protestant horse ' in this House. We may as well have a fair and square understanding where we .are at in this matter. In this country we are of different races and creeds, and there is nothing so touchy as a man who thinks he has got religion. I have rambled over the world a great deal, I have been on every continent, and I have never met fifty men who could sit down and tell what their religion was. Tally-rand was once asked : ' Sire, what is your religion? '	' My religion is that of every
wise man.' ' Sire, what is the religion of every wise man? ' ' Ah, Sire, a wise man never tells his religion.' In this country, situated as we -are, with people of different creeds and nationalities, we as representatives of the people should see that anything that tends to the recognition of one creed or nationality more than another is jealously excluded. If our militia are ordered out to receive a delegate of one church with the honours that belong only to royalty, does any one with an ounce of common sense in his head pretend to say that that will not breed dissension in the land? The First Minister will not say so. Even the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not say so. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries talked against appeals to religious passion and prejudice, and yet he taunted my hon. friend from East Grey with riding the Protestant horse because he introduced these questions. I have been charged with fanaticism and with being prejudiced against my French Canadian fellow-citizens.


Mr. TALBOT.: It is a mistake.


Samuel Hughes: 

tario adjoining. In provincial matters my allegiance is to the province of Ontario, and not to Quebec or Manitoba adjoining. In federal matters my allegiance is to Canada, not to Great Britain, Australia, or New Zealand. In national .matters-because Canada is not a nation, it is a colony -my allegiance is to the greater British Empire. We have voice and vote in the first four positions, in the town, in the county, in the province and in the Dominion. We in Canada, as in the other colonies, are given voice and vote in all these positions. In the fifth and greater one we are given no voice and vote. I am not finding fault, I have found fault with the Conservative party here for being a little lethargic in this matter in days gone by and may be my views are extreme; but I wish to point out that since the rise of responsible government 200 years ago the world has made more progress than in all the tens of thousands of years before, and I can see no reason, with the great advance that has been made in human intelligence and organization, why in the next ten years the world should not make as much progress as was made in the last 200 years. All it requires is that men shall be in earnest and set themselves to work not to appeal to the passions and prejudices of the people, but to appeal to the higher instincts and the greater needs of humanity the world over. Therefore, I can see no reason, as I have urged on the Prime Minister many times, why_ this cannot be carried out to a successful 'conclusion, why the people of Great Britain cannot be stirred up to do their duty and give the colonies of the empire the opportunity of having the fifth right, the right of voice and vote in the greater British Empire, the wide world over. As I pointed out we of the Conservative party do not aspire to autonomy. Therein we differ from our friends of the government and from our friends of the Nationalist party. We do not aspire towards independence. Therein we differ from many of those who secretly pass up and down the side lines in the interest of the Liberal party, and therein we differ from the Nationalists in so far as they are influenced bv Liberals in aspiring towards independence. We do not aspire towards annexation, but we aspire to the full partnership union of Great Britain and all her colonies. I am satisfied that if the great minds of the empire joined together in this matter it would be very speedily and rapidly accomplished.
Our good friend from South Ontario (Mr. Powke) contended that it was by the Conservative party that appeals of the kind I have referred to are made. He said:
Why, Sir, do I not correctly represent the situation when I say that the party to the left of Mr. Speaker may fittingly be denom-Mr. HUGHES.
inated, remembering what their attitude at that time was, as the emergency party of Canada, They based their whole plea for assisting the empire in relation to navy affairs upon the emergency which they believed existed, their belief being founded as I told them at that time and as I tell them now, upon the utterances of the yellow press of Great Britain.
Well, it requires a good deal of hardihood for an ordinary member, new to this House, no matter how popular he may be, to stand up here and tell us that the Rt. Hon. Mr. Asquith, the Rt Hon. Lloyd George, the Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, and the Rt. Hon. Mr. Haldane, leaders of the Liberals as well as others of the Conservatives in the English House of Commons, are supporters of the yellow press. Yet every one of these gentlemen had expressed his conviction that Britain was on the verge of a tremendous emergency and that _ it was the duty of every part of the empire to join in assisting and strain every nerve to resist any encroachments from Germany or any other nation. Speaking of the riding of South Ontario- a magnificent riding which is going to change its allegiance in the next election-the hon. gentleman referred to the number of representatives who had run in that riding. He referred to Geo. Brown, Mr. Gibbs, the late Speaker Edgar, and the late Malcolm Cameron. But there is another name he might have mentioned, a name high in the records of the Liberal party, and would you believe it, that is the name of the hon. gentleman who carried on his campaign in the county of South Ontario with the rallying cry:	Vote for
Oliver Mowat and down with the Pope of Rome. The right hon. gentleman knows that very well. Bills are yet in existence in South Ontario to show that such was the appeal made by Oliver Mowat and the Liberal party with whom the Prime Minister sat cheek by jowl during many years.
When we find these extraordinary transitions, when we find Oliver Mowat taken to the arms of the Quebec contingent, when we find the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), boasting of his loyalty, after having made his way into parliament on cries of race and religion, when we find the descendants of men who shouldered their rifles against their sovereign occupying high positions in the country, why should we lose hope and say there is no chance for others who, before to-day have fought against the empire? Sir, I have no reason to doubt that as soon as mv hon. friend the leader of the opposition becomes Prime Minister-aye, possibly before then -such a campaign of education will have been carried on throughout Canada as will rally to the standard of imperialism and the closest partnership between Great Britain and her colonies, even the most re-

calcitrant Canadian, whether he be fonpd in the Liberal or the national party; ail'd we will then stand before the whole world as a united country aiming for the benefit of the empire the wide world over.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) said:-
I say here to-night that th'e people of Quebec who may follow Bourassa and Monk in the disloyal attitude they have assumed

Mark the words ' disloyal attitude.'
That is rather strong. When we have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), who at one time out-heroded Herod, and outdistanced Bourassa, in every sense, pronouncing himself so araent an imperialist,, I can see no reason for giving up hope for the conversion of even such an extreme sinner as Bourassa.
The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke), referred to tihe referendum or the plebiscite, and he pointed out that it was not a principle adopted by English constitutional authorities to-day. Well, we have not forgotten that when ' the Prime Minister and his friends-some of whom are now occupying comfortable seats in other departments of life-were in opposition, they were confronted with certain issues along certain lines, especially the temperance issue, and they had to make certain pledges. The Prime Minister gave the pledge to the temperance people that he would give them a plebiscite and so he did, but after the plebiscite was taken and an overwhelming majority pronounced itself in favour of prohibition, he refused to give them what they had voted for. In Manitoba there is a remnant of the Liberal party, and would you believe it? One of the planks in their platform is the initiation of a referendum. In other words, they declare that public questions should be submitted to the people by means of a plebiscite or a referendum. Of course, I speak only for myself, but so far as I am personally concerned, I am opposed to either a referendum or a plebiscite. I believe they are both unconstitutional and alien to the principle of responsible government. Responsible government requires that the leader of the government shall stand or fall by the stand he takes on the issues before the country. To my mind the only proper way for all the questions to be settled is to have them fought out before the people on the public platform in a general election.
Now, I am going to take mv right hon. friend the Prime Minister into my confidence and tell him why he lost Drummond and Arthabaska. I know he will be glad to find out the reason. I have heard it hinted that the defeat was an arrangement of the government. We know that he went to the west and held meetings there and that he was rather disconcerted by the receptions he got and the questions put him, 104
and he came home, with his halo a good deal tarnished, and not at all as enthusiastic as when he started. There is a lot of hard-hearted farmers out west who gave the right hon, gentleman rather a surprise party. Then he found out that certain other things had arisen which more or less still further disconcerted him and he felt that he had to do something, so he arranged a little deal with the member for Arthabaska (Mr. Louis Lavergne). He agreed to translate that hon. gentleman to the Senate. Then he would open that constituency and be able to declare to the other provinces that he was being martyrized in the province of Quebec because of the stand he had taken for the British Empire. That is one theory, but let me now give you another. Last year four or five members of this House went down to Arthabaska, and I have here a record of their proceedings. I have a letter signed Mr. F. L. Fowke, whom I do not see in his place. After a long and beautiful introduction in which the Prime Minister is compared to Abraham Lincoln, the hon. member for South Ontario said:-^
Then he follows on
In this other particular there may yet he discovered a likeness also, in that as the site of the log cabin in Kentucky has become a sort of mecca to which multitudes of Americans repair every year, so, to the Arthabas-lcaville home of Sir Wilfrid, Canadians, without regard to party affiliation, will yet make their way as to a centre of increasing interest as the years go by.
Pilgrimages. Then later-I am passing over beautiful descriptions of the scenes and people of the village, the writer says:-
Now it was to four of the parliamentary following of Sir Wilfrid, namely, Mr. Tolmie, of North Bruce, and chairman of the Liberal caucus, Mr. Clarke, K.C., of South Essex, Dr. Cash, of Mackenzie, Sask., and the writer, that an invitation came from Mr. Louis Lavergne, M.P., for Drummond and Artba-baska, in whose constituency Arthabaskaville is situated, to visit the home town of Sir Wilfrid, and spend a week end with Mr. Lavergne, whose home also is in Arthabaska-ville. Thus it was that under the guidance of our familiar friend, and with him for our gracious host, we made the visit to the erstwhile home of the chief, from Friday evening until Monday last, and a most delightful experience it proved to he.
Passing over some more descriptive matter, I come to this beautiful description of our dear old friend, the gentleman referred to here, who has been the cause of all this trouble
Mr. Louis Lavergne, because of the length and service rendered his country as a member of the House of Commons, has of late found his name mentioned in connection with a vacant senatorship in his district,



The paper containing this letter was published on the 11th of March last.
-and while, should he be translated to the more tranquil scenes of the Upper House, his fellow commoners would miss him much, I feel quite sure the respect and best wishes of the working end of parliament would follow Mr. Lavergne into the comfortable and somnolent atmosphere of the Senate chamber.
Next he goes on to give the keynote of the whole business:-
I dare say the reader would like to know something about Arthabaskaville in a general way, as well as in the particular sense to which our visit is intended to apply. I wonder what are the views of Ontarians regarding French Canadians and French Canadian communities.
I want the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, to pay attention to these words:-
If they are to form their impressions from statements which at times appear in orations made by Tories on the floor of parliament, I fear they would get some sadly distorted views of both.
After we have listened one week to the Liberal orators from the First Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries down to the back benches, containing expressions and charges so monstrous, and acts so unbelievable, that I do not believe it would be possible for them to have occurred in any riding of the province of Ontario-words uttered, not by Tories, but by Liberals, you find this man writing as he does here :-
I fear they would get some sadly distorted views of both. It is always well, however, to bear in mind that savage attacks made there are intended for a particular purpose, and for the most part are made by men who do not fill a very large place in the life of parliament and are, therefore, to be taken with a grain of salt.
How hard that is on the First Minister and on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. ' Do not hold a very high place in parliament,' gentlemen who have been talking of these ship loads of whisky, of this special navy tax, of these anti-British appeals of all sorts, of this naval conscription, of these men going around and enlisting seamen, these appeals to the higher intelligence of the community that have been pointed out in this House, made, not by Tories, but by Liberals from the First Minister down.
Nevertheless it may be fairly concluded, I dare say, that many think of Quebec villages as being medievil

It is spelled here ' medi-evil '-I do not know what that means.
-in their habits, and wholly lacking in a spirit of enterprise. This may in part be owing to the view presented at times in the poetry of Dr. Drummond.	,


Samuel Hughes: Then follows a short extract from the poetry of Dr. Drummond, but I will not weary the House by reading it.
Well, all I can say to this is that freer intercourse between people of the several provinces would surely lead to a truer appreciation of each other's place and importance in the Canadian confederacy. Certain I am that I do not know of a community the size of Arthabaskaville in Ontario which is possessed of as large a life as this rural French Canadian village.
Then, Sir, one more extract and I have done:

Property values in Arthabaskaville are much higher in any town of 5,000 people known to me in Ontario, and the people both in the town and county are prosperous and contented. It is said Sir Wilfrid will not . dispose of his home, though he has been approached by willing would-be purchasers, and it is hereby .suggested that some day the nation to whom his life is devoted might properly acquire the house and maintain it as a souvenir of the man who travelled from the small country place in the province of Quebec to the highest place attainable in Canada in the service of his King and country.
Then he refers to Mr. Willison's life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and goes on:-
Asked about the Naval Bill, and as to whether it has created much excitement, he remarked.
He is speaking of the French Canadian driver of the party.
' Conservatives try to kick up a shine, but I guess we shall have the ships and we will man them too. Sir Wilfrid will look after that, and all will be well when he is through.' And it is more than probable our jehu spoke the real sentiment of his co-patriots on the subject, as Mr. Monk will find to his sorrow later on. Some time after, upon being questioned as to statements made by Tory speakers reflecting upon the loyalty of the province of Quebec


Mr. PEOULX.: What about the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) last session?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Frontenac was reading from a book published in the French language, which contained every statement that the hon. member for Frontenac quoted. He was not uttering his own sentiments.
A gentleman with whom we conversed ridiculed the idea that Quebec should be thought of as in any sense of the term disloyal to the Crown of England as our proper symbol of empire, and remarked: 'We are allowed the use of our language, and the practice of our religion. We are protected in the exercise of our civil rights. What more is there to be desired? We have no liking for independence, and as for annexation with the United States, it would be the last thing we could desire.'

This is the stuff that the member for South Ontario has the hardihood to pass up and down his constituency and the province of Ontario, reflecting upon the Conservative party in this House, after one whole week spent with the most-I was almost going to use the term ' diabolical,' if that would be parliamentary-the most disgraceful attacks upon each other by the members of the great Liberal party from the First Minister down by the Nationalists on one side of the House and by the Liberals on the other- not one word of it by the Liberal-Conservative party. This is the stuff that we find placarded up and down Canada by these Liberal tooters on the other side. Then, in conclusion, he says
After taking leave of Madame Lavergne, the pilgrims, accompanied by her good husband, turned their faces once more towards Parliament Hill and returned through the eastern townships to Montreal, and so on to Ottawa, where we arrived in due course, having spent a week-end which each agreed could not but remain a green spot in his memory, alike on account of the shrine to which the pilgrimage had been made, and for the un-[DOT] measured kindness meted out to us by Mr. and Madame Lavergne.
Mr. Speaker, I should not further comment on this remarkable letter. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the amendment to the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Mr. MICHAEL CLAEK (Eed Deer).: I shall only occupy the time of the House for a few minutes, and in those few minutes I shall give almost exclusive attention to the amendment to the amendment which was tabled last evening. Indeed, I would not have intervened, so far as I know my own mind or intentions, in the debate, but for the tabling of that amendment. Before saying a few words about it, however, I should like to be permitted to offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for the words which he spoke in regard to the peaceful relations which have .existed so long between this country and The United States of America, words which received emphatic endorsement by the First Minister of the Crown. I thank my hon. friend the leader of the opposition very sincerely for those words, because they afford to every one in Canada evidence that when, as may probably happen in the course of what I think will be some time, he comes to occupy the position of the First Minister, we shall have a man who has a due sense of the weighty responsibility of Canada in being an important factor ip maintaining the peace of the world.
Now, I should like also, before turning to look for a few minutes at this amendment, to say that I, as one who supported the policy of my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on the
navy question last year, have derived a very considerable confirmation of the wisdom of my position from what I venture to describe as the universal endorsation of that policy in the old country. That feeling is perhaps very natural to me, but I think it ought to be shared by all Canadians because we all realize that in the old country you have, on both sides of politics, men with very keen insight into politics, men who have centuries of training at their back, and when you have a policy carried out by the Canadian government, endorsed by both sides of politics in the old country, it affords, I think, presumptive evidence of the wisdom of that policy. At all events it gives me the very greatest satisfaction. When the navy debate was going on last year we had this endorsation coming from so strong a unionist organ as the ' Morning Post ' in unequivocal terms. I need not mention the liberal endorsation of the policy. It was impossible that the Liberal party and the Liberal press of Great Britain should not. endorse that policy, founded, as it is, upon Canadian autonomy, and based upon perfect freedom within the great commonwealth of nations constituting the British Empire-such an empire as has never been seen before. But, I noticed that so strong an imperialist as Sir George Doughty visited the city of Edmonton this year and that he was interviewed, as all prominent Britishers coming to this country are interviewed at the present time. Amongst other* things he was interviewed upon the opinion of the old country with regard to the naval policy of the Liberal government. Sir George Doughty is an imperialist of the imperialists, he is a very strong member of the Liberal Unionist party at home and what had. he to say about the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier

He said:
-has done a great service to Canada and to the empire in establishing the Canadian navy. You are a nation, and as such should equip yourselves for the duty of defence. I think it would have been a mistake to make a contribution to the British navy, either in money or ships. As your Canadian navy grows you will be training your own men for the sea and creating the spirit of naval enterprise. The people will develop the sense of nationality; they will develop the spirit which has made the British navy what it is, and the spirit of the nation is worth more than ten warships.
This is a remarkable piece of testimony from a prominent man in the Unionist party in Great Britain to the wisdom of the navy policy of the right hon. gentleman and his government. I follow, as carefully as I know how, opinion in the old country. I have the opportunity of reading its papers, I meet visitors from there and I have not

seen any contrary opinion that was worthy of attention.
Now, I turn to look for a few minutes at the amendment which is the subject of debate at the present moment. I should like to say in the first place that the amendment appears to me to be a very great triumph for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I ventured to describe the amendment of the leader of the opposition last session as an omnibus amendment. I described it as an omnibus amendment with eompai'tments, but the triumph of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is in this, that while he was in solitary confinement at that time in his own compartment, he has developed a strength which would never have been suspected in a man of a so commonly lamb-like disposition, though he departed very strongly from that description of him the other day. He has broken down all the other compartments, has captured the entire omnibus and has even, as far as I can see, invaded the driver's seat. He is not just trying to depose his leader, but he has certainly deposed the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and, as far as I can see, he seriously contemplates putting Bour-assa in his place. This is surely not exaggerated language. If my hon. friends of the opposition think it is I should like to address to them one question. What has become of the proposal to give a contribution to Britain in their attitude on this question? Where are the Dreadnoughts under the present proposition? If they will keep on debating the naval policy we must debate it. They thought the German war scare was imminent twelve months ago. Well, it ought to be more imminent now. What has become of the German scare which was the cause of their resolution of last year? I take it that the elimination of the proposal to give money immediately to Great Britain is tantamount to a confession that their attitude of twelve months ago was entirely wrong and that the case that they built up last year upon the German war-scare falls to the ground, and I am sure that the country will consider it just as likely that the case they put up at the present time will have fallen to the ground twelve months hence. But what is the amendment which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition tabled last evening?
It is a; protestation coupled with a doubt. I agree with my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) that the protestation is not at all necessary, and least of all should it be necessary on the part of the leader of the opposition. But I take it that the protestation was put in to satisfy the aspirations of such as my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes). I can imagine the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) reminding his leader that he had many a time advocated full partnership union within the empire, and Mr. M. CLARK.
that no motion dealing with foreign or imperial politics could possibly .be complete without a protestation of loyalty. And then, when the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) was getting his way in that respect the member for Jacques Cartier comes on the scene and he infuses his doubt. Now, there can be no exception taken to the protestation. But, since I have come to this country nine years ago, and as I have moved among the Canadian people I have discovered in them a loyalty which almost exceeds the loyalty of the strongest imperialist at home. I do not think that any one who knows the Canadian people can have any doubt of their loyalty, or can see the necessity for expressing it in words. No man is continually professing his extreme attachment to his parents, or if he does we begin to have some doubts about his sincerity. We are loyal in Canada; of course we are loyal; we are loyal in every portion of the British Empire; we are loyal because we are free. What is it that we are loyal to? The resolution asks us to express our loyalty to the Crown of Britain. Yes, but the Crown is an emblem of something, and what is it that the Crown is an emblem of? It is the emblem of an empire such as the world has never seen. What is the cement which binds the British Empire together? It is not community of language for" the Sikhs of India speak a different language from the natives of New Zealand; it is not community of religions because the British flag floats over all religions. What is the cement that binds us of the British Empire together and makes us loyal? Sir, it is the knowledge in the hearts and the minds of every one of us that wherever the British flag flies, wherever the British Empire holds sway you have a guarantee that there will be bestowed upon the sons of men the greatest freedom combined with the greatest love for law and order that the world has ever seen. And, Sir, it is because my right hon. friend has embodied such a belief, and such a principle in his naval policy that I am an enthusiastic supporter of that policy. May I say that I regret that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) should rise in his place and express the opinion that conscription could possibly be resorted to in Canada. Upon what facts in history does he rely for that assertion? I wonder he had not the chivalry of his race to remember that while every other nation in Europe is under more or less autocratic government-except the republic of France-they have conscription, in these two little islands sticking out into the German ocean which constitute the island heart of our empire, there is no conscription? What Britain has done by land or sea she has done by the exercise of that freedom which is the glory of her empire. I am, of course, in agreement with

the expression of loyalty in the resolution, but what bothers me is that the leader of the opposition should have attached to his resolution a doubt that the people of Canada are not ready to assume the logical outcome of the unanimous resolution of this House passed the session before last.
I should like to go a step further in the examination of this amendment and I would ask the leader of the opposition what would happen if the amendment is carried. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) disclaimed any idea that a referendum would be the outcome and I agree with him in his interpretation of the resolution. The only outcome of the carrying of the resolution would be the precipitation of a general election, and I want to ask my hon. friend who occupies the responsible position of leader of the opposition if he thinks it would tend to build up the empire or the Canadian nation that a general election should be precipitated on this delicate question of the foreign policy of the empire, and the imperial connection. In such a general election would the opposition support the building of a Canadian navy? You would have this question thrown into the turmoil of public meetings from the Atlantic to the Pacific ; you would have a discussion throughout the west where you have a large and varied population, whom, I take it to be the duty of every man who has the instincts of statesmanship to train up to be sound Canadians ; you would have these people brought face to face at once with a question of the utmost delicacy, and I ask the leader of the apposition in all sincerity if such a thing would commend itself to his mature deliberation in the months and years that are to come. If such an election were precipitated would honourable gentlemen opposite support the proposal to build a Canadian navy? I should like an answer to that question by some hon. gentleman who follows me. If they would support the building of a Canadian navy then there is no need of an election and we had better go on with the business of the country. But, if they would not support the building of a Canadian navy, what then becomes of all their protestations of loyalty? Now, suppose they carried the election and they carried out the policy indicated in the amendment, they would simply be going around the country saying to the people that they wanted a mandate from them, not knowing exactly what the mandate was about. I suppose if they carried the election it would at any rate be taken as a vote against the government and against its naval policy. Then, we should have the wonderful spectacle of a party which has always boasted of imperial connection and its fondness for the empire, and which boasts it in the preliminary words of this very amendment, telling the ' Niobe ' and tae ' Rainbow ' solemnly : You must go back across the Atlantic ; we cannot build any Canadian navy at present. And then, my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) would, I presume, rush to the seashore as lie has done before when the empire was in danger, and he would call out : Come back ' Niobe ' come back ' Rainbow ', I am going to propose once more my resolution in favour of a full partnership union in the empire. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this amendment-and this is my chief objection to it-I do not think it sizes up the greatness of the future destiny of Canada and of the Canadian people. If my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (who is going to the west next year where I am perfectly sure he will get a most hearty welcome)- will permit me, I shall read to him a paragraph from the Saturday ' News ' of Edmonton, an independent paper, which embodies better than I can in my own language what I conceive to be the future greatness and destiny of the Canadian people.
Indeed it begins to look as if Canada were destined to be one of the great ' carrying ' nations of the world. Already our ocean-going shipping compares favourably with that of the United States in spite of the disparity in our population. The tremendous growth in Canadian shipping has helped immensely to keep the British flag in the proud position of flying on more and greater ships than all the other nations of the world put together. Fifty years ago, the British flag floated over 54 per cent of the world's shipping; to-day it floats over 59 per cent. And Canada has helped in that. The Canadian Pacific railway alone has sixty-five ocean and lake vessels, and a traveller may go from Liverpool to Yokohama without leaving a Canadian Pacific railway conveyance'.
If Canada continues her success in the maritime trade, it will have a profound effect on her national life. When Canadian ships are afloat on every ocean, and Canadian seamen are in every foreign port, we shall begin to know something of international law and international responsibility. We shall look upon the policing of the seas in a different way, and shall become more deeply interested in the questions on which international peace depend. We shall have problems much broader than the price of lumber and wheat or the rate of duty on barbed wire and agricultural implements. International Itravel broadens the individual; international trade expands the horizon of the nation.
I am bound to say that I think my hon. friend owes me a debt of gratitude for drawing his attention to that paragraph in a paper published in the great west because it gives him an idea of the largeness of view, the breadth and expansion of the outlook, of the people he is going to visit next year, and I can assure him that he

will have to size up to that view if he expects to carry the west for his party. I do not think he quite sizes up to it when he tables an amendment such as that which we are considering to-day. I do not think he will build up an empire or a nation, or even the fortunes of his party, with an amendment characterized by what I cannot help calling benevolent ineptitude. My hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) said something about a recent visit to the west. He gives a very different account of the reception of the Prime Minister from that which I should have been disposed to give, who took part in it. I attended in the city of Calgary one of several meetings during that tour. Calgary, I am aware, is represented in this House by a Conservative member, and the reception which the Prime Minister got in Calgary is all the more remarkable on that account. I count the member for Calgary amongst my personal friends, and I hare my doubts whether, if the party had a man of less personal charm to represent them, they.would be able to keep the city of Calgary for the Conservative party. 'Well, I attended in that city one of the most remarkable meetings I have attended in my life, a meeting at which there were
10,000	people. A great number of them must have been Conservatives, and I want to assure this House that when the right hon. the Prime Minister, in language of evident sincerity, told the audience that next to his belief in his religion, was his! belief in Canada, sitting on the platform as I was permitted to do, I felt there and then that we have a man who sizes up to the responsibilities of his position, and to the aspirations and the future destinies of this country. That is the reason why, if our hon. friends opposite carried their amendment, I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind what would be the result of an appeal to the people of western Canada at the present time on this, or any other of the great issues which have been raised in the address. Because I think the policy of the Prime Minister, embodying as it does the highest staesmanship, the greatest political wisdom, that statesmanship and wisdom being in accordance with what has been the treatment of the colonies, as they were at one time called, by the mother country for a great many years past-a policy endorsed for many years by both parties in the old country-it is because of that I will vote with the utmost confidence against the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), who has just sat down, make a speech in this House. For one Mr. CLARK.	.
thing, he uses very forcible diction; for another, he has what we all on this side of the House recognize as very robust patriotism. I fear, however, that while his powers of sarcasm are still as fresh and strong as ever, his powers of logic have been sadly astray in the address he has given us. The hon. member argues that the only way in which the people of Canada can really express their loyalty to the empire is by building a Canadian navy according to the government's programme, while another member on that side of the House, the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte) argued that the building of this very same navy was the necessary and logical step towards independence. I shall have to leave it to my hon. friend from Red Deer and to the hon. member for Nicolet to reconcile two such widely divergent opinions on the particular question at issue. The hon. member for Red Deer suggests that the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition is a dangerous amendment, which, if it carried, would have certain disastrous consequences. Of course, we are not so sanguine as to believe that the government will readily let any of our motions or suggestions carry with the majority they have and with their usual practice; but why is my hon. friend so afraid of the disastrous consequences of this amendment, if it carried? Because, he says, we shall have a general election, in the first place. That would be bad; and it seems to me that I read between the lines that there was fear of the people in the hearts of hon. gentlemen opposite if an election took place, and that the hon. member for Red Deer was put up partly to explain the attitude of members voting against this amendment and provide them with arguments with their constituents. If his line of argument is true with regard to this amendment, that if we had a general appeal to the country at this particular time it would upset the programme of the government, and show to the country at large and the empire a divided House in regard to this programme of naval construction, he provides the very answer I would give him, that it was ours and his bound en duty to vote for an appeal to the country when that policy was formulated last year. We cannot get away from that and with that particular phase of this whole matter I hope to deal a little later on.
After the too brief recess of the past summer, we find ourselves once more in this,
I would almost say stuffy chamber, theoretically to transact the nation's business and in reality, as far as we have gone in this debate, to discuss in detail the late election in Quebec and to thresh out a great deal of old straw. In this respect as 1 in some other respects I would point out I that the speech of the Minister of Marine

and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), was a performance little calculated to uphold the prestige and dignity which should accompany the utterances of a minister of the Crown in this House. I shall join with other members of this House in congratulating the mover of the address on his speech and while it is true that we on this side necessarily cannot approve of the matter of that sneech we can, I think, and do heartily approve of its manner, and I also have to thank him for setting so signal an example /of 'brevity which certainly every one of us here might well emulate.
Others beside myself would probably not have taken part in this debate if it had not been for the amendments referred to by the last speaker which are now before the House. The nature of the amendments and some of the arguments used in connection with the naval questions must form my excuse for speaking, for I feel I cannot give a silent vote on the amendment. Before dealing with this question, however, the House will, I trust, pardon a word or two in reference to another matter which has already been touched on in this debate, I refer to the Prime Minister's tour of the west. That tour was, I think, an excellent thing for the Prime Minister. I think it was also an excellent _thing for the country and if I may be pardoned for looking at its strictly political aspect I may say it was not at all a bad thing for the members on this side of the House. When we take into consideration the vastness of this country, the rapidity of its western development especially and the complexity of its problems, I am sure that every member of the House will agree that public men who are deputed by the people to assume the burden and responsibility of administering the affairs of the country would be in a vastly better position, they would be vastly better equipped for that task if they familiarized themselves by first hand knowledge with the country's condition and with special reference to my fellow citizens in Quebec, I would like to express the belief that a personal visit to the west of the leading men of the province of Quebec, with a sympathetic study of the varied and energetic life of the west, would be an invaluable help in the establishment of better relations between Quebec and the English speaking provinces^ of the Dominion. It would, I believe, give them a better conception of the real solidarity of the Canadian people and I believe it would tend to a quicker and happier solution of many of the vexed problems that come before this House. I might echo the suggestion of a very prominent statesman in Great Britain who said that he believed it would be a good thing for parliament to vote supplies for a year, to lock up the House, and send all the members for a trip around the whole length and breadth
of their country, and when it was argued that the country might go to the dogs meanwhile, he suggested it would be perfectly well taken care of by the permanent heads of departments. Something of the same kind might happen here with some advantage to the government; it even might save them from some egregious blunders.	.
Of course the tour was not without its humorous side. On this side of the House it is difficult for us to repress a smile as one imagines the fiery language with which such a tour would have been greeted by my right hon. friend and the leader of his party in the Senate, if it had been conducted by the Conservative party in the old days. Had such a semi-royal procession then wended its way through the country with the same prearranged meetings-of tomtoms, with the advance agents whom we all met every now and then through the west, how they would have fulminated against the pride of luxury of all these undemocratic exhibitions. The Prime Minister will perhaps say that times have changed to a large extent. Personally, I am inclined to think that this is becoming a good deal of a one-man government; if there were any doubt about that I think we need only note how, when our friends opposite are hard pushed, put on the line of last defence, they always indulge in a brilliant eulogy of the Prime Minister who is regarded as the chief and perhaps the only asset of the party. If that is so, perhaps, it is necessary that there should _ be some splendour of pageantry in the Prime Minister's visit to the west. I do not cavil at that.
When the Prime Minister reached Vancouver, he announced at his meeting that his trip was of a non-political character and it was made not so much with the idea of discussing politics as to ascertain the resources of the country and to endeavour in a sympathetic way to see what its great needs were. The trip would have had a better result to the Prime Minister and his government if he had faithfully complied with this programme, which he laid down for himself. When, as on some occasions on which I had the honour of meeting him, he did comply, he will agree with me that he found a warm welcome and a warm response from our people; they were broadminded in their welcome of the first citizen of Canada, although they may have dissented and dissented heartily from his various policies. But when he, himself, and especially his colleagues took upon themselves to deliver campaign speeches of the conventional and narrowest type, I can say-and I am speaking more particularly of my own province-that they not only vastly underrated the intelligence of their audiences, but they offended the canons of I the best taste and I am absolutely certain

that _ they shattered any hopes of gaining political headway in British Columbia.
My right hon. friend twitted me good-humouredly in Nelson with trying to put him out of his job. I have some little_ aspirations in that direction yet, and I might even venture the remark that my hon. friend was never less secure in that job than at the present time.
Reference was made by the hon. the leader of the opposition to a question that affects the people of British Columbia. He had been accused, he said, by the Prime Minister of bribing British Columbia because he had volunteered that a certain large question affecting that province should be submitted to an impartial arbitration board if and when he came into power, and the Prime Minister was asked, in reply, that if this was bribery what was the unblushing offer of public works in every constituency the Prime Minister visited?
I regret that the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) is not here in order that I may say to his face what I have to say. The Minister of Inland Revenue at one of these meetings of the government party in my own riding touched this particular question, and when the Minister of Inland Revenue touches any prominent British Columbia question he usually displays a marvellous and fatal facility for blundering. He attempted, on this occasion, on August 25, in the city of Vernon, to deal with the question of better terms, a cry which he regretted to say was likely to spring up again, and he added-and here I am quoting from the notes I took of his words:-
I say that the government by giving assistance to railways, by building post offices and by giving experimental farms

I may interject that if the Minister of Agriculture is going to give these farms he had better give them quickly-
-this is a far better sort of better terms than by giving money to the McBride government.
Let me ask the Minister of Inland Revenue or the Prime Minister, who heard these words, which I can only describe as the most fatuous of utterances, whether they would now endorse them and what they mean? These people, who have overwhelmingly supported Mr. McBride and his administration, are regarded as having no intelligence, as having no wrongs to right, and we are told that it would be far better to hand them out sops from the public treasury, carefully administered by supporters of the government, and thus keep them quiet, rather than hand over the money to those whom the people declare emphatically are their trustees. After this amazing declaration the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) expressed the hope that even his friend the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) will yet see Mr. BURRELL.
the errors of his ways and support the present administration. Well, if I ever felt the slightest inclination to support the right hon. gentleman and his government, that inclination would have been effectively suppressed by the character of the speeches delivered by the government party at that particular meeting. If, on these points, or on the naval question, my right hon. friend wishes to test the feeling of the country, let him open a constituency out there, because, as I understand, this is a closed season for senatorships in the province of Quebec. And in order to open a constituency in British Columbia I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he should re-translate our friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) to the Senate. No doubt the peaceful atmosphere of that chamber would be more suitable to him and bring him more happiness. If the Prime Minister will do this he will find out very effectively what the western people really think of him and his administration.
The right hon. gentleman said some very pleasant things about our section of the country. After a very nice description of the strong feeling which Manitoba had aroused in him and a still more flattering description of the attractions he found in Saskatchewan -and the charms and beauties of Alberta, he remarked that the beauties and the charms of British Columbia had irresistibly appealed to his feelings. To such an extent did they appeal to him that if he were not unfortunately kept in the east by the cares and responsibilities of office, he would certainly choose Vernon as a place of residence. I might say that the prospect of his retaining office for many years seem to me rather dubious at present, and I would express the hope that when the time comes when he shall have to retire he will take up his residence in Vernon, and, perhaps, then, to use the Minister of Inland Revenue's words, he will be able to see the error of his ways and support my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), and he can then add to his other courtesies by marking his ballot for the Conservative candidate. As it is six o'clock I move that the debate do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 28, 1910.